The B*tch is Serious!

engtaz

I like it!!

engtaz

goingganzo

i think there should be 8 televised debates and no comercials aloed and have a cap on funds you can spend
also we should ban all lobiest. and take that money and develop better fule sorceses

and i will not vote for any clinton

jdhdiggs

Someone floated the idea of each network running a series of "Chat" sessions where candidates would be given a problem such as the budget deficit, abortion, whatever. and each would debate/explain their position at lengths without interruption and have these lead upto the actual debates.

The problem with the electorate today is that very few people know anything about the candidates, their positions, or how their positions might affect their lives.

I can picture a bunch of women voting for Hillary just because she's female, African Americans voting for Barrack, etc... (Reps/conservatives are just as guilty- "He banned guns in NYC? No way I'm voting for him") without understanding or researching the politicians. The result is what we have now. Whoever is the shiniest with the most money wins rather than the one with the best ideas.

davidk0512

Fireman32 wrote:

Go RUDY!!

The only issue I have with Rudy is that he is pro gun control, but that in itself will cost him my vote, but I'll guarantee Hillary won't get it. I hope we have a much better choice than McCain as well.

jdhdiggs

davidk0512 wrote:

The only issue I have with Rudy is that he is pro gun control, but that in itself will cost him my vote, but I'll guarantee Hillary won't get it. I hope we have a much better choice than McCain as well.

See what I mean? David: Do you know Rudy's position on gun control? Here it is:

He will not pass any law requiring any national gun laws instead deferring restrictions and background checks to local state, county, and city authorities allowing them to create their own laws.

Do you disagree with that position?

davidk0512

jdhdiggs wrote:

See what I mean? David: Do you know Rudy's position on gun control? Here it is:

He will not pass any law requiring any national gun laws instead deferring restrictions and background checks to local state, county, and city authorities allowing them to create their own laws.

Do you disagree with that position?

I agree with that statement, but that doesn't completely define his position.

Check out this link

http://bluestarchronicles.com/2007/03/20/rudy-giuliani-and-the-second-amendment/

hearingimpared

ESAVINON wrote:

She's not popular here. We saw from the begining when she moved to new york that Mrs hillary carpetbagger clinton wanted to get back into the white house. we saw thru her hipocriticy. Unfortunately, she was able to convince the hispanics,the black voters and the elderly into voting her into a second term (she won her first term because we where still shell shocked from 9/11 and was able to sneak in).

Thanks for clearing that up Ed I was beginning to think she was pouring Kool-Aid into the water system up there.

schwarcw

Let's all give Rudy a helping hand!;)

jdhdiggs

davidk0512 wrote:

I agree with that statement, but that doesn't completely define his position.

Check out this link

http://bluestarchronicles.com/2007/03/20/rudy-giuliani-and-the-second-amendment/

Read through it, and don't get the major issues but then my view on the right to bear arms might be a bit different then yours. Good to know we have an informed voter in the house though. But let me ask you, would you not vote or vote for the democratic nominee because of this? In my mind, right now Rudy is looking like the least of the evil's that are running.

Demiurge

In terms of electability for Republican candidates, Rudy is looking like the only option for conservatives, moderate conservatives, and Republicans for 2008.

Third Party votes are wasted, emotionally based, and purely self serving. Yes, it's your right, but if your goal is to make a statement -- it's a dumb one. Sometimes you have to give a little to keep traction, and while I like Rudy on some issues -- I have to severely hold my breath on a lot of the others. If it's not Rudy for the Republican party, I believe the candidate will lose in 2008. I'd rather have Rudy than Hilary, period. The other most important thing is that he can win. I don't hear Rudy trying to hide from his record. He admits his faults to conservatives, which is refreshing. He seems like the type who will stick to his word. That's a rare thing these days. He says he'll nominate strict constructionist judges, and if his track record means anything he'll definitely hold to that. That's something conservative voters can be happy about.

