For those who consider themself a Democrat, are you concerned...

[Chris B]

That in the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton for only name recognization and cultural influence, with no regards as to whether or not she could win the general election?

[Poetic Chaos]

I was a registered Democrat. Probably going independent in 08. I need to catch up on my candidates actual politics.

[Tangled Web]

Yeah, I'm concerned. Al Gore or John Kerry would have a much better shot than Hillar Clinton.
Even another Bush could beat Hillary.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if the Republicans put up John Mckain, he would be a good president imo.

[St. of Sinners]

Does it really matter? I'm pretty sure the Republicans and ChoicePoint have already purchased 2008.

[Superman]

Hillary can't win and even if she could I don't think I'd vote for her.

[roach]

i wont vote for her......I had friends stationed at the White House that said she was very anti-military

[Matt]

Yes. It does concern me. She cannot win. Hopefully though, more rational heads will prevail and Mark Warner will be the next president.

[Tangled Web]

i wont vote for her......I had friends stationed at the White House that said she was very anti-military
**** her then.

I think a President with millitary experience is good because they know what it's like and will be less likely to go into a bad war.

[Matt]

Yeah, I'm concerned. Al Gore or John Kerry would have a much better shot than Hillar Clinton.
Even another Bush could beat Hillary.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if the Republicans put up John Mckain, he would be a good president imo.

I really dislike McCain. He is ineffective (20 years in the senate and what has he really done? Not a thing. His bills are usually either ineffective or simply symbollic. Usually both.)

Plus the man has absolutely no balls. He allows people to walk all over him, then goes crawling back the second they dangle 2008 over his head.

He often talks a tough game but does absolutely nothing when the time comes to act. He is terrified to go against his party, even though many say he is a "maverick". He is ineffectual, because most republicans are wary of his "liberal" views. Most liberals won't touch him because he is a Republican. He is said to be able to put aside partisan and act outside the party lines, but when the time comes to act outside the party lines...he cowers.

The pedestal he is on is entirely undeserved.

Giulliani, is a Republican who put aside party lines and made a difference in New York. McCain is a Republican who claims to do this..yet does nothing.

[Chris B]

Yes. It does concern me. She cannot win. Hopefully though, more rational heads will prevail and Mark Warner will be the next president.

I agree. I want either Warner or Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee in 2008. Though Mark Warner could probably win a few Red States, something the Democrats will have to do in '08.

[Edd Extraordinaire]

It doesn't really matter who runs for president, because if there's one thing this country proves is that our vote doesn't count.

[Palpadious]

Hillary won't win the nomination.

[Fred_Fury]

wait... people still vote for democrats?

[JLBats]

wait... people still vote for democrats?

I think the last election was something like 49 percent. But I'm not sure:confused:

[St. of Sinners]

It doesn't really matter who runs for president, because if there's one thing this country proves is that our vote doesn't count. Too true.:up:

[amazingfantasy15]

Hopefully the democrats will nominate someone with a little bit of a personality which is all it should really take to mop the floor with any republican candidate.

[rdh007]

Yes. It does concern me. She cannot win. Hopefully though, more rational heads will prevail and Mark Warner will be the next president.
Agreed. We've formed a coalition here this evening to rival the DLC.

[Kurosawa]

I'm a Democrat, but I know she has no shot. The DNC sucks to be honest. I doubt they could get George Washington elected dogcatcher.

[hippie_hunter]

Hopefully the democrats will nominate someone with a little bit of a personality which is all it should really take to mop the floor with any republican candidate.

No. I think that the 2008 election will depend on who the Republicans nominate.

If someone like John McCain and Rudy Gulliani is nominated, then the Republicans will be guaranteed victory no matter what Democrat is running. The Democrats WILL lose if one of those two men (or both) are nominated.

If the Republicans nominate someone like Rick Santorum, George Allen, or Bill Frist, then the Republicans WILL lose. People are getting sick of the Bush Administration and I don't think they want another administration like it right after George W. Bush is out of office.

[Franklin Richards]

I'm voting for Not-The-Republican.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Cyclops]

Well, that's all the Democrats have going for them...

An entire platform focused on "we're not Republicans"... that's sad.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm voting for Not-The-Republican.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Even if it were a good one and not an incompetent ******* like Bush is. Voting based on party loyalty is a bad thing. Choose who is the best, Republican or Democrat, not who is of a certain party

[hippie_hunter]

Well, that's all the Democrats have going for them...

An entire platform focused on "we're not Republicans"... that's sad.

I honestly beleive that is going to blow up in their face in the 2006 mid-term elections. I do not think that they will regain the House or Senate because they have not developed any platform AT ALL. The Republicans at least stand for something even if their leadership is full of arrogant asshats

[Franklin Richards]

Even if it were a good one and not an incompetent ******* like Bush is. Voting based on party loyalty is a bad thing. Choose who is the best, Republican or Democrat, not who is of a certain party

I tried that once. Now I've declared War. **** the Republicans. I don't care if Al Franken get's the nomination. I'm voting for him.

Because as we all know, the President is just a figure head. The people behind him run things ala Karl Rove and Co.

Simple fact. I trust the Democrats behind the scenes more than I do the Republicans.

And that's why I'm voting for Not-The-Republican.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[jaguarr]

I think Mark Warner can take Guliani or McCain, to be honest. And, in my opinion, he's probably the best person out there I have seen thus far to take on the Presidency and do some good with the office. The current Republican regime as a whole has proven that they are bent on abusing the power they've been bestowed with and catering to their corporate buddies. I'm not a big Dem fan, either, and tend to vote for who I think will get the job done right. Warner's got it together in a big way.

jag

[imdaly]

I will be extremely happy if Gulliani becomes the next president. He's the man.

[imdaly]

The only person that could ever tempt me to vote Democrat would be Obama. Honestly, I know next to nothing of his politics, but I have seen him in interviews and out-on-the-street meet'n'greets, and that man has got great charisma and seems like probably the most honest guy in the business.

[Spider-Bite]

i wont vote for her......I had friends stationed at the White House that said she was very anti-military

you have friends stationed at the white house controlled by republicans who claim that Hillary is anti-military:confused: go figure

[Spider-Bite]

posted by Tangled Web
Yeah, I'm concerned. Al Gore or John Kerry would have a much better shot than Hillar Clinton.
Even another Bush could beat Hillary
That being said, I wouldn't mind if the Republicans put up John Mckain, he would be a good president imo.


Hillary would wipe the floor with Bush. It would be an extremely large victory. Most political analysts believe she would wipe the floor with his borther as well, but she would probably lose to almost anybody else. Kerry's chances would be equal, due to having lost last time. Gore would be unbeatable by anybody.
John McCain cares about winning and only winning. 2 weeks ago he said Bush did everything perfect for the war. He's doing it just right. the other day he said Bush mislead the country, and is running the war horribly.


I think a President with millitary experience is good because they know what it's like and will be less likely to go into a bad war.



You mean kind of like Bush? Serving in the military is irrelevant. There are people in the military who agree with Bush and disagree with Bush, just like people who weren't in the military.

[Spider-Bite]

The only person that could ever tempt me to vote Democrat would be Obama. Honestly, I know next to nothing of his politics, but I have seen him in interviews and out-on-the-street meet'n'greets, and that man has got great charisma and seems like probably the most honest guy in the business.

He only has 2 years in the senate right now, so he can't run yet without getting slammed for lack of inexperience.

I'm not pyshcic but the way I see things coming, Hillary will win the nomination very easily. Guilliani, or McCain, but probably Rudy will win the nomination. We will have a republican president, and because of those two's moderate views they wont be able to energize their base of support for re-election. Rudy is actually supportive of gay marriage, something most people don't know. and he's pro-choice. but in polls he's far in the lead.

