[quote="Deacon";p="686490"][quote="StruckingFuggle";p="686477"][quote="jimkatai";p="686455"]Sounds like a guy I could sit down and have a beer with.[/quote]
that's a really bad trait for a president...[/quote]
Explain, as this assertion befuddles me.[/quote]
I'm not sure if any of your drinking buddies are like mine but I definitely wold NOT want their fingers on the button
2008 US presidential elections: Who will run?
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
-
naval_aviator_2040
- Redshirt
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: NY Capital region
- Contact:
i don't hate everyone equally, there are levels. but none of them are the traditionally thought of standards for predjudice. its not based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation its based on how much the person annoys me personally. i count you as a friend since you annoy me very little. brittney spears is an enemy because even though i don't know her/care about her at all she still finds a way to annoy me every time i turn on the tv
Mitt Romney is almost certainly going to be running for president. It's one of the primary reasons he's not running for reelection as governor.
I expect Hillary Clinton will run also, but I highly doubt that she'll get the nomination. John Kerry might try and run, but I highly doubt it. I think he's fully aware that the only people voting for him in the last election were voting for "the Democrat candidate who isn't Bush."
The Democratic Party candidate is almost certainly going to be someone who isn't really all that prominent right now. Well-known Democrats are more infamous right now that famous. The party has self-destructed in an amazing way - they have no clear direction, no clear strategy, and no clear platform past "we're not Republican."
Ultimately I expect they're going to try and go with a "clean slate" and nominate some southern Democrat. John Edwards might get the nod, but I think the party might be too scared he'd still have some stigma of failure attached to him from the last election.
I expect Hillary Clinton will run also, but I highly doubt that she'll get the nomination. John Kerry might try and run, but I highly doubt it. I think he's fully aware that the only people voting for him in the last election were voting for "the Democrat candidate who isn't Bush."
The Democratic Party candidate is almost certainly going to be someone who isn't really all that prominent right now. Well-known Democrats are more infamous right now that famous. The party has self-destructed in an amazing way - they have no clear direction, no clear strategy, and no clear platform past "we're not Republican."
Ultimately I expect they're going to try and go with a "clean slate" and nominate some southern Democrat. John Edwards might get the nod, but I think the party might be too scared he'd still have some stigma of failure attached to him from the last election.
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
[quote="naval_aviator_2040";p="686573"][quote="Deacon";p="686490"][quote="StruckingFuggle";p="686477"][quote="jimkatai";p="686455"]Sounds like a guy I could sit down and have a beer with.[/quote]
that's a really bad trait for a president...[/quote]
Explain, as this assertion befuddles me.[/quote]
I'm not sure if any of your drinking buddies are like mine but I definitely wold NOT want their fingers on the button[/quote]
You seem to be confused. The president being someone you could sit down and have a beer with is not the same thing as saying your drinking buddies should be president.
[quote="dmpotter";p="686588"]John Edwards might get the nod, but I think the party might be too scared he'd still have some stigma of failure attached to him from the last election.[/quote]
The entire Democratic party is one big failure as it is. I'd think they'd take the best chance of reversing that, regardless of whether they passed it over previously.
that's a really bad trait for a president...[/quote]
Explain, as this assertion befuddles me.[/quote]
I'm not sure if any of your drinking buddies are like mine but I definitely wold NOT want their fingers on the button[/quote]
You seem to be confused. The president being someone you could sit down and have a beer with is not the same thing as saying your drinking buddies should be president.
[quote="dmpotter";p="686588"]John Edwards might get the nod, but I think the party might be too scared he'd still have some stigma of failure attached to him from the last election.[/quote]
The entire Democratic party is one big failure as it is. I'd think they'd take the best chance of reversing that, regardless of whether they passed it over previously.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
-
NorthernComfort
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
- Real Name: Alex
- Gender: Male
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
Agreed on the one big failure part, but I don't think Democrat-supporters will even want the reminder of the 2004 election. Also, I was never a big fan of Edwards anyways.The entire Democratic party is one big failure as it is. I'd think they'd take the best chance of reversing that, regardless of whether they passed it over previously.
