I’m sorry. I think using partisan as a way to slam someone’s position in the political arena is rather ridiculous. Everyone is partisan! Being partisan means you have opinions and you support them until you are proven incorrect or until the end of time (because you are correct.)
I don’t want to elect a non-partisan. I want the most d@mn partisan conservative I can bloody well find and I want to get him (or her) into office and the most like him or her into congress as possible. Why should we get wishy-washy flip-floppers with no opinions of their own and no convictions whatsoever into office? How is that good for the country? You think Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson or the other Presidents in our past were NON partisan!?!?
i would vote for a Dem IF i agreed with there policies and thought they were making the right choices. i would vote 3rd party if they had a chance to win (Ross Poriot for example had a chance), i wouldn’t vote for a 3rd party if they had a chance like Ron Paul if he ran 3rd party based on his support now at least; unless i found there to be no one i could tolirate in one of the two parties. I am not loyal to a party, i am loyal to ideals as people should be.
Honestly, I’ve always voted for the man’s platform. However, I seem to be doing more voting for the lesser of the evils I have a choice of instead of for someone whom I believe in.
I vote Democrat a lot for Congress. I vote Republican a lot for Senate. Mainly because Dick Durbin is the most evil, vile and dispicable person I know who is currently living and breathing. I’m sure at home he’s a great father. But when it comes to leadership his attitude towards our own soldiers (he believe Gitmo is WORSE then Auschwitz was! I have the recordings of him speaking about it!) and his anti-American rhetoric (wants to expand NAFTA to all nations, wants unlimited amnesties for Mexicans, wants legislation shutting down ALL coal and nuclear power plants in America, etc) is so far bad that you could run Hitler against him and get my vote. Actually, you could run Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, King George or Bill Clinton against him, and I’d vote for them this year!
Luckily, the guy running for his seat is a pediatrician. I can’t WAIT to vote for him! He wants to hamstring attorneys so that lawsuits cost the attorney money when they fail. He wants to force the insurance companies to defer to the doctor’s judgement instead of legislating that service providers must perform every test for any given symptom, even if the tests are obviously a waste of time. He also wants the consumer to determine if they want a more expensive proceedure if the consumer wants it, even if their insurance won’t cover it and to stop the insurance companies from saying that if the consumer GETS that treatment, then NONE of the treatments will be covered.
Sounds like he has a MUCH better plan to fix health care then Universality. IMHO. Which makes sense. Hillary was working for a nurse for 8 hours to learn about health care. He’s been working with sick children and frantic parents and the insurance companies for 30 years. I think he knows more about it then her. Maybe. :P
As for President. Honestly, McCain’s only selling point is that he’ll trust the generals to do their job. That does NOT out weigh his stance on security, his stance on amnesty, his stance on taxes (he wants to restore the death tax for instance, and to sun-set the Bush tax cuts which is a de-facto increase in my taxes of 7% at least). Not to mention McCain’s on record of not only voting for the limits on Freedom of Speech, but actually co-Authoring the bill to limit our freedom of speech! (Campaign Finance Reform - you cannot create a new ad within 30 days of an election, so if it turns out Candidate B enjoys burning babies alive, and it’s 29 days before the election, you cannot tell us!)
@Cmdr:
Between:
Huckabee
Romney
Thompson
Paul
McCainThe one our enemies would prefer MOST is McCain.
Between:
Hillary
Obama
McCainThe ones our enemies would most prefer is Obama.
Have you been talking to the enemy? How would you know any of this?
As for the media, we’ve known for decades they’re hopelessly biased. Why do you think President Reagan dissolved the legislation stopping political speech on the radio!?!? Because he KNEW the only chance he had for fair reporting on what was happening in government was over the air waves, since the video news was in the art of MAKING the news, not REPORTING the news anymore. (Had stopped in the mid 1960’s actually after nearly a century of being good after starting the Spanish American war.)
Sure, Fox is attempting to balance out CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN, but it’s still 1:4 and thus, not really fair and balanced yet.
If the media is going to be a booster for Obama and slander the Clintons, great! It’s about time the Clintons get treated like the media treats Republicans. Maybe they’ll start to realize the monster they created in the 90’s by turning them loose to slander the good names of strong conservatives to force them to retire and thus not oppose the communist programs being supported by the elected Democrat elite.
Just my opinion however. Anything that keeps dems tearing at each others throats is good for America!
