namelesstavern.net

Who would you want to see as the presidential nominee for the Republicans?

Wait I didn't read your post. I thought this was a poll of guessing who it was going to be. I would guess it would be Giuliani out of the choises given, but I would much rather see McCain

So -1 Giuliani +1 McCain

I doubt McCain would get a chance, he has damaged his rep with to many Republicans warranted or not. He has a reputation as being borderline left, and saying whatever it takes to get elected.

Lueyen wrote:I doubt McCain would get a chance, he has damaged his rep with to many Republicans warranted or not. He has a reputation as being borderline left, and saying whatever it takes to get elected.

Exactly. He's a cheese-ball and I don't trust him, even if he is a republican.

When any of these republicans get into office, they'll be just as liberal as your much feared Dem's. The whole system is corrupt, I'll giggle when the conservatives cry with dissapointment when any of the above names are just as corrupt as Bush. They will push for taking away more civil rights, ignoring the constitution, and striving for a One Gov't World.

Burgy99 wrote:When any of these republicans get into office, they'll be just as liberal as your much feared Dem's. The whole system is corrupt, I'll giggle when the conservatives cry with dissapointment when any of the above names are just as corrupt as Bush. They will push for taking away more civil rights, ignoring the constitution, and striving for a One Gov't World.

What Republican would you like to see as the 2008 candidate?

I need to know much more about the candidates before participating in this poll..

i voted for G...but i am voting for hil if she runs in 8

Lueyen wrote:

Burgy99 wrote:When any of these republicans get into office, they'll be just as liberal as your much feared Dem's. The whole system is corrupt, I'll giggle when the conservatives cry with dissapointment when any of the above names are just as corrupt as Bush. They will push for taking away more civil rights, ignoring the constitution, and striving for a One Gov't World.

What Republican would you like to see as the 2008 candidate?

I'm not happy with any of the candidates.

i agree with burgy.

I wouldn't vote for any of them.

Perhaps I should clarify my question. I wasn't asking who you liked or would vote for, but if the Republicans were to win the next presidential election, who would you prefer.

For example of the list of democratic cantidates in the other thread I would likely not vote for any of them (don't really know enough about Obama yet, so not completely sure of that). That being the case I can still say there are some that I would prefer over others. Removing Obama from the list due to my lack of knowlege of him, I'd put the list something like this Edwards, Gore, Clinton, Kerry. No I don't really like any of them, but I do have a preference.

Lueyen wrote:Perhaps I should clarify my question. I wasn't asking who you liked or would vote for, but if the Republicans were to win the next presidential election, who would you prefer.

For example of the list of democratic cantidates in the other thread I would likely not vote for any of them (don't really know enough about Obama yet, so not completely sure of that). That being the case I can still say there are some that I would prefer over others. Removing Obama from the list due to my lack of knowlege of him, I'd put the list something like this Edwards, Gore, Clinton, Kerry. No I don't really like any of them, but I do have a preference.

90% of the liberals on the NT only vote (ignorantly) along party lines and don't vote on the issues.

90% of the people you consider liberals on the message board aren't liberals.

If you're "pro-choice," for banning the pledge of allegiance, for gay marriage, for the removal of the the Ten Commandments from Federal buildings, and for taking "In God We Trust" off our currency... then you're a liberal. And I'd say a good 90% of the people on the NT are for these things.

you honestly believe that?

Apparently, politics isn't your thing Tacks. Go back to harrassing Kizzy or something.

I'm sorry if that was the most narrow-minded definition of conservatism I've ever read...but then again I guess narrow-mindedness is a requisite attribute to being conservative.

That was just a partial list. If you want to learn more, go here:

http://www.conservative.org/

It would have been hilarious if Hastert hit Paleolosi over the head with the gavel.

Narrock wrote:That was just a partial list. If you want to learn more, go here:

http://www.conservative.org/

You see Mindia, I know exactly what you were getting at. I'm sorry you can see past the end of your nose.

need Paul's sig right about now

Uh, Mindia, no one is for BANNING the pledge of allegiance. Just for removing the "Under God" reference from it. Remember, that reference was NOT in the original version, it was added in during the 1950s. I still remember seeing a Warner Brother's cartoon where a mouse learns the pledge, and it was from before the change. The "Under God" portion is completely unnecessary in a statement of allegiance to one's nation. You know I'm not Christian, and my belief is protected under the constitution, why should I have to specifically mention a diety I don't believe in in order to pledge allegiance to the nation of which I am a citizen?