I don't see Hillary as electable. There's a lot of big talk, but even liberals have hidden biases and hypocricies when it comes to diversity. Just look at how their cabinet positions get stacked -- they're not filled with minorities. When Republican's do it the minorities that fill these positions are called token people or traitors to their race/ethnicity/sexuality. Kinda funny who the truly diverse crowd is!

Obama will implode in due time because he just isn't ready for when the burners get turned up. I think John Edwards is a lot more serious than anyone else and will probably end up with the nomination for the Democrats.

This is just the reality of politics right now now matter what side of the fence you're on. There's not going to be a conservative candidate that's going to win in 2008 as it stands right now, and I don't see that changing.

bikezappa

jdhdiggs wrote:

E: I gotta agree with you on one thing, right now there aren't any really great candidates in my book either. I'm lookng for a candidate that:

Wants to return power to the states
Wants to decrease the power and size of the federal gov
Favors taxation of wealth and not income
Not a fundementalist of any religion, or someone who does not allow that to force their decision making.
Strong on national defense
Understands free speech goes both ways
Expects the government to be a saftey net and not a granter of a particular standard of living.
Will work to abolish the teachers union/allow school choice.

Beyond that, I don't really care that much.

This is the only post in this thread that has a list of issues that may get discussed. Does anybody have reasons for not voting for Clinton?

How do you decide how you are to vote?

Are issues important?

When do we/they discuss them?

Can anyone tell me what are the candidates positions are and action items are for the mess in Iraq?

I'd like to know that before I commint to any candidate.

PhantomOG

ESAVINON wrote:

She's not popular here. We saw from the begining when she moved to new york that Mrs hillary carpetbagger clinton wanted to get back into the white house. we saw thru her hipocriticy. Unfortunately, she was able to convince the hispanics,the black voters and the elderly into voting her into a second term (she won her first term because we where still shell shocked from 9/11 and was able to sneak in).

Sorry to correct you but Hillary was elected by NY before 9/11. She won the election in 2000 and assumed office at the beginning of 2001. I know firsthand because I was still in school back then, and I remember her stopping at my school. She brought Ben Affleck with her in an attempt impress people I assume. :rolleyes:

I'm still dumbfounded that the people of NY would elect someone to represent them who had no firsthand knowledge of the state (she and Bill bought a house in the state of NY *just* in time for residency restrictions), and so obviously using the position merely as a jumping off point for her later political ambitions.

Anyways, politics and religion.... I'll leave the arguments for others. Just wanted to clear that one thing up.

davidk0512

jdhdiggs wrote:

Read through it, and don't get the major issues but then my view on the right to bear arms might be a bit different then yours. Good to know we have an informed voter in the house though. But let me ask you, would you not vote or vote for the democratic nominee because of this? In my mind, right now Rudy is looking like the least of the evil's that are running.

My view on the 2nd amendment is that as a law abiding citizen, I should have the right to buy any gun I want and I should be able to maintain ownership until the time I've proven I'm not fit to own it. I believe convicted felons should "never" be able to touch a firearm, legally or otherwise, period.

As the mayor of NYC, Rudy did in fact justify and impose gun control at the local level. If he were President, I would have a hard time believing that if he were to have it justified in his mind that gun control at the national level was necessary, that he would not impose it.

I will exercise my right and I see it as my duty to vote. Right now, I can't think of any democrat at the national level that I would consider voting for as President, I have voted for local democrats in the past.
Like I said before, gun control is the only issue I have with Rudy Giuliani. I guess I have to back-off my previous comment a little, If Rudy is running against any of the current field of democrats, I'd have to vote for Rudy and hope for the best. The primaries may be a different story. I'm praying every night though that we don't elect Hillary.

daniel_paul_

bikezappa wrote:

This is the only post in this thread that has a list of issues that may get discussed. Does anybody have reasons for not voting for Clinton?

How do you decide how you are to vote?

Are issues important?

When do we/they discuss them?

Can anyone tell me what are the candidates positions are and action items are for the mess in Iraq?