It’s time for you to learn that media really only has a self bias. “It’s about time the Clintons get treated like the media treats Republicans.” WTF does that even mean? Do you not remember someone named Monica Lewinsky?
Politicians get treated like crap when they are shown to be hypocritical or bad characters. It’s not because they are Republican, and Democrats get their fair share. Anything that points out how bad a politician is will get attention. That’s all they want. Partisan is right. You’re too worried about making the Democrats and liberals look bad that you have forsaken your own beliefs. Or did you have any to begin with seeing as how someone can turn on Rush and hear the same damn thing.
Reminder…
Back to discussion of CANDIDATES or this thread will be locked…
if people can use the “W” as dub-ya do disrespect bush
why cant people say hussein for obama.
the media has freaked out on this one.
and what if hillary does win texas and ohio and it grinds out until their convention. and then what if she gets more superdelegates and wins. am i the only one that is thinking that democrats would wade into each other like lions about to kill an injured animal. that would be true entertainment for the world.
Actually, Jermo, I’ve spoken to the “enemy”
Have you? Or were you warm and comfy here at home?
Watch your attacks or they will back fire. It’s no secret the enemy would love nothing better then a liberal in the White House, preferably one who supports rapid redeployment of our forces elsewhere. It’s also no secret that our friends, and they are many, in Iraq are terrorized we WILL elect a liberal who will stop Gen. Petreayus and all the good he’s done in just over a year.
So who would be most liked by the enemy? Which of the candidates are talking surrender, which are talking staying the course?
Last warning… Candidates, or locked.
mine was about candidates.
so, predictions for tuesday?
clinton will win ohio. i’m not so sure about texas. probably texas too, it seems the hispanics arent thrilled about obama.
more dirt on obama.
he denied that he sent a member of his staff to talk to the canadians about his nafta statements. then canada sends a government message to the american media saying the meeting did happen. obama got caught lying red handed and how does the media portray it? they say he “misspoke” makes me freaking sick. even hillary is saying to the media “how would you portray it if it were my campaign?” and the media doesn’t like themselves in their own limelight showing their own hypocracy. good move clinton.
the whole issue was obama said that he’d unilaterally redo the nafta agreements without even consulting canada. then he tells the canadians dont listen to what i’m saying, b/c its just for me to tell the voters and its not true. thats huge, and i hope he gets called out on it. but alas, democrats are a lying covering up bunch and the media is trying to get this one to go away.
@Cmdr:
Actually, Jermo, I’ve spoken to the “enemy”
Have you? Or were you warm and comfy here at home?
Watch your attacks or they will back fire. It’s no secret the enemy would love nothing better then a liberal in the White House, preferably one who supports rapid redeployment of our forces elsewhere. It’s also no secret that our friends, and they are many, in Iraq are terrorized we WILL elect a liberal who will stop Gen. Petreayus and all the good he’s done in just over a year.
So who would be most liked by the enemy? Which of the candidates are talking surrender, which are talking staying the course?
Ron Paul is a liberal?
Jen has stated that she would only vote for Paul because he would be the lesser of 3 evils (McCain, Obama/Celery, or Paul if he ran as a 3rd Party Candidate)… I doubt very many people on the Republican side in this forum strongly support his Non-Interventionist Policies… He’s more liked for his Economic Policies and Support for Civil Liberties (at least that is what I can ascertain from this discussion)…
GG
Have you been talking to the enemy? How would you know any of this?
Oh Snap! Jen’s a tallyban supporter! (I’m kidding, feel free to ignore me, most people do)
Barring some strange occurence, McCain is going to be president. Get used to the Idea.
if people can use the “W” as dub-ya do disrespect bush
why cant people say hussein for obama.
I don’t understand what you are talking about. Bush supporters use W/dubya…the stickers are everywhere. How is it disrespecting Bush, when it’s meant to distinguish him from his father?
It’s unnecessary to list obama’s middle name and is only used as a knee jerk reaction to draw some line between him and Saddam/Islam. But it is his middle name.
@Cmdr:
Actually, Jermo, I’ve spoken to the “enemy”
Have you? Or were you warm and comfy here at home?
Watch your attacks or they will back fire. It’s no secret the enemy would love nothing better then a liberal in the White House, preferably one who supports rapid redeployment of our forces elsewhere. It’s also no secret that our friends, and they are many, in Iraq are terrorized we WILL elect a liberal who will stop Gen. Petreayus and all the good he’s done in just over a year.
