namelesstavern.net

Thus far, I am unimpressed with ALL candidates from all sides (not just rep and dem).
However, I *am* voting for Hillary.
Not only is she the first woman that actually has a real shot at becoming President, but I actually think she'll do at least as decent a job, better than some, as any of the other current candidates.
If she makes it into office, the whole idea of women becoming President will suddenly not seem like such a big deal in this country any more, and that is important to our growth as a country.
Not to mention.... no matter WHAT she does, she can not possibly look or do worse than G.W. Bush at this point (completely my opinion).

10sun wrote:Women shouldn't even be allowed to drive. Let alone lead a country.

LOL
Yeah, men are actually better drivers. They just have more accidents because they're trying to get out of the way of the crazy women drivers.

That and because women have smaller brains. Its science, sorry

Trielelvan wrote:Thus far, I am unimpressed with ALL candidates from all sides (not just rep and dem).
However, I *am* voting for Hillary.
Not only is she the first woman that actually has a real shot at becoming President, but I actually think she'll do at least as decent a job, better than some, as any of the other current candidates.
If she makes it into office, the whole idea of women becoming President will suddenly not seem like such a big deal in this country any more, and that is important to our growth as a country.
Not to mention.... no matter WHAT she does, she can not possibly look or do worse than G.W. Bush at this point (completely my opinion).

You touched on a thought and I know you said this wasn't your sole reason, so don't think this is directed at you, but voting in anyone because of their race or gender is foolhardy in the extreme.

You think she'd do a good job and therefore I can respect that reason, even if I wholeheartedly disagree. If the anti-Christ wasn't supposed to be born in the Middle East I'd swear she was it.

I'll have to check out this Ron Paul. He sounds interesting.

Martrae wrote:

Trielelvan wrote:Thus far, I am unimpressed with ALL candidates from all sides (not just rep and dem).
However, I *am* voting for Hillary.
Not only is she the first woman that actually has a real shot at becoming President, but I actually think she'll do at least as decent a job, better than some, as any of the other current candidates.
If she makes it into office, the whole idea of women becoming President will suddenly not seem like such a big deal in this country any more, and that is important to our growth as a country.
Not to mention.... no matter WHAT she does, she can not possibly look or do worse than G.W. Bush at this point (completely my opinion).

You touched on a thought and I know you said this wasn't your sole reason, so don't think this is directed at you, but voting in anyone because of their race or gender is foolhardy in the extreme.

You think she'd do a good job and therefore I can respect that reason, even if I wholeheartedly disagree. If the anti-Christ wasn't supposed to be born in the Middle East I'd swear she was it.

I'll have to check out this Ron Paul. He sounds interesting.

Give me a break. Will she be a good president? I have my doubts but she is certainly no worse than any of the other crooked bastards on either "side".

Nice article & interview with Gore in Time. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... nn-partner

More than ever, I regret that we got Shrub rather than Gore in 2000.

-Arlos

Tossica wrote:

Martrae wrote:

Trielelvan wrote:Thus far, I am unimpressed with ALL candidates from all sides (not just rep and dem).
However, I *am* voting for Hillary.
Not only is she the first woman that actually has a real shot at becoming President, but I actually think she'll do at least as decent a job, better than some, as any of the other current candidates.
If she makes it into office, the whole idea of women becoming President will suddenly not seem like such a big deal in this country any more, and that is important to our growth as a country.
Not to mention.... no matter WHAT she does, she can not possibly look or do worse than G.W. Bush at this point (completely my opinion).

You touched on a thought and I know you said this wasn't your sole reason, so don't think this is directed at you, but voting in anyone because of their race or gender is foolhardy in the extreme.

You think she'd do a good job and therefore I can respect that reason, even if I wholeheartedly disagree. If the anti-Christ wasn't supposed to be born in the Middle East I'd swear she was it.

I'll have to check out this Ron Paul. He sounds interesting.

Give me a break. Will she be a good president? I have my doubts but she is certainly no worse than any of the other crooked bastards on either "side".

You have your opinion and I have mine.

True, your opinion is usually wrong though, just so ya know.

I thought better about Hillary and this is why. Even if I feel good about her, her intentions and I believe that she is a leader, and even if she did win the Presidency, I do not think that anyone would ever allow her to do a great job in that position, based on the fact that she is a woman and THE FIRST woman to become the President.

There is no way she'll ever have a fair run. It's like Martrae posting her picture at this point...if she were drop-dead gorgeous SOMEONE on this board would say "horse face."

Other countries have no issue with gender and leadership, women are leaders in many other countries. Not only has the United States never had a woman President, but if we ever did it's such an issue now that there's truly no way she'd ever have a chance.

It brings me to the question Fox asked Jim Gilmore...they asked how he felt about the fact that he was standing next to nine other white male candidates, not a single minority on the panel. He fumbled. It was a good question though...

It's like Martrae posting her picture at this point...if she were drop-dead gorgeous SOMEONE on this board would say "horse face."

I AM drop dead gorgeous....just ask my kids.