The in god we strust on currency, well, I'd rather it not be there, but that's different than the pledge, as you're not actively acknowledging anything just by spending cash. Very different from a statement of belief/allegiance to the Christian diety that's in the pledge.

As for Pro-Choice, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, and I'm not going to open that can of worms here. However, you are aware that a majority of people in the US support pro-choice, yes?

As for Gay Marriage, I certainly wouldn't be for forcing any church, anywhere, that had any issue with accepting gay marriage within it's religious tenets from performing one. My support for it is, at it's core, a civil rights issue, as right now gay couples miss out on a number of benefits that heterosexual couples miss out on. While the idea of a seperate "Civil Union" that is identical to marriage except for the semantics of the term is certainly better than what we have now, do remember that we have Supreme Court rulings showing that "Seperate but Equal" is unconstitutional, and a civil union that was seperate from marriage but equal to it would fall under such a ruling, thus leaving little choice in the matter.

As for 10 commandments monuments, I don't think any religious iconography has any place in a purely secular location such as a courthouse. (or a city hall, etc. etc. etc.) I'd react the same way to iconography from any other religion as well, understand, including my own. I'd fight just as hard against recognizeable pagan religious symbols being put in a church as I would against a 10 commandments monument, as neither has a place in such a venue. Now, you want to put one in your lawn on your own private property, I'll support your rights to do so to the hilt.

Lastly, not all of us vote purely on party lines. However, the fundamentgal core planks of the republican platform are things I disagree with rather strongly. There are individual republicans I can respect, but the fact that they are beholden to their leadership, and as such are likely to be forced to vote against things I believe in as part of the modern partisan politics, my interest in voting for them wanes. If they were in a different party, even an independent one, there are some I'd be much more likely to vote for.

-Arlos

and the other 10% believe the bullshit that is fed to them and "vote inteligently"



Right......

Pro-choise should even BE an issue for 1 thing...

arlos wrote:Uh, Mindia, no one is for BANNING the pledge of allegiance. Just for removing the "Under God" reference from it. Remember, that reference was NOT in the original version, it was added in during the 1950s. I still remember seeing a Warner Brother's cartoon where a mouse learns the pledge, and it was from before the change. The "Under God" portion is completely unnecessary in a statement of allegiance to one's nation. You know I'm not Christian, and my belief is protected under the constitution, why should I have to specifically mention a diety I don't believe in in order to pledge allegiance to the nation of which I am a citizen?

The in god we strust on currency, well, I'd rather it not be there, but that's different than the pledge, as you're not actively acknowledging anything just by spending cash. Very different from a statement of belief/allegiance to the Christian diety that's in the pledge.

As for Pro-Choice, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, and I'm not going to open that can of worms here. However, you are aware that a majority of people in the US support pro-choice, yes?

As for Gay Marriage, I certainly wouldn't be for forcing any church, anywhere, that had any issue with accepting gay marriage within it's religious tenets from performing one. My support for it is, at it's core, a civil rights issue, as right now gay couples miss out on a number of benefits that heterosexual couples miss out on. While the idea of a seperate "Civil Union" that is identical to marriage except for the semantics of the term is certainly better than what we have now, do remember that we have Supreme Court rulings showing that "Seperate but Equal" is unconstitutional, and a civil union that was seperate from marriage but equal to it would fall under such a ruling, thus leaving little choice in the matter.

As for 10 commandments monuments, I don't think any religious iconography has any place in a purely secular location such as a courthouse. (or a city hall, etc. etc. etc.) I'd react the same way to iconography from any other religion as well, understand, including my own. I'd fight just as hard against recognizeable pagan religious symbols being put in a church as I would against a 10 commandments monument, as neither has a place in such a venue. Now, you want to put one in your lawn on your own private property, I'll support your rights to do so to the hilt.

Lastly, not all of us vote purely on party lines. However, the fundamentgal core planks of the republican platform are things I disagree with rather strongly. There are individual republicans I can respect, but the fact that they are beholden to their leadership, and as such are likely to be forced to vote against things I believe in as part of the modern partisan politics, my interest in voting for them wanes. If they were in a different party, even an independent one, there are some I'd be much more likely to vote for.

-Arlos

So, we should ban the pledge of allegiance because 10% of the population says it offends them? If it's such a big deal, why not just stand there with your hand over your heart during the pledge, and then not say anything? Seems a lot easier and makes more sense than offending 90% of the population who wants "Under God" in it.