So who would be most liked by the enemy? Which of the candidates are talking surrender, which are talking staying the course?
Again with the hubris. Why were you discussing US politics with an enemy?
Listen, you are saying the same thing that’s been said for years now, which is very similar to what Bush has done to get what he wants. I will NOT operate on fear. I will vote with my beliefs in mind, and not compromise them because you think armageddon is going to come with any election of a liberal. We went through WW2 with a liberal. We went through Vietnam with liberals and conservatives. We still made it out alive. But here’s the thing: while we’re screwing around in Iraq, the Taliban is rebuilding, Osama bin Laden is still not caught, and we are paying off Iraqis to not get in fights.
The reality is that the next person elected will more than likely have to deal with an Iraq withdrawal. It’s coming, mark my words. Even Bush knows this, he’s just keeping up appearances and running out the clock until he leaves office. I feel confident that no matter who is in office, it will be more than manageable, but will happen.
John McCain has supported our efforts in Iraq from day one. Don’t count on him pulling us out. Only a democratic candidate would consider withdrawal, and the feeling I get about the two democratic candidates is that they say they are for withdrawal to fool the voters, but wont put such plans into motion once they are in office, especially Hillary.
McCain = No withdrawal
Hillary = No withdrawal
Obama = Withdraw highly unlikely
Our job here is almost done from what I see. The IA is day by day gaining competence and experience. The ones I have worked with are all good soldiers, maybe not up to the par of a U.S. Army Soldier, but they know what to do and how to do it. They also have more freedom to get stuff done since they aren’t handcuffed by lawyers and politicians. It won’t be long before they can start running things on their own.
It’s unnecessary to list obama’s middle name and is only used as a knee jerk reaction to draw some line between him and Saddam/Islam. But it is his middle name.
You may feel it is unnecessary for groups, the media etc… to use his middle name but there certainly isn’t anything wrong with these groups using it.
I highly doubt that the intended audience, who would be “taken a-back” by his middle name aren’t aware of it, him or his basic positions on things anyways.
@M36:
John McCain has supported our efforts in Iraq from day one. Don’t count on him pulling us out. Only a democratic candidate would consider withdrawal, and the feeling I get about the two democratic candidates is that they say they are for withdrawal to fool the voters, but wont put such plans into motion once they are in office, especially Hillary.
McCain = No withdrawal
Hillary = No withdrawal
Obama = Withdraw highly unlikelyOur job here is almost done from what I see. The IA is day by day gaining competence and experience. The ones I have worked with are all good soldiers, maybe not up to the par of a U.S. Army Soldier, but they know what to do and how to do it. They also have more freedom to get stuff done since they aren’t handcuffed by lawyers and politicians. It won’t be long before they can start running things on their own.
I agree with you assessment of the candidates 36 and that is great news. Keep up the excellent work and thanks.
Why were you discussing US politics with an enemy?
It’s just a verbal slight of hand Jermofoot. And we all see it for what it is.
@M36:
McCain = No withdrawal
Hillary = No withdrawal
Obama = Withdraw highly unlikely
Unfortunately I think that’s likely true. Obama speaks very sincerely of withdrawal but if a wishy-washy congress doesn’t also follow through it’s all for naught. McCain backed down off on his “100 years” prediction last week but it was only to smooth over public opinion. Nothing has changed in his stance. He knows very well he has to “tow the party line” to garner his party’s support. And the party line is that there is no intention of withdrawal from Iraq, ever.
McCain is not a “tow the party line” kind of guy. it’s one of his good qualities. he is not towing the party line on Iraq, he has not from the start, he critisized the party line as being too weak earlier in the war. his setaments may be in line with the Republican party, but it is not McCain falling in line, but rather there lines run parralell on this case.
Personaly I think Obama with regards to pulling out of Iraq is strait up bold face lying. Ask M36, he’s there, how long do you think it would take to safely withdraw all of the troops in Iraq?
I’ve been there, It is a month long project for 1 company (150 guys) to pack up to leave, and that’s with 100% security.
I’ve said if before so I won’t go on, Obama is saying what the polls say people want to hear. Not a damn thing he says is based in reality. Just imagine a better world, he can’t give it to you, but hey you’ll feel really nice for while thinking you did your part to make the world better. Besides when he isn’t elected, the Obama nation can say hey we tried to make change but the “man” kept us down.
:roll: Whatever, while Obama suporters are dreaming about a better world those of us who live in reality can work on that… Reality.