Martrae wrote:I'll have to check out this Ron Paul. He sounds interesting.

Ron Paul pretty much committed political suicide yesterday. He's running in the wrong party if he hopes to get the nomination after the following:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vlog/2007/05/fnc_debate_giuliani_v_paul.html

The GOP base might have been apprehensive about his Iraq position, many might see his foreign policy ideas from a similar perspective... but the appearance of (truth or not) blaming the US for 9/11 will put him in the same class as Rosie Odonell with most of the base. I'd say most are also of the mindset that Bin Laden being preoccupied with attacking our troops (where there are guns pointed back) is preferable to Bin Laden plotting and executing plans to attack our civilians, in this his argument worked against him.

The issue is, I think he's right. We're not hated in the middle east cause we're a democracy or we believe in capitalism, we're hated because we've done a lot of stuff to piss people off over there. The coup he mentioned, the absolute support of Israel, no matter what screwups they commit, never appearing to take the palestinian side seriously, the support of the Shah, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the continued presence of our military (and non-muslim military at that) in what they consider holy lands.

I'm not saying it's right, nor am I defending their actions arising out of their hatred. But to claim we've done nothing to them, and it's all because of our political system is the height of arrogant nievete.

-Arlos

Martrae wrote:You touched on a thought and I know you said this wasn't your sole reason, so don't think this is directed at you, but voting in anyone because of their race or gender is foolhardy in the extreme.

No no, I wholeheartedly agree, and would like to add to that voting in someone solely based on which political party they belong to is equally as foolhardy imo.

arlos wrote:The issue is, I think he's right. We're not hated in the middle east cause we're a democracy or we believe in capitalism, we're hated because we've done a lot of stuff to piss people off over there. The coup he mentioned, the absolute support of Israel, no matter what screwups they commit, never appearing to take the palestinian side seriously, the support of the Shah, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the continued presence of our military (and non-muslim military at that) in what they consider holy lands.

I'm not saying it's right, nor am I defending their actions arising out of their hatred. But to claim we've done nothing to them, and it's all because of our political system is the height of arrogant nievete.

-Arlos

I concur.

We've spent far too much energy looking out for our "financial" interests without caring about the harm we cause in the process.

arlos wrote:The issue is, I think he's right.

hehe that if anything Arlos should tell you he's not going to be popular with GOP voters

arlos wrote:We're not hated in the middle east cause we're a democracy or we believe in capitalism, we're hated because we've done a lot of stuff to piss people off over there. The coup he mentioned, the absolute support of Israel, no matter what screwups they commit, never appearing to take the palestinian side seriously, the support of the Shah, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the continued presence of our military (and non-muslim military at that) in what they consider holy lands.

I'm not saying it's right, nor am I defending their actions arising out of their hatred. But to claim we've done nothing to them, and it's all because of our political system is the height of arrogant nievete.

-Arlos

I know for myself I don't believe our foreign policy and actions were not a catalyst to people like Bin Laden, really I just don't worry about pissing off the assholes of the world. If we start down that path we start down a path of give an inch and have a mile taken. While we've had our errors in foreign policy and action, for the most part they have been based in two things, protecting our national interests and protecting the world from evil. WWII showed us that we could ill afford complete isolationism, and that preemptive action can be necessary to prevent future forced action.

Support of the Shah may have been a mistake, support of Israel is not. The nation of Israel was established after WWI, when in short Muslims lost control due to being on the losing side. Frankly if any modern day peoples can claim their ancestry being there first it would be the Jews. What Islam gained through war it lost through war... and the modern day strife is brought about because of refusal to accept the loss via the very same method of gain. The birth of the modern day PLO grew out of a group who followed leadership that allied it's self with Hitler in an effort to again through force claim the area with a secondary goal of exterminating the Jews, not only in what is now Israel, but world wide. Again... they lost, but instead of acceptance, instead of biding by the terms of surrender they seek again to gain that which they gave up rather then be annihilated. The bottom line is that if we look at what peoples were there first it does belong to the Jewish people, if we accept that military conquer justifies change of control (as per Palestinian claim) then it must be accepted that the change of control due to WWI is valid, and British establishment of the nation of Israel is valid.

9/11 made many in this country reconsider our support of Israel, specifically because it was seen as a reason for the attacks. Either through ignorance or lack of intestinal fortitude, many have taken the stance that support of Israel is not worth the grief or wrath that it brings us. I have a different take.

For years the US let Israel suffer the brunt of terrorist style attacks, while publicly supporting the right to exist, often times expressing disappointment in its forceful action. Privately we've for years encouraged Israel to stay its hand.. and while Israel might push the boundaries our opinion carries a lot of weight, because likely without our support it would be no more. 9/11 showed in my mind an unrecognized double standard in our mindset. We encourage Israel in restraint, yet when faced in this country with the very same problem that Israel experience all the time (albeit to a lesser degree single incident wise), we endeavored to seek out and destroy the source. Only the fringe seriously would consider granting any serious consideration for Al-Qaudea's side. In short we asked for years that Israel put up with something we ourselves are not willing to tolerate, and yet our ally in the interest of helping our political goals did tolerate these hardships. It is high time we solidify our support not only for Israels existence, but for it's right to exist unmolested.