Obama will be president in 2012! He does have charisma. democrats love him to give speeches to help raise money for candidates. Even if he didn't run for re-election in the senate, he would still get reelected. That's how much the voters like him! Plus even though he's off to an early start, I think he has good policies so far!

He will be our first african american president, and after 12 years of republican dominance he will also probably have sky-high approval ratings!

GO OBAMA!

[Cyclops]

"Lack of inexperience"? ;)

[hippie_hunter]

Hillary would wipe the floor with Bush. It would be an extremely large victory. Most political analysts believe she would wipe the floor with his borther as well, but she would probably lose to almost anybody else. Kerry's chances would be equal, due to having lost last time. Gore would be unbeatable by anybody.
I think that Hillary could beat Bush, but not wipe the floor. She is also quite unlikeable on account that she is a huge phony. And Gore is definetly not unbeatable

You mean kind of like Bush? Serving in the military is irrelevant. There are people in the military who agree with Bush and disagree with Bush, just like people who weren't in the military.
Serving in the National Guard to avoid Vietnam doesn't count :o

[War Lord]

That in the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton for only name recognization and cultural influence, with no regards as to whether or not she could win the general election?

Don't worry about it, there isn't any democrat who can win anyway.

[Mr Sparkle]

I will be extremely happy if Gulliani becomes the next president. He's the man.

why exactly is he "the man"?

[ShadowBoxing]

That in the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton for only name recognization and cultural influence, with no regards as to whether or not she could win the general election?Ummm no they won't. Don't you know how a primary works.:down

[ShadowBoxing]

Don't worry about it, there isn't any democrat who can win anyway.Warner and/or Al Gore could. Actually running on the same ticket I think they could easily win it.

[War Lord]

Warner and/or Al Gore could. Actually running on the same ticket I think they could easily win it.

Been there, didn't do it.

[ShadowBoxing]

By the way you'd have to be batf*** crazy to think the Republicans would nominate anyone as Northern or Liberal (or a divorcee for that matter) like Guliani to a President or VP role. Totally alienated that Christian Conservative base they have.

[ShadowBoxing]

Been there, didn't do it.That works to his advantage actually. He could spin that easily. He was beaten by an extremely unpopular President. He SHOULD have won, at least in some eyes. So he can pretty much run his entire campaign around the notion that "I told you so".

[War Lord]

That works to his advantage actually. He could spin that easily. He was beaten by an extremely unpopular President. He SHOULD have won, at least in some eyes. So he can pretty much run his entire campaign around the notion that "I told you so".

The left are delusional if they think that going very left is a winning ticket. The bulk of the average American voter is slightly to the right.

[ShadowBoxing]

The left are delusional if they think that going very left is a winning ticket. The bulk of the average American voter is slightly to the right.But that is the point. Al Gore and Warner of Virginia are both Southern Democrats, neither of whom are traditionally "liberal".

[War Lord]

But that is the point. Al Gore and Warner of Virginia are both Southern Democrats, neither of whom are traditionally "liberal".

Al Gore, from where I stand, is very liberal and probably won't get the public's support come 2008.

[JLBats]

Al Gore, from where I stand, is very liberal and probably won't get the public's support come 2008.

He got it in 2000:confused:

[War Lord]

He got it in 2000:confused:

Near successes aren't usually successful in American politics as repeats.

[ShadowBoxing]

Al Gore, from where I stand, is very liberal and probably won't get the public's support come 2008.He says he is not running as of now. But I suggest you look at his policies. Firstly he was under Bill Clinton, who (I'll laugh at anyone who thinks otherwise) is not "Liberal" at all. In fact he ran on the "New Democrats". Several liberals hated Clinton/Gore especially before they were elected because they were much more comprimising and centered than the others. They also used triangulation. Where they would take an issue and move it to the center rather than taking a hard partisan stance. So if you think either is liberal in the true sense of the word I'd like to see you present proof to back up that claim.

[ShadowBoxing]

Near successes aren't usually successful in American politics as repeats.Nixon, Reagan, Jefferson to name a few.

[Poetic Chaos]

I'll vote whatever spites Sean Hannity.

Man I hate that guy.

[War Lord]

Nixon, Reagan, Jefferson to name a few.

How many of them had a previous run at the white house?

[ShadowBoxing]

How many of them had a previous run at the white house?All three.

[Dwarf lord]

I really dislike McCain. He is ineffective (20 years in the senate and what has he really done? Not a thing. His bills are usually either ineffective or simply symbollic. Usually both.)

Plus the man has absolutely no balls. He allows people to walk all over him, then goes crawling back the second they dangle 2008 over his head.

He often talks a tough game but does absolutely nothing when the time comes to act. He is terrified to go against his party, even though many say he is a "maverick". He is ineffectual, because most republicans are wary of his "liberal" views. Most liberals won't touch him because he is a Republican. He is said to be able to put aside partisan and act outside the party lines, but when the time comes to act outside the party lines...he cowers.

The pedestal he is on is entirely undeserved.

Giulliani, is a Republican who put aside party lines and made a difference in New York. McCain is a Republican who claims to do this..yet does nothing.

Giullani is the man I want in office. I'm still undecided where I stand pollitically. I mean, I know my beliefs and where I stand, but I don't know which party I allign with, but I do know that Mr. Giullani is a good man and I'd be able to respect him a hell of a lot more than anyone else they could put up there (besides Colin Powell, but he'll never run). I'd be very happy to know that I voted for Giullani in my first presidential vote.

[JLBats]

How many of them had a previous run at the white house?

Dude, do you know ANYTHING?:confused:

[ShadowBoxing]

Dude, do you know ANYTHING?:confused:Apparently not. Most Presidents try to garner the nomination at least once or twice. Some even run in the regular election once or twice. He acts like this is uncommon.

[Spider-Bite]

Near successes aren't usually successful in American politics as repeats.

that's very true because they are slightly viewed as a failure. However Al Gore wasn't a near success. He won the popular vote. The overwhelming amjority of America agrees we would be much better off had he been president for the last 6 years. The voters would say man if only he'd been president instead of Bush. Any political analyst I have EVER heard talk about Gore during the last 6 months has said the same thing, if he ran and won the nomination, the general election would be guranteed his.

However he says he wont run.


The left are delusional if they think that going very left is a winning ticket. The bulk of the average American voter is slightly to the right.


The left are not dillusional. We base our belief on the lessons taught by History, and by data. Republicans are dillusional in the fact that they believe whatever they want to believe or whatever their parents or grandparents believe. Seriously. Gay's being deviants? Global warming is a theory? helping the rich helps the economy?

or what about the belief that when we went to Iraq we would be in and out in 2 years just in time for Christmas? we will be welcomed with open arms. The insurgency is in it's last throws. the oil will pay for the war. it will make the region safer.

seriously man. The republicans are stuck in the past, and their heads are in the sand. Democrats are the party of the future. Why is it that 2 out of 3 college professors consider themselves highly liberal? Conservatives are highly religous and subscribe to religous B.S. without evidence, and claim that God speaks to them. That is delusional! The belief that we can walk in there and fix the problems of the middle east is delusional. We keep making things worse and worse over there, and the rescent conflict is proof of that, but republicans refuse to acknowledge it because they are delusional. They still claim Iraq was the right thing to do, even though we have shifted the balance of power overwhelmingly in favor of the Sh.ites who are more dangerous than Saddam ever was.

I have rescently come to the conclusion that the republicans are going to be abig contributing factor into the extinction of the human race, and it's going to happen in the next couple decades. I will live or die to see it. It will be world war 3 and Iraq was the trigger, the follow up will be our alliance with Israel and war with Iran.

[War Lord]

Dude, do you know ANYTHING?:confused:

I'm not American so I can't be expected to know your history.

[ShadowBoxing]

I'm not American so I can't be expected to know your history.Then you probably should try not talking about it:confused:

[hippie_hunter]

The left are not dillusional. We base our belief on the lessons taught by History, and by data. Republicans are dillusional in the fact that they believe whatever they want to believe or whatever their parents or grandparents believe. Seriously. Gay's being deviants? Global warming is a theory? helping the rich helps the economy?

or what about the belief that when we went to Iraq we would be in and out in 2 years just in time for Christmas? we will be welcomed with open arms. The insurgency is in it's last throws. the oil will pay for the war. it will make the region safer.

seriously man. The republicans are stuck in the past, and their heads are in the sand. Democrats are the party of the future. Why is it that 2 out of 3 college professors consider themselves highly liberal? Conservatives are highly religous and subscribe to religous B.S. without evidence, and claim that God speaks to them. That is delusional! The belief that we can walk in there and fix the problems of the middle east is delusional. We keep making things worse and worse over there, and the rescent conflict is proof of that, but republicans refuse to acknowledge it because they are delusional. They still claim Iraq was the right thing to do, even though we have shifted the balance of power overwhelmingly in favor of the Sh.ites who are more dangerous than Saddam ever was.

I have rescently come to the conclusion that the republicans are going to be abig contributing factor into the extinction of the human race, and it's going to happen in the next couple decades. I will live or die to see it.

You just proved that the left can be dilusional. The leadership of both the Democrats and Republicans are dilusional and are completely out of touch with the political beleifs of the average American.

[War Lord]

Then you probably should try not talking about it:confused:

I can talk about whatever I want and learn from it.

And you can't stop me, twinkles.

[ShadowBoxing]

The Democrats cannot be delusional since they don't have a single message to be delusional about yet.

[ShadowBoxing]

I can talk about whatever I want and learn from it.

And you can't stop me, twinkles.Tis better to be thought a fool than open your mouth an remove all doubt.

[JLBats]

I'm not American so I can't be expected to know your history.

Were I American, this would be less ludicrous.

[hippie_hunter]

The Democrats cannot be delusional since they don't have a single message to be delusional about yet.

They're delusional on account that they think that they are the party of the future, yet have no plan. They're delusional if they think that being the "anti-Republican" is the way to win elections. They're delusional because many act as if their beleifs are superior to others (Spider-Bite). They're delusional by thinking that being a Republican or conservative makes you automatically evil, religious, and have your head stuck in the sand.

Spider-Bite's comment just completely represented what was wrong with the Democratic Party.

[Spider-Bite]

You just proved that the left can be dilusional. The leadership of both the Democrats and Republicans are dilusional and are completely out of touch with the political beleifs of the average American.

If I was a politician I would decide my positions based on facts and not the average american belief. Seriously I woudln't let some loser flipping burgers decide how to run the economy for me. Most people don't sit and pay close attention like everybody else. Would the average american perform heart surgery very well? no probably not. the average american wouldn't make a good president or good policies either.

The real problem is corruption and their determination to stay in power at all costs, because they care TOOOO much about the beliefs of the average american. Most Americans are not economic experts.

For example did you know that a gun stored in the home is 43 times more likely to be accidentally shot at a child, friend, or family member than it is to ever be used in self defense? and Bush voted against mandatory safety locks on guns manufactured from now on. I think the good of doing it would outweigh the bad of doing it because I'm simply not delusional.

[ShadowBoxing]

They're delusional on account that they think that they are the party of the future, yet have no plan. They're delusional if they think that being the "anti-Republican" is the way to win elections. They're delusional because many act as if their beleifs are superior to others (Spider-Bite). They're delusional by thinking that being a Republican or conservative makes you automatically evil, religious, and have your head stuck in the sand.

No you see your mixing up your terminology. That is not delusional, that is the cry of a desperate and helpless man.

"Plz vote 4 us"

Trust me the Democrats would love a unifying leader with a message right now. They don't have it. So right now, they are desperate not delusional. In fact they have no allusions about the fact that they are banking on Republicans f***ing up right now.

[Spider-Bite]

They're delusional on account that they think that they are the party of the future, Spider-Bite's comment just completely represented what was wrong with the Democratic Party.

really? can you say global warming? what about gay rights? woman rights? african american rights? you see dems take a position where the majority disagrees, and then 20 years later everybody else agrees. we are always the ones to support it first.

kind of like Iraq, now that we mention it. the republicans are a couple years behind and gradually agreeing with the dems. It happens on every issue.

gay marriage will be exactly the same. In 20 years everybody will agree with the dems. because we are all about the future.

Edit... I forgot the issue of Bush. Dems hated him first, and gradually the whole country is starting to hate him. LOL!

[Spider-Bite]

You just proved that the left can be dilusional. The leadership of both the Democrats and Republicans are dilusional and are completely out of touch with the political beleifs of the average American.

you didn't refute a single statement I made.

[hippie_hunter]

If I was a politician I would decide my positions based on facts and not the average american belief. Seriously I woudln't let some loser flipping burgers decide how to run the economy for me. Most people don't sit and pay close attention like everybody else. Would the average american perform heart surgery very well? no probably not. the average american wouldn't make a good president either.
In order to be electable you need to be in touch with the beleifs of the average American. And your political beleifs are not fact like you think they are. They are opinions on how government should be run.

The real problem is corruption and their determination to stay in power at all costs, because they care TOOOO much about the beliefs of the average american. Most Americans are not economic experts.
Politicans don't care enough about the beliefs of the average American. They mostly care about raising funds and remaining in office.

For example did you know that a gun stored in the home is 43 times more likely to be accidentally shot at a child, friend, or family member than it is to ever be used in self defense?
Did you know that in cities that have tighter gun control (Washington DC, New York City) have higher crime rates than those with lesser gun control. Did you know that robberies of people homes occur in nations with tighter gun control (United Kingdom) than nations with lesser gun control (United States), take an obvious guess why.

[bored]

That in the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton for only name recognization and cultural influence, with no regards as to whether or not she could win the general election?


Hillary Clinton is not going to be the Democratic candidate. She will try for it, but will not get it, because she is not nearly as popular around the country as the media paints her.

[Spider-Bite]

In order to be electable you need to be in touch with the beleifs of the average American. And your political beleifs are not fact like you think they are. They are opinions on how government should be run.


Politicans don't care enough about the beliefs of the average American. They mostly care about raising funds and remaining in office.


Did you know that in cities that have tighter gun control (Washington DC, New York City) have higher crime rates than those with lesser gun control. Did you know that robberies of people homes occur in nations with tighter gun control (United Kingdom) than nations with lesser gun control (United States), take an obvious guess why.

the real term for gun control laws should be gun safety laws. having safety locks on guns is not going to make the neighborhood more dangerous. Neither is denying access to felons. Neither is a 3 day waiting period. Neither would extending the federal ban on assault weapons. These are gun control laws. These laws can ONLY make the country safer, and not more dangerous. To say that these laws will empower criminals is retarded and delusional.

My opinions are based on in depth thought and an open mind. I am constantly reevaluating my own beliefs and the opinions of those who disagree with me. It's the only way to be sure. When new data becomes available it must be taken into consideration. That is part of being liberal. Open to change. Being stuck in the past is conservative. Conserving their beliefs.

[hippie_hunter]

really? can you say global warming? what about gay rights? woman rights? african american rights? you see dems take a position where the majority disagrees, and then 20 years later everybody else agrees. we are always the ones to support it first.

kind of like Iraq, now that we mention it. the republicans are a couple years behind and gradually agreeing with the dems. It happens on every issue.

gay marriage will be exactly the same. In 20 years everybody will agree with the dems. because we are all about the future.

Edit... I forgot the issue of Bush. Dems hated him first, and gradually the whole country is starting to hate him. LOL!

1. Global Warming is way overblown. Yes it is a problem, but not as big as many say it is. Also, the doomsday "experts" who say it is such a huge problem tend to ignore that global warming is also a natural process.

2. Civil rights. I remember when the Democrats were the party of racism and intolerance also. There were Democrats who opposed civil rights back in the 60's. The Republicans have taken the obvious stance of being against gay marriage and gay rights in general, but against minority or women's rights. George W. Bush's administration is one of the most diverse administrations in history. Republican does not automatically mean racist, though most racists tend to lean Republican.

3. Some strong opposition your party showed when they voted to give the President authority to invade Iraq. The Democrats are now only using Iraq to go against the Republicans. If they truly opposed it, like they you say they have from the beginning they would have voted against giving Bush the authority to do so.

4. I consider myself to be a liberal Republican. I support civil rights. I support gay rights (even gay marriage). I support a lot of liberal idealologies. So, does being a Republican make me what you have said

[Spider-Bite]

Bush's choice for the supreme court Allito lobbied to get mahcine guns legal for civillians in the 70s. Another delusional nutcase.

[The Overlord]

Don't worry about it, there isn't any democrat who can win anyway.

I think that view is based on truthiness not truth. :)

[bored]

I can talk about whatever I want and learn from it.

And you can't stop me, twinkles.


You learn nothing if you talk so much on a subject you know nothing at all about as if you do.

[hippie_hunter]

the real term for gun control laws should be gun safety laws. having safety locks on guns is not going to make the neighborhood more dangerous. Neither is denying access to felons. Neither is a 3 day waiting period. Neither would extending the federal ban on assault weapons. These are gun control laws. These laws can ONLY make the country safer, and not more dangerous. To say that these laws will empower criminals is retarded and delusional.
Now those laws I support. They are what I like to call, common sense laws. I thought you were talking about a complete ban on guns, which I strongly oppose.

My opinions are based on in depth thought and an open mind. I am constantly reevaluating my own beliefs and the opinions of those who disagree with me. It's the only way to be sure. When new data becomes available it must be taken into consideration. That is part of being liberal. Open to change. Being stuck in the past is conservative. Conserving their beliefs.
I am constantly re-evaluating my own beleifs too. Ask Matt and many others, I used to be a die-hard conservative. Though from listening to others, I have adopted to being more centrist/Libertarian. I am proof that conservatives can be open minded and open to change. You are proof that liberals can be close minded (you need to drop that Republican teh sux attitude, there are good Republicans just like there are bad ones. There are bad Democrats just like there are good ones)

[hippie_hunter]

Bush's choice for the supreme court Allito lobbied to get mahcine guns legal for civillians in the 70s. Another delusional nutcase.

I would like a machine gun :)

And I think that we can both agree that George W. Bush, isn't exactly a good leader here.

[JLBats]

I would like a machine gun :)

No offense, but...

I'm very frightened of you.

[hippie_hunter]

No offense, but...

I'm very frightened of you.

It was a joke dammit :mad:

[JLBats]

It was a joke dammit :mad:

It was the kind of joke where you're the only one who laughs, and the laugh is more manic than humourous.

[War Lord]

I think that view is based on truthiness not truth. :)

I'll let history speak for itself. I'll even send you a couple of bucks so you can cry in your coffee when the Dems lose again.

[Spider-Bite]

1. Global Warming is way overblown. Yes it is a problem, but not as big as many say it is. Also, the doomsday "experts" who say it is such a huge problem tend to ignore that global warming is also a natural process.

2. Civil rights. I remember when the Democrats were the party of racism and intolerance also. There were Democrats who opposed civil rights back in the 60's. The Republicans have taken the obvious stance of being against gay marriage and gay rights in general, but against minority or women's rights. George W. Bush's administration is one of the most diverse administrations in history. Republican does not automatically mean racist, though most racists tend to lean Republican.

3. Some strong opposition your party showed when they voted to give the President authority to invade Iraq. The Democrats are now only using Iraq to go against the Republicans. If they truly opposed it, like they you say they have from the beginning they would have voted against giving Bush the authority to do so.

4. I consider myself to be a liberal Republican. I support civil rights. I support gay rights (even gay marriage). I support a lot of liberal idealologies. So, does being a Republican make me what you have said

1. your statement on global warming is part delusional and part false. name one scientist who pretends it isn't a natural process being sped up by man?

2. Dems are always in front of Republicans on civil rights. That is why ever since the 60's the dems have been winning the black vote by a whopping 90%! It's because they were the party that got them the right to vote in the first place. Because a democrat president got King out of a 6 months hard labour sentence for a minor traffic violation, while his opponent critcized him for grand standing.

3. They did not all oppose it from the beginnning. MOst did not. They opposed it before the republicans did. because it takes too long for new information to penetrate their thick skulls. Dean was against it from the beginning. and besides they voted to give authority before Saddam allowed inspectors to inspect. it was the only way to get him to let us inspect. they didn't vote for "go to war anyways even though you don't have to because there inspectors found nothing" they didn't vote for going, they voted for the authority, and based on the available information at the time, it was a good vote. bush's decision to send us there was a horrible decision based on his available information.

4. No I'm talking in general here about the hard core base. some liberals are delusional of course. like complaining about the prayer at a baseball game. Who cares? I don't care, and I dont' even believe in God.

[The Overlord]

I'm not American so I can't be expected to know your history.

Seriously, I was raised in Canada and I knew Nixon had an unsucessful run at the White House before being elected President later on. Dude, sue your old university, they ripped you off.

[JLBats]

Seriously, I was raised in Canada and I knew Nixon had an unsucessful run at the White House before being elected President later on. Dude, sue your old university, they ripped you off.

I'm a Canadian teenager and I knew it.

[hippie_hunter]

1. your statement on global warming is part delusional and part false. name one scientist who pretends it isn't a natural process being sped up by man?
No doubt that it is being sped up by man. I even said that. I'm just saying that it is overblown. Yes it is a problem, but not as big as some say, Al Gore, make it out to be.

2. Dems are always in front of Republicans on civil rights. That is why ever since the 60's the dems have been winning the black vote by a whopping 90%! It's because they were the party that got them the right to vote in the first place. Because a democrat president got King out of a 6 months hard labour sentence for a minor traffic violation, while his opponent critcized him for grand standing.
The Democrats take so much advantage of the black vote. It's not even funny. Why else do you think that the Republicans don't go for the black vote. Because they can win without it.

3. They did not all oppose it from the beginnning. MOst did not. They opposed it before the republicans did. because it takes too long for new information to penetrate their thick skulls. Dean was against it from the beginning. and besides they voted to give authority before Saddam allowed inspectors to inspect. it was the only way to get him to let us inspect. they didn't vote for "go to war anyways even though you don't have to because there inspectors found nothing" they didn't vote for going, they voted for the authority, and based on the available information at the time, it was a good vote. bush's decision to send us there was a horrible decision based on his available information.
The Democrats are just simply using Iraq as political leverage. If they truly opposed it, they would have done so right from the start. It's simple politics now these days.

4. No I'm talking in general here about the hard core base. some liberals are delusional of course. like complaining about the prayer at a baseball game. Who cares? I don't care, and I dont' even believe in God.
I used to be HARD CORE Republican, people can chage.

[The Overlord]

I'll let history speak for itself. I'll even send you a couple of bucks so you can cry in your coffee when the Dems lose again.

I never said the Dems couldn't lose, they very well could lose, depending on who they chose and who the Republicans chose and whether or not the Dems can create a good political message. I just think your statement that there was no way the dems can win, is based on your baised opinion and spin, rather than facts.

[Spider-Bite]

Now those laws I support. They are what I like to call, common sense laws. I thought you were talking about a complete ban on guns, which I strongly oppose.


those are the gun control laws dems support. republicans try to create the illusion that dems want to take away your right to own a gun, but the truth is that the constitution would have to be ammended for that to happen, and 2/3 of the states absolutely will not ratify it. It absolutely isn't going to happen. but a lot of die hard conservatives subscribe to this illusion that dems will take away their right to own a gun. How often do you actually hear about somebody proposing to outlaw guns?


I am constantly re-evaluating my own beleifs too. Ask Matt and many others, I used to be a die-hard conservative. Though from listening to others, I have adopted to being more centrist/Libertarian. I am proof that conservatives can be open minded and open to change. You are proof that liberals can be close minded (you need to drop that Republican teh sux attitude, there are good Republicans just like there are bad ones. There are bad Democrats just like there are good ones)


there are good and bad of course on both sides. I actually like arnold. and I think the majority of politicians on both sides are selfish. I also suspect that Rudy is genuine.

[hippie_hunter]

It was the kind of joke where you're the only one who laughs, and the laugh is more manic than humourous.

:(.

[Mr Sparkle]

I'll let history speak for itself. I'll even send you a couple of bucks so you can cry in your coffee when the Dems lose again.

did you say the same thing about Iraq and WMD's and the 9-11 connection?

[Spider-Bite]

No doubt that it is being sped up by man. I even said that. I'm just saying that it is overblown. Yes it is a problem, but not as big as some say, Al Gore, make it out to be.


The Democrats take so much advantage of the black vote. It's not even funny. Why else do you think that the Republicans don't go for the black vote. Because they can win without it.


The Democrats are just simply using Iraq as political leverage. If they truly opposed it, they would have done so right from the start. It's simple politics now these days.


I used to be HARD CORE Republican, people can chage.

1. It is a huge problem. the polar caps are how much smaller than they were 30 years ago?

2. Republicans can't win with it. Their base of support in the south would turn on them.

3. half thruth/ the dems started opposing it even when the majority of voters supported it. I personally think neither party has the right solution on this issue, if you look at this thread I started rescently.
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246585

[Franklin Richards]

"The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?" Rudy Giuliani


That's right Rudy. Blame the troops.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[hippie_hunter]

there are good and bad of course on both sides. I actually like arnold. and I think the majority of politicians on both sides are selfish. I also suspect that Rudy is genuine.

Thats good. The ideals of the Republican Party are actually good. Smaller government. Strong defense. Morality. It's just that asshats like Tom DeLay, George W. Bush, and others that give these ideals a bad name.

[JLBats]

Smaller government.


Don't like it.

Strong defense.

Don't like it.

Morality.

Never understood or was able to follow it.

[hippie_hunter]

1. It is a huge problem. the polar caps are how much smaller than they were 30 years ago?
The polar ice caps have been receeding for thousands of years. It is a natural process. Hell, even Mars's polar ice caps do the same thing. Human activity has obviously sped it up, but I still haven't seen enough proof where it is as big a problem as some say it is.

2. Republicans can't win with it. Their base of support in the south would turn on them.
No, they haven't tried to win it. And the South isn't as racist as it was in the 1960's. It's still in existance but not as bad as it is anymore.

The Republicans ignoring the black vote and the Democrats taking advantage of it are equally bad in my opinion.

3. half thruth/ the dems started opposing it even when the majority of voters supported it. I personally think neither party has the right solution on this issue, if you look at this thread I started rescently.
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246585
I have to agree with Matt that I find it ironic that we were having a discussion about securing Iraq's borders when we are having trouble securing our own :p

[hippie_hunter]

Don't like it.



Don't like it.



Never understood or was able to follow it.

Matter of opinions. I support the ideals, not the leaders.

[Franklin Richards]

Katrina.

Deficits.

Iraq.

Gay Rights.

Al-Queda.


Those Republicans. Nice work.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Spider-Bite]

Thats good. The ideals of the Republican Party are actually good. Smaller government. Strong defense. Morality. It's just that asshats like Tom DeLay, George W. Bush, and others that give these ideals a bad name.

I'm personally all for government intervention such as affirmative action,although I think it should be done in 12 years. and I support economic intervention to help the economy. but at the same time, I think government spending is way too high. I think both parties support small or large governement only when it helps whatever agenda they are in at the moment. Like gay marriage? that was big government. allowing the federal ban on assault weapons to expire was small government.

I do like the old republicna belief of lower spending though. that was what I liked about dean. he was fiscally conservative. one of the reasons republican voters are turning on Bush is one of the reaosns I think he's worse than any other republican. the deficit.

I honestly do not like the morals of the republican party except for abortion. I think there should be a 3 month time limit, no matter the circumstances. but I disaprove of the rest of their morals. I don't think being christain = being moral. and I swear that's what they use for their argument of morality. they don't come out and say it, but you add it all up. and that's it.

Edit.. God in the classroom? big government
science in the classroom= small government. just another example. small governemnt does not belong to the republican party. they simply use it as an excuse when they don't want to solve a problem. they sit back and say it's not the government's job.

[JLBats]

Matter of opinions. I support the ideals, not the leaders.

Well, if you think about it, the Cannibal party has some good strong ideas behind it. Eating people. The use of torture on small babies. Mass orgies in the dining hall of every private school. It's just asshats like Hannibal and Fleshy McSwallows who ruin it for everyone.

[Franklin Richards]

At least Fleshy kissed the babies before he dipped them in fondue.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Spider-Bite]

The polar ice caps have been receeding for thousands of years. It is a natural process. Hell, even Mars's polar ice caps do the same thing. Human activity has obviously sped it up, but I still haven't seen enough proof where it is as big a problem as some say it is.


No, they haven't tried to win it. And the South isn't as racist as it was in the 1960's. It's still in existance but not as bad as it is anymore.

The Republicans ignoring the black vote and the Democrats taking advantage of it are equally bad in my opinion.


I have to agree with Matt that I find it ironic that we were having a discussion about securing Iraq's borders when we are having trouble securing our own :p

the polar caps are 25% smaller than they were 30 years ago. that's dramatic and deadly. if they melt the rest of the way they will disrupt the elninyo cycle that redistrubutes heat to the rest of the planet and cause an ice age. The cycle is wavy, if the caps melt it will straighten out. It's already straighter than it was 10 years ago. The doomsday scenario is real and pending, and I will live to see the effects, unless something is done.

[Superman]

I agree. I want either Warner or Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee in 2008. Though Mark Warner could probably win a few Red States, something the Democrats will have to do in '08.I've had my eye on Joe Biden for some time now. I saw him on "Real Time with Bill Maher" one night and I liked what he had to say and how he said it. If he runs I would consider voting for him.:up:

[Poetic Chaos]

Gavin Newsom

[Spider-Bite]

I've had my eye on Joe Biden for some time now. I saw him on "Real Time with Bill Maher" one night and I liked what he had to say and how he said it. If he runs I would consider voting for him.:up:

I only know a little about Joe Bieden, but I saw him the other day and I liked what he had to say as well. in fact I'm going to look him up right now.

[Spider-Bite]

Holy crap! His Iraq plan is a lot like mine! Go Joe! I got to learn more about this guy! His reasoning for his plan is the same as mine. avoid a regional war.

[Superman]

I have to say this about Joe Biden, He messed up big time with that 7/11 remark awhile back. That was just dumb. :rolleyes:

[SentinelMind]

Yes. It does concern me. She cannot win. Hopefully though, more rational heads will prevail and Mark Warner will be the next president.

:up:

Highest approval ratings for a governor of Virginia in 20 years? Bipartisan accomplishments. Virgina voted best managed state in the entire nation. High approval ratings in Southern conservative state. Helped Democratic successor win. Fiscally responsible with liberal ideals. That what the Democratic Party needs.

I don't think anyone but him can do it.....

[Matt]

I think Mark Warner can take Guliani or McCain, to be honest. And, in my opinion, he's probably the best person out there I have seen thus far to take on the Presidency and do some good with the office. The current Republican regime as a whole has proven that they are bent on abusing the power they've been bestowed with and catering to their corporate buddies. I'm not a big Dem fan, either, and tend to vote for who I think will get the job done right. Warner's got it together in a big way.

jag

I agree, a lot of people kiss McCain and Giulani's ass and put them up there as unbeatable, but the fact is once election season is in full swing...once all the smear ads and debates are done...I just don't think Mark Warner will be able to be beat. His campaigning ability is right up there with Clinton and he has a record to back him up. I really don't think he can lose.

Plus I believe Tukiluka once said it, and its exactly right. Giuliani's last name ends with a vowel. That is why he will never be president.

[Matt]

Giullani is the man I want in office. I'm still undecided where I stand pollitically. I mean, I know my beliefs and where I stand, but I don't know which party I allign with, but I do know that Mr. Giullani is a good man and I'd be able to respect him a hell of a lot more than anyone else they could put up there (besides Colin Powell, but he'll never run). I'd be very happy to know that I voted for Giullani in my first presidential vote.

Giullani can't do a thing right now. He needs experience. He will have to be either governor or senator of New York for at least one term before he can even consider a presidential run. Otherwise the opposition will tear him apart as inexperienced. Besides...name ends with an 'i' = unelectable.

[Matt]

Now those laws I support. They are what I like to call, common sense laws. I thought you were talking about a complete ban on guns, which I strongly oppose.


I am constantly re-evaluating my own beleifs too. Ask Matt and many others, I used to be a die-hard conservative. Though from listening to others, I have adopted to being more centrist/Libertarian. I am proof that conservatives can be open minded and open to change. You are proof that liberals can be close minded (you need to drop that Republican teh sux attitude, there are good Republicans just like there are bad ones. There are bad Democrats just like there are good ones)

As I will always be willing to do, I will vouch for Hippie_Hunter. He is an absolute class act. Everything he said is absolutely true. If everyone were as open minded as him, this country would be a far better place :up:

[Matt]

I've had my eye on Joe Biden for some time now. I saw him on "Real Time with Bill Maher" one night and I liked what he had to say and how he said it. If he runs I would consider voting for him.:up:

I honestly just don't think he can pull it off. Then again...he is going to be a strong VP contender. Especially if a southerner like Warner takes the ticket. I think the VP nomination will be either Biden or Feingold. I have absolutely no doubt at all that Mark Warner will win the nomination.

[Excel]

if they were smart, theyd do john kerry president/barrack obama vice president.

i cant imagine them losing.

but I wouldnt be so quick to write off hilary.

1)everyone hates republicans riught now cause of bush. whichever canidate gets the democratic nomination is a near lock to win imho
2)shes a woman
3)bill clinton, despite really not being a good guy, is very popular. lots would vote for hilary just due to the thought of bill back in the white house,
4) she pushed for health care and got little support from the senate, but it seemed like A LOT of people began to take her seriously when nobody else did.


quite frankly, i dont think shed be that bad.

[roach]

you have friends stationed at the white house controlled by republicans who claim that Hillary is anti-military:confused: go figure


no I had friends stationed when her husband was in office. She didnt want the military staff in uniform and banned military uniform from the WH. They were always trying to ditch their military detail that are supposed to be with them. Flag officers(Admirals and Generals) would come to the WH and be blown off for their actor friends.

[Sensi]

I think it would be a terrible mistake to go with her right now but the Democrats really need to get some new faces and new blood. Someone with a personality and quality ideas that might help this nation .

[ShadowBoxing]

if they were smart, theyd do john kerry president/barrack obama vice president.
Boston Liberals on a ticket with a very left wing black politician, you might as well sign your death certificate right there. Talk about unelectable in the South.

[Mr Sparkle]

no I had friends stationed when her husband was in office. She didnt want the military staff in uniform and banned military uniform from the WH. They were always trying to ditch their military detail that are supposed to be with them. Flag officers(Admirals and Generals) would come to the WH and be blown off for their actor friends.

:confused: wouldn't it be more important the proposals that they made regarding the military, than wether or not they disliked hanging out with generals that would or woulnd't make them "anti-military" I mean, I'm sure GW hangs out with Generals and Majors (uh-hu * XTC*) but spearheads policies to cut benefits and funding, that's kind of more important, I'm sure you, being in the military would agree.

[Chris B]

I honestly just don't think he can pull it off. Then again...he is going to be a strong VP contender. Especially if a southerner like Warner takes the ticket. I think the VP nomination will be either Biden or Feingold. I have absolutely no doubt at all that Mark Warner will win the nomination.

Given the theorectical choice between those two, I think Biden should get the VP nomination if only for his experience in the Senate and knowledge of foreign affairs.

[Spider-Bite]

:up:

Highest approval ratings for a governor of Virginia in 20 years? Bipartisan accomplishments. Virgina voted best managed state in the entire nation. High approval ratings in Southern conservative state. Helped Democratic successor win. Fiscally responsible with liberal ideals. That what the Democratic Party needs.

I don't think anyone but him can do it.....

good introduction:) I like fiscally responsible:up: with liberal ideals:up: and with the deficit that is what we desperately need!

[Spider-Bite]

if they were smart, theyd do john kerry president/barrack obama vice president.

i cant imagine them losing.

but I wouldnt be so quick to write off hilary.

1)everyone hates republicans riught now cause of bush. whichever canidate gets the democratic nomination is a near lock to win imho
2)shes a woman
3)bill clinton, despite really not being a good guy, is very popular. lots would vote for hilary just due to the thought of bill back in the white house,
4) she pushed for health care and got little support from the senate, but it seemed like A LOT of people began to take her seriously when nobody else did.


quite frankly, i dont think shed be that bad.

they would lose without a doubt. I'm not saying I'd want them to, but they would.

[Spider-Bite]

no I had friends stationed when her husband was in office. She didnt want the military staff in uniform and banned military uniform from the WH. They were always trying to ditch their military detail that are supposed to be with them. Flag officers(Admirals and Generals) would come to the WH and be blown off for their actor friends.

dude thisw is nothing but gossip and heresay about somebody famous. I really can not take it anymore seriously than I take the Enquirer. Not trying to be rude, but this really is just rumour stuff. Don't believe everything you hear. Especially about politicians.

[Spider-Bite]

As I will always be willing to do, I will vouch for Hippie_Hunter. He is an absolute class act. Everything he said is absolutely true. If everyone were as open minded as him, this country would be a far better place :up:

I gathered that he is open minded.

[Spider-Bite]

can anybody tell me what Warner's talking abilities are like? Most political analysts say Clinton's charm, voice, personality, good looks were a dream come true for any politician. That he could seduce anybody, no pun intended, but that which got him office also got him in Monica.

I'm just curious, because it would be great to have a democrat who could do that to the crowd.

[ShadowBoxing]

can anybody tell me what Warner's talking abilities are like? Most political analysts say Clinton's charm, voice, personality, good looks were a dream come true for any politician. That he could seduce anybody, no pun intended, but that which got him office also got him in Monica.

I'm just curious, because it would be great to have a democrat who could do that to the crowd.He is very charismatic. And Virginia loves him. That is really his selling point. That he is (I believe he had 90% approval exiting the Governorship) popular in a Southern State and he is handsome and has a degree of charm. I would not go touting him as Clinton's rival in terms of charisma. But he is likeable.

By the way his Clinton comparison comes from being appealling to moderates, not his ability with women or on screen ability.

[Spider-Bite]

I have to say this about Joe Biden, He messed up big time with that 7/11 remark awhile back. That was just dumb. :rolleyes:

Oh come on, who hasn't made a simmillair joke in their lifetime? I mean geez, I've heard like everybody I know say at least one. It was just a joke. As was Hillary's joke about the guy running the gas station.

[Spider-Bite]

He is very charismatic. And Virginia loves him. That is really his selling point. That he is (I believe he had 90% approval exiting the Governorship) popular in a Southern State and he is handsome and has a degree of charm. I would not go touting him as Clinton's rival in terms of charisma. But he is likeable.

By the way his Clinton comparison comes from being appealling to moderates, not his ability with women or on screen ability.

oh thanks. but yeah Clinton even before the monica scandal was known for making every woman in the crowd wet during a speech, while the men were just mesmorized to the point where it would take a shotgun to get their attention.

[ShadowBoxing]

oh thanks. but yeah Clinton even before the monica scandal was known for making every woman in the crowd wet during a speech, while the men were just mesmorized to the point where it would take a shotgun to get their attention.He is Bill Clinton, not Jesus.

[JLBats]

Jesus got so much tail back in the day.

[ShadowBoxing]

Jesus got so much tail back in the day.He probably did.

[JLBats]

He probably did.

If only they had some sort of video equipment back then.

[bored]

if they were smart, theyd do john kerry president/barrack obama vice president.

i cant imagine them losing.

but I wouldnt be so quick to write off hilary.

1)everyone hates republicans riught now cause of bush. whichever canidate gets the democratic nomination is a near lock to win imho
2)shes a woman
3)bill clinton, despite really not being a good guy, is very popular. lots would vote for hilary just due to the thought of bill back in the white house,
4) she pushed for health care and got little support from the senate, but it seemed like A LOT of people began to take her seriously when nobody else did.


quite frankly, i dont think shed be that bad.


1. Do not generalize so much. That's the same logic alot of people used during the last election, and it didn't end up true.
2. Makes things worse. The few women that have tried running have not faired well.
3. Irrelevant. HC is famous enough on her own that assocation with her husband will only do so much.
4. She's also notorious for doing some things with healthcare in the 90s that people didn't like.

Sorry if I seem hostile, but I REALLY don't want to see Hillary get the nomination. It'd be a waste for someone who coasts mainly on name recognition.

[Spider-Bite]

I think she would do a descent job as President, but I also think she would never win. The republican party would be extremely energized to stop a woman from being president, and she has problems with her own base due to her support for the Iraq war.

[Spider-Bite]

I honestly just don't think he can pull it off. Then again...he is going to be a strong VP contender. Especially if a southerner like Warner takes the ticket. I think the VP nomination will be either Biden or Feingold. I have absolutely no doubt at all that Mark Warner will win the nomination.

I hope you are right. I really do.

[hippie_hunter]

I think she would do a descent job as President, but I also think she would never win. The republican party would be extremely energized to stop a woman from being president, and she has problems with her own base due to her support for the Iraq war.

They wouldn't be energized over Hillary being a woman. They would be energized to stop another Clinton from winning the White House.

And Hillary is a big fat fake! My state's senators really suck :(

[St. of Sinners]

Never would the Republicans allow a woman to become President. Ever.

[hippie_hunter]

Never would the Republicans allow a woman to become President. Ever.

I wouldn't be surprised if Condelezza Rice won the nomination for the Republicans.

Doesn't mean I would vote for her though.

[ShadowBoxing]

I wouldn't be surprised if Condelezza Rice won the nomination for the Republicans.

Doesn't mean I would vote for her though.Republicans are going to cater to their base. That means no women candidates, certainly no African American candidates. This will be a conservative ticket. That means it will have to appeal to those conservative christians they have been so successful with.

This is why I laugh when someone suggests Guliani would get nominated for anything. He is a northern, liberal and a divorcee. Yeah that is neocon material right there.

[hippie_hunter]

Republicans are going to cater to their base. That means no women candidates, certainly no African American candidates. This will be a conservative ticket. That means it will have to appeal to those conservative christians they have been so successful with.

This is why I laugh when someone suggests Guliani would get nominated for anything. He is a northern, liberal and a divorcee. Yeah that is neocon material right there.

The problem is that the Republicans will lose if they continue with what they got right now. I think that the leadership is at least smart enough to know that and choose a candidate that could win: Gulliani, McCain or even possibly Rice.

[Spider-Bite]

I wouldn't be surprised if Condelezza Rice won the nomination for the Republicans.

Doesn't mean I would vote for her though.

About 8 months ago a poll of Hillary vers Condi showed that 51% would vote for Hillary and less than 20% would vote for Condi and the rest wouldn't vote. If Condi were nominated not even half of the republican base would vote for her. Why not? no matter who they like and don't like, base voters always vote for their party. they arne't like swing voters or moderate voters. The only reason is, that a black female being president is inconsistent with their moral values or lack there of.

you guys nominating Condi would be a dream come true, but it's impossible.

[hippie_hunter]

About 8 months ago a poll of Hillary vers Condi showed that 51% would vote for Hillary and less than 20% would vote for Condi and the rest wouldn't vote. If Condi were nominated not even half of the republican base would vote for her. Why not? no matter who they like and don't like, base voters always vote for their party. they arne't like swing voters or moderate voters. The only reason is, that a black female being president is inconsistent with their moral values or lack there of.

you guys nominating Condi would be a dream come true, but it's impossible.

I honestly doubt that she would get the nomination. Too close to Bush. However, her candidacy would have the Republicans exploiting her saying that they're not racist or sexist and a black woman can be President (but not really mean it)

[ShadowBoxing]

The problem is that the Republicans will lose if they continue with what they got right now. I think that the leadership is at least smart enough to know that and choose a candidate that could win: Gulliani, McCain or even possibly Rice.Well they do have candidates they think can win. Newt Gingrich, Huckabee, and Bill Frist are all much more consistent to the Republican ideals. Huckabee is probably the best choice. He is a likeable guy, lost 100 pounds, very goal oriented and is a Southerner.

Here is Huckabee (right)
http://www.teamgop.org/blog/bill-huckabee.jpg

[Spider-Bite]

Republicans are going to cater to their base. That means no women candidates, certainly no African American candidates. This will be a conservative ticket. That means it will have to appeal to those conservative christians they have been so successful with.

This is why I laugh when someone suggests Guliani would get nominated for anything. He is a northern, liberal and a divorcee. Yeah that is neocon material right there.

in the polls republicans are in favor of nominating Rudy over anybody else by a very wide margin. It's over twice that of second place McCain. What most voters don't know is that he's pro-gay marriage, and pro-choice. I commend him on the gay marriage position, but I myself want a 3 month time limit on abortions like yesterday! And I am a far left liberal. What I dont' understand is this.

A group of people are being so oppressed they aren't even allowed to be born. How is sticking up for their rights not Liberal? to me it's the liberal bleeding heart type of thing to do! I'm 100% pro-choice while it's an embryo. I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with it or immoral about it whatsoever! Because it's nothing but a group of cells in an embryonic state of existence, with the ability to regrow missing body parts. But once it becomes a fetus, I call aborting it nothing short of murder!

any doctor can tell you they haven't heard of a single instance where aborting a fetus protected the health of the mother. If anything having the abortion puts the mother in more physical danger! I don't care if the woman was raped! 2 wrongs don't make a right. Bieng a victim of one crime doesn't give you the right to go and victimize somebody else. Yes of course that mother should get major help in every way from the government.

[ShadowBoxing]

I honestly doubt that she would get the nomination. Too close to Bush. However, her candidacy would have the Republicans exploiting her saying that they're not racist or sexist and a black woman can be President (but not really mean it)There in lies your problem. Your trying to show that the Republicans can be a progressive party and that is certainly not the image they want. Their current base is conservative and very Christian. The last thing they want to do is alienate them by showing how "progressive they can be".

You have a problem here. The Republicans have no need to convert progressives or liberals to their cause, or at least don't want to try to. Rudy, Mit Romney, Rice all represent something they are not as a party.

[Spider-Bite]

I honestly doubt that she would get the nomination. Too close to Bush. However, her candidacy would have the Republicans exploiting her saying that they're not racist or sexist and a black woman can be President (but not really mean it)

maybe someday. we never know about 20 years from now. I think 20 years from now being black wont matter for either party. I personally disaprove of Condi, but I really liked her predecessor Powell. He was a republican, and even though he's africa american, I could see him as a real contender. He could easily distance himself from Bush, and and he could easily take the swing voters. I think only a small minority of the republicans would even pay attention to the fact that he is black, because he's very light skinned, and they have known him for so long. And even clinton liked him.

[KingOfDreams]

I'm kind of concerned about that. I hope we pick a candidate that can actually win. I like Hillary but she won't win.

[Spider-Bite]

wouldn't it be something if she did win? I mean damn. two clintons.

[ShadowBoxing]

wouldn't it be something if she did win? I mean damn. two clintons.Two Bushes

[ShadowBoxing]

McCain will never be run either. He comes in third in terms of potential candidates. He is not Christian enough. He is seen as liberal by his own party. His voting record puts him 8 points left of the political center. 40% of Republicans responded he was an "unacceptable" candidate for the Republican President, I could go on.

His opponenets will rip him apart like Bush did.

[St. of Sinners]

****, just a female President would be outstanding.

[KingOfDreams]

****, just a female President would be outstanding.

that it would...unless it was Condi

[ShadowBoxing]

that it would...unless it was CondiI remotely sure she has a penis....of course so does Hilary.

[Spider-Bite]

McCain will never be run either. He comes in third in terms of potential candidates. He is not Christian enough. He is seen as liberal by his own party. His voting record puts him 8 points left of the political center. 40% of Republicans responded he was an "unacceptable" candidate for the Republican President, I could go on.

His opponenets will rip him apart like Bush did.

yeah but on the economy he still likes to help rich people :down

[NOFX]

I like Kathleen Sebelius more than Hilary imo! I think she should run for vice with Warner! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

[ShadowBoxing]

yeah but on the economy he still likes to help rich people :downNo WAY!!!!
Conservative Republicans want a president who will give them more leeway in cutting taxes, civil liberties, and environmental regulations. Horrified by McCain's maverick personality and indiscreet rhetoric (including his insistence that Bush's tax plan gives back too much to the rich).

True he voted to extend the tax cuts, but this is all in a vain effort to bring himself back in with his own party. He is the ultimate flip flopper now and anyone who runs against him in the primaries will show him as a "Donkey in Elephant's clothing" (and a bad disguise at that).

[Spider-Bite]

that's true. he was against the tax cuts when they were passed, but now he's voting to extend the same tax cuts and his reasoning is that voting against extending it means voting in favor of higher taxes. that's nothing but wishy washy lame attempts to appeal to his base.

[ShadowBoxing]

that's true. he was against the tax cuts when they were passed, but now he's voting to extend the same tax cuts and his reasoning is that voting against extending it means voting in favor of higher taxes. that's nothing but wishy washy lame attempts to appeal to his base.Wow you totally did not even bother reading what I posted:o :down

[rdh007]

President Huckabee. That makes me giggle.

[KingOfDreams]

if they were smart, theyd do john kerry president/barrack obama vice president.

i cant imagine them losing.

Wouldn't win. Maybe if John Edwards was there instead of John Kerry there might be a chance.

[NOFX]

I like Kathleen Sebelius more than Hilary imo! I think she should run for vice with Warner! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
BUMP!

[Darth Elektra]

Im up for John Kerry agian!

Obama seems like a great man, and I would vote for him!

[Viper81]

Hilary Clinton has about as much a chance to win as GW Bush does again.

[Superman]

Oh come on, who hasn't made a simmillair joke in their lifetime? I mean geez, I've heard like everybody I know say at least one. It was just a joke. As was Hillary's joke about the guy running the gas station.You know that and I know that but you know the Right will spin it to death to make it worse than it really is.

Besides, He said he wasn't joking. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIy9_oOSndM) he is trying to spin/explain himself out of trouble and IMO making it worse. :O

[Karea07]

I will probably end up voting Democrat, and if Hillary impresses me during the race to election then I will vote for her.

[Spider-Bite]

Wow you totally did not even bother reading what I posted:o :down

was it a coincedence that I just so happened start talking about the same tax cuts as you did?

[Excel]

whatevs.

my dream is a still a john mccain/rudy gulliani (or vice versa, really doesnt matter, just those 2 in either role) campaign running

[Man-Thing]

I kinda got a crush on Condi. She looks good for fifty something.

[Mr Sparkle]

Wouldn't win. Maybe if John Edwards was there instead of John Kerry there might be a chance.

has a lot of momentum, but some people think that Gore will run again.

[sinewave]

Warner seems like he'd be a good candidate, but he needs to get his name out there a little more. I'm not sure the average American citizen could pick him out of a lineup. I still think Wesley Clark would have an excellent chance against anyone the Republicans nominate. He's a moderate Dem who's an ex-Army general and he seems very straightforward and honest. He'd bring a lot of good military experience to the table to help with the middle-east and I think the he'd get a lot of bi-partisan support. Hillary is way too divisive and controversial. I think McCain's time has passed. He let Bush walk all over him in 2000 and he's been sucking up to the far-right religious fundamentalists lately, which makes a lot of people nervous. Gulliani would get lambasted in the press for his affairs and pro-gay stance. I feel pretty good about the Democrats' chances this time around.

[KingOfDreams]

whatevs.

my dream is a still a john mccain/rudy gulliani (or vice versa, really doesnt matter, just those 2 in either role) campaign running

What's so great about Giulliani? Yeah, he was mayor of the big and important city of New York and during 9/11 no less. I think that last part distorts people's opinions of him. I repeat, he was a mayor. The jump from mayor to president or vice president is a big one and I don't think a mayor has quite the skills to do the job yet.

[KingOfDreams]

I kinda got a crush on Condi. She looks good for fifty something.

:eek:

She's an ice queen

[Excel]

gullianis a born leader.

that alone makes him better then buch,h clinton, ect.

[NOFX]

I kinda got a crush on Condi. She looks good for fifty something.
If only she was really black, I'd hit it! :cool:

[ShadowBoxing]

President Huckabee. That makes me giggle.Doesn't it, but I like him.

[ShadowBoxing]

was it a coincedence that I just so happened start talking about the same tax cuts as you did?I mean you asked about them I think? However you said the exact same thing I did about McCain trying to save face.

[Narynan]

And this whole toppic is different than George W. Bush being nommed how? Oh yeah, or any other president ever?