I'm praying for Obama to run.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson
[quote="Deacon";p="686615"]The entire Democratic party is one big failure as it is. I'd think they'd take the best chance of reversing that, regardless of whether they passed it over previously.[/quote]
That statement is logically inconsistent. They're a giant failure, and are amazingly good at failing to recognize what is the best chance at reversing that. So I'd expect them not to take the best chance at reversing it, because they'll probably be convinced that some other choice is the best chance.
Seriously, I'm sick and tired of the Democratic party. I'm honestly not sure which party I hate less, the Democrats or the Republicans. Actually, my main problem with Republicans are the "neo-cons" who are essentially half-Democrats: the "spend" half of "tax'n'spend."
That statement is logically inconsistent. They're a giant failure, and are amazingly good at failing to recognize what is the best chance at reversing that. So I'd expect them not to take the best chance at reversing it, because they'll probably be convinced that some other choice is the best chance.
Seriously, I'm sick and tired of the Democratic party. I'm honestly not sure which party I hate less, the Democrats or the Republicans. Actually, my main problem with Republicans are the "neo-cons" who are essentially half-Democrats: the "spend" half of "tax'n'spend."
[quote="dmpotter";p="686634"]Actually, my main problem with Republicans are the "neo-cons" who are essentially half-Democrats: the "spend" half of "tax'n'spend."[/quote]
I believe you're thinking of "RINO's" - Republicans In Name Only.
HTRN
I believe you're thinking of "RINO's" - Republicans In Name Only.
HTRN
EGO partum , proinde EGO sum
[quote="Scowdich";p="726085"]Karl Rove's hurricane machine stole my lunch money.[/quote]
[quote="Scowdich";p="726085"]Karl Rove's hurricane machine stole my lunch money.[/quote]
amlthrawn wrote:This was no ordinary rooster. He had a look about him.
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
mikehendo, that depends on what you mean when you say that. Would you consider legalizing abortion to be "a personal issue"? What about legalizing gay marriage, polygamy, and other such marital arrangements? Also a personal issue? There are lots of issues that can be couched as a personal issue that may still in reality be something big enough that the people must decide whether the change is something they want.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
I was talking about to my History professor, and I told him I was a conservative, and he made some smart-ass comment about "Yeah, but you probably believe in interfering in peoples lives, gay-marriage etc."
And you know what? No, Marriage is a government institution, it changes legal status, it changes tax filing status, it is not a "personal" issue. If we want to make them seperate, if we want to prevent them from committing to eachother, or holding a personal ceremony, THAT would be as personal issue. This is a government issue.
And you know what? No, Marriage is a government institution, it changes legal status, it changes tax filing status, it is not a "personal" issue. If we want to make them seperate, if we want to prevent them from committing to eachother, or holding a personal ceremony, THAT would be as personal issue. This is a government issue.
In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time that a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi, Mathmetician.
[quote="The Cid";p="686513"]
I don't trust Mitt Romney. Too much of an asshole. Yes, we know the state legislature is controlled by Democrats. We've BEEN here more than five years, unlike our governor. His excuse for not getting any work done would cut it in a state that hasn't ALWAYS been controlled by the same party. Also, dude can't run an Olympic Games to save his life. Who says 2002 was a triumph? Those games were a disaster! He doesn't get credit for making them slightly LESS of a disaster![/quote]
I can't presume to tell you how Mr. Romney has done as a governor, but it's clear to me you know very little about his role in the 2002 Winter Olympics.
I don't trust Mitt Romney. Too much of an asshole. Yes, we know the state legislature is controlled by Democrats. We've BEEN here more than five years, unlike our governor. His excuse for not getting any work done would cut it in a state that hasn't ALWAYS been controlled by the same party. Also, dude can't run an Olympic Games to save his life. Who says 2002 was a triumph? Those games were a disaster! He doesn't get credit for making them slightly LESS of a disaster![/quote]
I can't presume to tell you how Mr. Romney has done as a governor, but it's clear to me you know very little about his role in the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Seriously, prior to Romney coming on board there was a projected $400 million shortfall. The fact that the went off at all is a testament to his ability, and they made about $100 million profit.