I'm not anti-Israel in general, they are certainly an important ally, and they deserve to be supported in general. But we have given them too much carte blanche over the years to do stupid shit that has done nothing but inflame the situation. Some US weight throwing around that at least publicly appeared to be pro-palestinian 10-15 years ago could have had huge impact in public opinion over there about us. (making them stop the settlements that were illegal under their own laws, bulldozing of innocent palestinian family's homes to make way for those settlements, etc.)

Part of the problem there is that you have people on both sides trying to claim ownership and precident based on ancient status from 2000 years ago. Sorry, just because you owned that land in 500 BC and it was written about in the bible does *NOT* give you ironclad claim to the land now. Would we not laugh a group of Manhattan Indians out of the courtroom if they attempted to claim they had ownership rights to all of Manhattan island because their ancestors lived there 2500 years ago? Why is the situation in Israel different? Should we do land grants based on the Epic of Gilgamesh too? How about decide India vs Pakistani land disputes based on the Mahabharata or the Ramayana? How is THAT different than settling them based on the Bible? Sorry, but I will NEVER accept the validity of land claims based on millenia-old religious texts, and will consider anyone who does so claim to be a flat-earther level raving moron.

As for US foreign policy, the biggest issue with it is that it so often over time seemed to be totally focused on immediate returns, rather than looking at the long term. Such lack of vision is likely how we ended up supporting such lovely people as Pinochet, among others. I realize we, as a people, have a really hard time looking at the long-term over the short term, but if in ANY area we should be fixated on long-term results over short-term interests it should be foreign policy.

-Arlos

Considering I've known some conservative who want to pull the carpet out from under Israel I'd have to say I'm glad to see your opinion as you've expressed it Arlos.

Ron Paul made the mistake of not clarifying the point that US foreign policy is not always a reflection of the people. He got caught in a game of words with RG and it backfired. There is no QUESTION that our government is mostly responsibile for 9/11. All Ron Paul had to do was say "You realize the CIA trained and paid Bin Laden to fight against the Russians." We created 9/11 pure and simple. The everyday American is not directly responsibile but we all have to feel the guilt in allowing the process to continue by re-electing the people who push these ideas in government. Ron Paul attacked the status quo policy and those that defend it and he is getting shafted on a play of words.

Comrade Clinton will not be able to win.

This has got to be the worst lineup of presidential candidates I've ever seen... both republicans and democrats. I was going to vote for Giuliani, but I didn't like what he had to say in an interview with him I heard on the radio last week. I will vote for a candidate who believes in the following:

1. Against abortion except in exigent circumstances.
2. Against embryonic stem cell research.
3. Against gay marriage.
4. Is fiscally conservative.
5. Against raising taxes.
6. Is for enforcing our borders, language, and American culture.
7. Is for making welfare much more difficult to receive.
8. Has a solid, no-nonsense plan for medical care reform.
9. Is not a war-monger, and will use extreme discretion before sending in our troops and getting us involved in an insane war.
10. Will fix our roads and highways.
11. Will rebuild our public schools / enlarge classrooms, etc.
12. Will provide funding for alternative fuel research.

That's about the most important things I can think of off the top of my head. Of course there are other important issues, but these are the ones that strike me the most.

Narrock wrote:This has got to be the worst lineup of presidential candidates I've ever seen... both republicans and democrats. I was going to vote for Giuliani, but I didn't like what he had to say in an interview with him I heard on the radio last week. I will vote for a candidate who believes in the following:

1. Against abortion except in exigent circumstances.
2. Against embryonic stem cell research.
3. Against gay marriage.
4. Is fiscally conservative.
5. Against raising taxes.
6. Is for enforcing our borders, language, and American culture.
7. Is for making welfare much more difficult to receive.
8. Has a solid, no-nonsense plan for medical care reform.
9. Is not a war-monger, and will use extreme discretion before sending in our troops and getting us involved in an insane war.
10. Will fix our roads and highways.
11. Will rebuild our public schools / enlarge classrooms, etc.
12. Will provide funding for alternative fuel research.

That's about the most important things I can think of off the top of my head. Of course there are other important issues, but these are the ones that strike me the most.

How do you feel about Ron Paul?

He actually sounds pretty good, but I will admit that I don't know that much about him. I'll be reading his website for a while...

I dunno bout ron paul. I like some of what the guy has to say but other shit seems really wack. If he got nominated I might vote for the guy. Only thing im sure about this election is that I will not be voting for the hildabeast.

Ok, sorry to bump this thread. I just saw that Ron Paul fellow on some Maher guy's show on Fox. Even though he was only on for like 5 minutes, he interested me. I was browsing around his website and didnt see anything on Energy (eg. resources, clean coal, whatever). Can anyone fill me in a little bit more on his stances on that?

In order to get numbers 10, 11, and 12 to happen you might need to become a little more lenient on number 5.