I'd like to know that before I commint to any candidate.

I second this.

Hilary won't get elected because "women hate women" (Chris Rock). I have heard to may women say "they hate her shoes" or "don't like her hair" for her to get elected. The majority of Hilary insulters won't vote for her simply because she is a democrate.

Obama is to new and I agree with the earlier statement that the country is not ready for a woman or minority.

The religeous right won't let Rudy through because of his marrages and abortion.

McCain is the new flip-flopper. He is going gainst his earlier campains and voting record to try and grab the religeous right.

daniel_paul_

lets not forget about Newt Gingrich. He confessed his sin of hipocracy to the church and was forgiven. He's got my vote.:rolleyes:

mhardy6647

Tell you the truth, I don't know why Sen. Clinton even wants to run for president. She's already been president (for two terms, no less!).

Demiurge

daniel_paul_ wrote:

lets not forget about Newt Gingrich. He confessed his sin of hipocracy to the church and was forgiven. He's got my vote.:rolleyes:

What I read from your post is that being a sleazeball and making a mistake or stupid choice is only an issue if you're a Republican. This is an excellent demonstration of the extreme double standard out there. I don't think the non-Christian conservatives, of which there are many, believe what Newt did (had an affair) means jack.

Not getting off on a religious tangent, but part of the beliefs of most religious people are that human beings are imperfect, including themselves. We all make mistakes and poor choices. Some mistakes are bigger than others. Forgiveness is hard for anyone, but Christians and other religions often pride themselves on bettering themselves through confession and washing themselves of their sins by becoming better people. If you don't believe in any of that then it really doesn't affect you.

Is Newt a better person now? Who the hell knows. All I know is that Newt rightfully deserves to be beaten honestly for the mistake/choice he made. Although if you don't think what Clinton did was wrong I'm not sure why you'd care one lick about Newt. Those 2 situations are different since Newt never lied under oath, but the point stands.

The only people he needs to worry about are his religious constituency and the liberal media that will pound the double standard down our throats.

That said, he can't win because of that past. Tough break for him, but thems the consequences of being a moron.

Demiurge

daniel_paul_ wrote:

The religeous right won't let Rudy through because of his marrages and abortion.

Rudy also appeals to non-religious conservatives, moderates, and moderate liberals. That more than makes up for the small segment of the vote that is the religious right, which is mostly concentrated in the south. Even if the Evangelical crowd stayed home Rudy would still roll.

It's kind of a fallacy to assume that being affiliated with a religion is a prerequisite to running for political office, right or left, although most of them all claim to be.

daniel_paul_

Demiurge wrote:

What I read from your post is that being a sleazeball and making a mistake or stupid choice is only an issue if you're a Republican. This is an excellent demonstration of the extreme double standard out there. I don't think the non-Christian conservatives, of which there are many, believe what Newt did (had an affair) means jack.

Not getting off on a religious tangent, but part of the beliefs of most religious people are that human beings are imperfect, including themselves. We all make mistakes and poor choices. Some mistakes are bigger than others. Forgiveness is hard for anyone, but Christians and other religions often pride themselves on bettering themselves through confession and washing themselves of their sins by becoming better people. If you don't believe in any of that then it really doesn't affect you.

Is Newt a better person now? Who the hell knows. All I know is that Newt rightfully deserves to be beaten honestly for the mistake/choice he made. Although if you don't think what Clinton did was wrong I'm not sure why you'd care one lick about Newt. Those 2 situations are different since Newt never lied under oath, but the point stands.

The only people he needs to worry about are his religious constituency and the liberal media that will pound the double standard down our throats.

That said, he can't win because of that past. Tough break for him, but thems the consequences of being a moron.

That's funny. Why is it that you can not question 1 republican's ethics without someone bringing up B. Clinton and claiming some double-standard? Newt perfectly illistraited the republican double standard. You crucify Clinton on his lack of family values, but when a republican get in the crosshairs you say what Clinton really did wrong was lie under oath.

Why are you defending Newt? And if Clinton spent a week with Jerry Falwell (sp?) would we have let the situation go? Lets ask Newt.

daniel_paul_

Demiurge wrote:

Rudy also appeals to non-religious conservatives, moderates, and moderate liberals. That more than makes up for the small segment of the vote that is the religious right, which is mostly concentrated in the south. Even if the Evangelical crowd stayed home Rudy would still roll.

It's kind of a fallacy to assume that being affiliated with a religion is a prerequisite to running for political office, right or left, although most of them all claim to be.

His moderate appeal could win him the overall election, but it will not get him through the primaries. Bush proved how important the church support is. Moderate liberals vote Democrat in the primaries.

F1nut

Why are you defending Newt?

He's not. I think you need to re-read his post.

daniel_paul_

F1nut wrote:

He's not. I think you need to re-read his post.

What he is saying is that having an affair does not mean "jack" but then is quick to to bring in Bill and cast judgement. How can he **** about Clinton and not care about Newt?

My original point was to show how the head of the hunt was commiting the the same crime during the time of the hunt. Lets be honest. They went after Clinton for the lie but the true motivation was to reclaim the honor of the presidency which many felt Clinton soiled.

Demiurge

daniel_paul_ wrote:

That's funny. Why is it that you can not question 1 republican's ethics without someone bringing up B. Clinton and claiming some double-standard? Newt perfectly illistraited the republican double standard. You crucify Clinton on his lack of family values, but when a republican get in the crosshairs you say what Clinton really did wrong was lie under oath.

Why are you defending Newt? And if Clinton spent a week with Jerry Falwell (sp?) would we have let the situation go? Lets ask Newt.

I'm actually not defending Newt, which tells me your initial reaction was to be defensive rather than read the post. If you read it, you'd notice I explained that being conservative doesn't mean you're a Christian. If you happen to be a Christian and a conservative then maybe you care that Newt stuck his dip stick in someone elses oil reservoir.

I could bring up Ted Kennedy killing a woman if you don't want to talk about Clinton. How about William Jefferson (D-LA)? The list goes on and on. You can find a bunch of Republicans that did dumb stuff like those guys as well.

The difference is people like yourself hold a double standard, which can clearly be seen in your post. Did Clinton, Kennedy, Jefferson, etc. make poor choices or mistakes? If you believed that they did you wouldn't be arguing with me. I'm not defending Newt. He slept with another woman -- is it a big deal because he's a conservative? Like I said before, Clinton didn't get pinched for letting a sow slob on his wee wee, he got pinched for lying under oath. There's a big difference. If committing adultery was an impeachable offense JFK would have been ridden out on a rail, and that's back when even Democrats actually believed in God.

If you're a Christian and a conservative you're not able to make mistakes or just make dumb choices without having your life destroyed. Kill a woman and you can be Senator until you croak. That's the double standard.

hearingimpared

Why do I get the feeling when people refer to the "religious right" it is a put down? It used to be called the "moral majority." Is there something wrong with being a person with good morals and good character? I mean being human and moral is hard enough. Being under a microscope because you are in politics must be really difficult. If Rudy and Newt would make good presidents, as long as they admitted their error and tried to live on the straight and narrow, that is all I would care about.

I hated what the Republicans (I am a Republican) did to Clinton with the Lewinsky thing, he did exacerbate the problem with public lies though. The problem I am having is that since he has left office he has stepped up his immoral behavior instead of being repentant and I really don't give a damn about that. The thing is he continues to do it. I think Rudy and Newt have stopped. If, as someone stated earlier, the "religious right" wouldn't vote for Rudy or Newt because of what they did, then I would agree that they were being fools but those people are not fools as they are made out to be because they are the "religious right." They so are not fools and should not be underestimated.

jdhdiggs

It's because the majority is no longer moral, unfortunately...

Now, all it's about is being a number on a census and showing up when the government cheese is handed out.

daniel_paul_

Demiurge wrote:

I'm actually not defending Newt, which tells me your initial reaction was to be defensive rather than read the post. If you read it, you'd notice I explained that being conservative doesn't mean you're a Christian. If you happen to be a Christian and a conservative then maybe you care that Newt stuck his dip stick in someone elses oil reservoir.

I could bring up Ted Kennedy killing a woman if you don't want to talk about Clinton. How about William Jefferson (D-LA)? The list goes on and on. You can find a bunch of Republicans that did dumb stuff like those guys as well.

The difference is people like yourself hold a double standard, which can clearly be seen in your post. Did Clinton, Kennedy, Jefferson, etc. make poor choices or mistakes? If you believed that they did you wouldn't be arguing with me. I'm not defending Newt. He slept with another woman -- is it a big deal because he's a conservative? Like I said before, Clinton didn't get pinched for letting a sow slob on his wee wee, he got pinched for lying under oath. There's a big difference. If committing adultery was an impeachable offense JFK would have been ridden out on a rail, and that's back when even Democrats actually believed in God.

If you're a Christian and a conservative you're not able to make mistakes or just make dumb choices without having your life destroyed. Kill a woman and you can be Senator until you croak. That's the double standard.

You are the one that keeps making it partisan. My point was one hipocritical guy going after another. Your point was a Democrate going after a Republican.

audiobliss

I think this is why politics aren't typically discussed.

However, interesting read.

jdhdiggs

Daniel:

You missed his point. The double standard he is showing is that on the conservative side, one slip up and you are ousted from power immediately and forever. Condemned by both parties and the media. However, if a person of the other party screws up, it's swept under the rug and the only ones who seem to care are on the other side of the aisle. The media and the offenders own party gloss over the mistakes. That's what he was pointing out.

Demiurge

hearingimpared wrote:

Why do I get the feeling when people refer to the "religious right" it is a put down?

That is the implication isn't it? I'll bet some people here think I'm a big church goer as well.

It's funny, because I was raised Catholic as a kid and stopped going to a Catholic church when I was around 10. This is mostly because my mom stopped going and decided to go to a non-denominational church. I went there for a while, but there were some things that bugged me about it. I'll be 27 in about a month, and I only go to church on holidays if my mom asks my brother and I to go with her when we're in town. She's weekly at that same church to this day and has made a bunch of good friends through it. Other than that, it's not my bag at this time in my life. I do believe in God, but I don't believe in some of the practices of the Catholic church. I know I never will.

I actually don't feel good about that, but I know I'll get it all sorted out at some point. My big hang up with the Catholic church is that it's a lot of judgement and punishment. I believe that if you're right with God and your heart is right and you've truly asked for forgiveness that it will be done. That doesn't excuse you from societal punishment, so I'm not sure why it matters why some conservatives happen to be religious.

Why, because they bought into the stereotype that every Christian is a hypocrite? Every guy with a wife, 2 kids and a dog is really having an affair with the secretary? Does that mean all non-Christians do the same? Obviously not. No, some priests molests some kids and it's an epidemic. Those men are all wrong, and should rot in prison. How does that damage the Christian message? If anything it enforces the idea that we're all imperfect and we all make mistakes. I damn well know I have. I'm just trying to be a better person. If being a Christian helps you in that there's no shame in that.

That was long winded. Anyhow, point is that there are a lot of conservatives out there that aren't Christians, and despite that fact we still support most of our Christian firends to have their voice as well.

daniel_paul_

jdhdiggs wrote:

It's because the majority is no longer moral, unfortunately...

Now, all it's about is being a number on a census and showing up when the government cheese is handed out.

I give it a negative conotation because to often the hard-core strong right-wing are breaking the the same rules the srongly preach against. The minister who (I forgot his name) was was using meth and a **** escort. But another famous miniser saw that it was only a faze and there was no sin in his heart. Sound like the same pennence (sp?) that Newt bought.

I think the majority is still moral, we just do not have a strong voice.