In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time that a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection. - Hugo Rossi, Mathmetician.
^^ true story.
(From answers.com)Romney helped the Games back on their feet. TheGames were so successful that they were one of the few in recent history to turn a profit, thanks in part to heavy marketing and a built-in American audience. At final tally, the 2002 Games made a profit of USD $100 million, the largest for any Winter Games so far. Only the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles has made more: USD $225 million (USD $ 440 million at 2006 prices).
[quote="Deacon";p="687175"]mikehendo, that depends on what you mean when you say that. Would you consider legalizing abortion to be "a personal issue"? What about legalizing gay marriage, polygamy, and other such marital arrangements? Also a personal issue? There are lots of issues that can be couched as a personal issue that may still in reality be something big enough that the people must decide whether the change is something they want.[/quote]
According to one of the greatest conservatives of all time, Barry Goldwater, all of those would be personal issues.. it isnt so much that gay marraige needs to be legalized that it should not be made illegal. The government should stay out of abortion and marraige. The government should stay out of people's bedrooms, so long as they are not harming someone else in the process. Heck, the gay couples that i know have had far more stable relationships than the straight couples. if they want to get married then the government shouldnt try to stop them.
Whatever happened to a government that had a seperation between church and state? Back in England the pilgrims left because the Church of England was dictating politics. Sure the Catholic and protestant churches do not directly have thier fingers in the policy making process, but by endorsing candidates and taking stances on issues, pushing thier congregations to vote one way or another, things are going too far. We cannot let religious issues dictate our laws.
The conservatives are lost, they have lost most of what they used to stand for. Those in the christian right are so far off track that they make thier religion look nasty and brutish. Why must they continue to influence policy when all they do is rely upon messages of hate and seperation.
Conservatives should focus on what conservatives used to focus on, small government that stayed out of personal lives.
[quote="Phong";p="687177"]I was talking about to my History professor, and I told him I was a conservative, and he made some smart-ass comment about "Yeah, but you probably believe in interfering in peoples lives, gay-marriage etc." [/quote]Phong, he was exactly right, a conservative in the standard meaning of the word would not want the government interfering in people's lives.. Heck, that is the job of the democrats..
According to one of the greatest conservatives of all time, Barry Goldwater, all of those would be personal issues.. it isnt so much that gay marraige needs to be legalized that it should not be made illegal. The government should stay out of abortion and marraige. The government should stay out of people's bedrooms, so long as they are not harming someone else in the process. Heck, the gay couples that i know have had far more stable relationships than the straight couples. if they want to get married then the government shouldnt try to stop them.
Whatever happened to a government that had a seperation between church and state? Back in England the pilgrims left because the Church of England was dictating politics. Sure the Catholic and protestant churches do not directly have thier fingers in the policy making process, but by endorsing candidates and taking stances on issues, pushing thier congregations to vote one way or another, things are going too far. We cannot let religious issues dictate our laws.
The conservatives are lost, they have lost most of what they used to stand for. Those in the christian right are so far off track that they make thier religion look nasty and brutish. Why must they continue to influence policy when all they do is rely upon messages of hate and seperation.
Conservatives should focus on what conservatives used to focus on, small government that stayed out of personal lives.
[quote="Phong";p="687177"]I was talking about to my History professor, and I told him I was a conservative, and he made some smart-ass comment about "Yeah, but you probably believe in interfering in peoples lives, gay-marriage etc." [/quote]Phong, he was exactly right, a conservative in the standard meaning of the word would not want the government interfering in people's lives.. Heck, that is the job of the democrats..
So, you want to deny certain people the right to achieve the same status as others just because you happen to disagree with thier lifestyles? How very un-conservative of you..And you know what? No, Marriage is a government institution, it changes legal status, it changes tax filing status, it is not a "personal" issue. If we want to make them seperate, if we want to prevent them from committing to eachother, or holding a personal ceremony, THAT would be as personal issue. This is a government issue.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest