2008 favorites

[Tossica]

Looks like I am voting for Frank Zappa again. Nevermind the fact that he has been dead for like 12 years, he'd still do a better job running the country than all of those besides maybe Gore.

[Narrock]

Integrity is hard to spot when you get your information from CNN and Move-on.org.

Superbly fixt.

[dammuzis]

dont vote for the lesser of the two evils

vote for bill the cat! the country is sick and so is he

[Arlos]

Cthulhu for president in 2008. This time, why choose the LESSER evil?

-Arlos

[Harrison]

I could live with Giuliani as president I believe.

Gore probably too...

If Hillary is elected president, or Kerry, we're all fucked.

[Arlos]

In all seriousness, I would vote for Gore, happily. I like his environmentalism, and if he ever had the propensity to be soft on terrorism (which I do NOT believe), he certainly wouldn't be in a position to be so now. The only thing that worries me about electing Gore is that I am a bit leery about Tipper being that close to real power. However, that's something I can live with.

Hillary, I dunno. I know some people who love her, some people who hate her, but honestly, I don't know that much about her political stances on issues to make an informed judgement on whether I'd vote FOR her instead of against someone else. (more on that in a minute). Whether she's a "bitch" or not is irrelevant to me in whether or not I'd vote for her. I am sure neither Golda Maier or Margret Thatcher won any "miss congeniality" awards, yet both were effective leaders of their nations, regardless of whether or not I agreed with their politics.

From the Republican side: Newt Gengrich scares the fuck out of me. He'd be as bad or worse than Pat Robertson. Not just no, but HELL no.

McCain, hrm, maybe. I like some of what he's done, but a large amount I don't, as well. Plus, there's one big factor that will prevent me from voting for him. (more on that in a bit)

Juliani, also maybe. He did OK in New York, and he's definitely more of a moderate than someone like Newt, but still, he suffers from the same fatal flaw that McCain does. Both were outspoken supporters of going to war vs Iraq. Sorry, but no. We never should have gone, and I REFUSE to trust ANYONE in office who can look back at the debacle that it has become and still say it was a good idea to have gone. Never.

In any case, I really hope Gore gets nominated, he's the one candidate out of the entire bunch that I could wholeheartedly vote FOR, without any major reservation. Anyone else, I'm back to picking the lesser of two evils.

-Arlos

[Tossica]

Gore has said several times that he will not run... we'll see.

[Narrock]

Here's an interesting email I just got:

A Sobering Prediction


Regardless of what side of the fence you stand on, this is
interesting.

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new
constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian
Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply
cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always
votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public
treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to
loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations
from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always
progressed through the following sequence:


1. From bondage
to spiritual faith;


2. From spiritual
faith to great courage;


3. From courage
to liberty;


4. From liberty
to abundance;


5. From abundance
to complacency;


6. From
complacency to apathy;


7. From apathy to
dependence;


8. From
dependence back into bondage



Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law,
St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election:


Population of
counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million

Square miles of
land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush:
2,427,000

States won by:
Gore: 19 Bush: 29

Murder rate per
100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1.

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the
territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this
great country. Gore's territory mostly
encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government
welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between
the "complacency & apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition
of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

[Lyion]

My two favs on each side won't make it through the primaries.

I like Schumer from NY, but I doubt he bothers to run.

I also like Romney, and think he'd be a helluva a President.

Newt would be great. He'd make the election fun as the far left people going unhinged. He's damaged goods, though, and would get crushed in the primaries.

[Minrott]

Schumer? Christ why not Feintstein? Or maybe Stalin's corpse.

[Diekan]

Lewis Black did a good skit about us digging up Reagan and electing him again. it was very ccc.

[Spazz]

AwHODAHA

[Lueyen]

According to a CNN poll:

For the Republicans: Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 20%, and Newt Gingrich 12 %.

For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton 37%, Al Gore 20%, and John Kerry and John Edwards 11%.

Sum of the percents for Republican: 63
Sum of the percents for the Democrats: 68
Sum of both: 131

That kinda struck me as odd

I won't be a big fan of either McCain or Gingirch, Giuliani however I think I could really get behind and of the three probably has the best chance at winning a presidential election.

Kerry/Edwards well lets just say last election I voted against them, I was really annoyed at both major parties for lack of better candidates. They share with Gore a previous loss of elections, that will likely be a strike against both, although I think Gore would be much less affected, however public view regarding the Florida fiasco could either help or hinder him, and honestly I'm not sure which. Hillary.. well quite honestly I don't trust, I think she's playing more moderate then she really is, and I also don't think she's the best person for the job, although she is probably better then her husband. So I guess of the three I'd prefer to see Gore as the nominee. Can I get a fourth option? Actually come to think of it, take Kerry out of the loop and lets see what Edwards could do as the presidential nominee, with someone else as a running mate.. I'd kinda like to see that.

Really I'm sure whomever the Democrats nominate will run strongly on the issue of Iraq and getting us out of there, and frankly I wouldn't have it any other way, opinions are pretty strongly divided on the war and so to represent that strong split we need a someone on each side of the issue. What I truly hope for though is not someone who wants to pull out tomorrow. You don't agree with Iraq fine, but to tuck tail and run, to leave a huge vacuum there completely abandoning everything would allow the country to erupt into chaos, and possibly have a worse government then was originally unseated. I honestly feel like we stopped short in the first Gulf War and abandoned the Iraqi people who supported our efforts, leaving them to the wolves, I do not want to see that again. Whatever method of getting us out of there is used, it needs to be carefully planned out and caution taken, I don't want to see us there another second then needs be, but I don't want to see us leave Iraq as an open unstable power vacuum. Regardless of how much of a mistake you think Iraq is, and even bigger mistake would be to leave a token weak government that would be overthrown or succumb to terrorist organizations, or ruthless dictators.

On the issue of Iraq, whichever candidate (if any) gives a concise well thought out plan that doesn't turn it into another Vietnam (in either withdrawal or staying) will probably win the American public on the issue. Yes I'm quite aware that some are pretty sure it is currently another Vietnam, and while there are some similarities there are also some stark differences, it does however have the potential to become very much like Vietnam both in staying, and in withdrawal and I don't want either.

WTB an election where I have trouble choosing between candidates not because I find both lacking, but because both would do a fine job... in that fairy tale election, regardless of the outcome the country as a whole would win.

[Phlegm]

According to a CNN poll:

For the Republicans: Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 20%, and Newt Gingrich 12 %.

For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton 37%, Al Gore 20%, and John Kerry and John Edwards 11%.

Sum of the percents for Republican: 63
Sum of the percents for the Democrats: 68
Sum of both: 131

They ask the registered republicans for their choice in who they want to represent their party. Same with the democrats. The sum of both is not applicable.

[Lueyen]

According to a CNN poll:

For the Republicans: Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 20%, and Newt Gingrich 12 %.

For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton 37%, Al Gore 20%, and John Kerry and John Edwards 11%.

Sum of the percents for Republican: 63
Sum of the percents for the Democrats: 68
Sum of both: 131

They ask the registered republicans for their choice in who they want to represent their party. Same with the democrats. The sum of both is not applicable.

Okay then why doesn't the sum of the percentages for each party equal one hundred percent?

[Phlegm]

According to a CNN poll:

For the Republicans: Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 20%, and Newt Gingrich 12 %.

For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton 37%, Al Gore 20%, and John Kerry and John Edwards 11%.

Sum of the percents for Republican: 63
Sum of the percents for the Democrats: 68
Sum of both: 131

They ask the registered republicans for their choice in who they want to represent their party. Same with the democrats. The sum of both is not applicable.

Okay then why doesn't the sum of the percentages for each party equal one hundred percent?

There are other choices that got less than 10% but they didn't list them on the show.

[numatu]

Newt on God - doesn't sound like that nutbag Pat Robertson to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8-c_8AUvUU

[Alphonso]

My dream candidate would have this as one of his/her running platforms-

Forcing all the leeches on the welfare/unemployment to do the jobs that the illegals do to earn their free cash.

Solves two problems with one stone, no more huge drain on the budget, and no more jobs for illegals to take claiming no american will do them.

[Mop]

given those people I would probaly vote Giuliani. I think Hilary would be good, but I have no doubt she would loose vote just because she has a vagina, but yet bigger balls than Bill.

[dammuzis]

personally i think the right to vote should only belong to people who work and pay taxes..and government employees exempt from taxes


welfare recipiants shoulnt be allowed to vote

unfortunatly for the DNC if this happened they would have to pander to another demographic

[Spazz]

Maybe you should go back and read the constitution and bill of rights. Voting is and should be a right for every american citizen. Just becuase your down on your luck doesnt mean you shouldnt have a say in how things are going down in YOUR country.

[Narrock]

Given those choices I would probably vote for Giuliani too. I don't agree with some of his social views, but he'd be a better president than any pond scum the democrats could sweep up and set up for nomination.

[Harrison]

Maybe you should go back and read the constitution and bill of rights. Voting is and should be a right for every american citizen. Just becuase your down on your luck doesnt mean you shouldnt have a say in how things are going down in YOUR country.

You shouldn't be telling anyone here to go read anything.

[Tuggan]

Is he wrong?

[Harrison]

No, but that doesn't detract from what I said in the least however.