Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: storch on September 06, 2007, 08:03:48 AM
-
I caught a bit of it. I like this man and his no nonsense approach to things. I believe he may well be the next POTUS.
all the best you mr thompson, thank you for your candidacy and for your service to our nation.
-
I would feel good about voting for him... I doubt that he has a chance of being in the running tho. I will probly have to vote for the new york city con artist.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would feel good about voting for him... I doubt that he has a chance of being in the running tho. I will probly have to vote for the new york city con artist.
lazs
Hillary??????
..............oh, you meant Rudy. Sorry, thats my natural reaction when I see "New York" and "con artist" in the same sentence.
GO Fred!
-
I have never contributed $ to a campaign before Thompson came along, ever. While I disagree with his stance on abortion and his desire for a constitutional amendment banning gay unions, I completely agree with the other 98% of his platform and his desire to limit the federal government.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I doubt that he has a chance of being in the running tho.
lazs
Have to disagree with you there, this man has been running #2 in the polls without even declaring or announcing. I think when his campaign really gets running, he will be the GOP candidate.
Surprised you would voice your choice for Guilliani given his strong opposition to gun ownership. He is no friend of gun owners.
-
I'm out of the loop on Thompson's bullet points.. Thomson/Paul - would that fly?
-
"He is no friend of gun owners."
Either is Fred Thompson. He's just another guy telling whomever is listening at the moment what they want to hear.
Thompson voted in favor of the Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban that disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago.
Thompson voted in favor of the 1996 Terrorism bill that:
- authorized a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department)
- potentially punished gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime
- federalized many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF
- restricted the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated, allowing the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals
- removed protections against wiretapping wireless data and required banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
"He is no friend of gun owners."
Either is Fred Thompson. He's just another guy telling whomever is listening at the moment what they want to hear.
Thompson voted in favor of the Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban that disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago.
Thompson voted in favor of the 1996 Terrorism bill that:
- authorized a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department)
- potentially punished gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime
- federalized many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF
- restricted the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated, allowing the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals
- removed protections against wiretapping wireless data and required banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations.
Maybe you want to tell more of the story, not just one little bit?
Fred Thompson quotes and votes:
Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre
How is it that one man with two handguns could reload time & time again, and go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.
Virginia allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. Incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
But Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus. Those "Gun-free Zone" signs don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people.
Source: Thompson's blog on ABCradio.com, "Signs of Intelligence?" Apr 19, 2007
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.
The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5
Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.
Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury.
Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine.
-
I remembered there were some stiff spoilers like that, but couldn't recall the specifics.. those're definitely not promising.
How can Paul be the only one to have so much integrity?
-
I think it points out Thompson's lack of a clear position, which goes back to my original point about playing coy with his audience.
Ron Paul is neither an actor; nor a politician? :)
-
Rings true with his saying he wants to be president for all the things we won't do (or something like that).
-
Guilliani/Thompson 2008
-
What? :lol Giuliani?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I think it points out Thompson's lack of a clear position, which goes back to my original point about playing coy with his audience.
Ron Paul is neither an actor; nor a politician? :)
hmmm now you have given me pause.
-
Originally posted by soda72
Guilliani/Thompson 2008
No way should anyone vote for Guilliani.
It might be worth remembering that when he was mayor of New York, he advocated licensing for gun owners, avidly supported federal gun control measures such as the Brady Law and the "assault weapon" ban, blamed lax gun laws in other states for violent crime in New York City, and participated in litigation that aimed to impose national restrictions on the gun industry.
Guilliani is no friend of the honest law abing gun owner.
BTW, Lazs, is Kalifornia really getting ready to ban lead bullets?
-
Originally posted by Dago
No way should anyone vote for Guilliani.
It might be worth remembering that when he was mayor of New York, he advocated licensing for gun owners, avidly supported federal gun control measures such as the Brady Law and the "assault weapon" ban, blamed lax gun laws in other states for violent crime in New York City, and participated in litigation that aimed to impose national restrictions on the gun industry.
Guilliani is no friend of the honest law abing gun owner.
BTW, Lazs, is Kalifornia really getting ready to ban lead bullets?
I had not heard that but it wouldn't suprise me.
-
oh look...it's the ghost of reagan.
woooooooOoooo (clank clank) WoooOOOOooooo (clank clank)
:cool:
-
Originally posted by JB88
oh look...it's the ghost of reagan.
woooooooOoooo (clank clank) WoooOOOOooooo (clank clank)
:cool:
:rofl :rofl :rofl
IMHO Fred Thompson is the only real contender for the GOP in a national election. I wish him well. If he gets the GOP ticket I won't feel so bad.
-
Already signed up to work on Thompsons campaign
:aok
-
I hope I am wrong on this and that I will get to vote for him against whoever is the democrat running.
I do not like rudy's stance on gun control... fred's is 100 times better but...
The worst republican in the race is 100 times better than the best democrat so far as firearms rights go.
lazs
-
Oh... my other take on fred is that... of all the republican candidates...
He would be the one that democrats would be eager to have an excuse to vote for.... There is probly a huge segment of the democrat voter block who would love any excuse to not vote for hillary.
I mean.... hell... old fred is downhome and... an actor!
lazs
-
Best thing that came out last night is the Thompson bumper sticker:
Thompson '08: because Giuliani is too hard to spell
-
my vote is for the pair of republicans who win the nomination .. whoever they turn out to be
to even think otherwise is ridiculous
-
"only a sith deals in absolutes anakin." - obe wan kenobi
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I hope I am wrong on this and that I will get to vote for him against whoever is the democrat running.
I do not like rudy's stance on gun control... fred's is 100 times better but...
The worst republican in the race is 100 times better than the best democrat so far as firearms rights go.
lazs
I side with you when it comes to individual gun ownership.
But being here in Jersey Im quite familiour with Rudy as we get force fed all the New York crap. Actually I get all the crap from both NYC and Philly. Sometimes I feel like Im stuck in between a "Dumb and Dumber" movie So I am somewhat qualified to give an opinion.
Rudy did great things in NYC no doubt. He took it from what can best be discribed as a cesspool and cleaned it up to where if I liked NYC (which I dont) I might actually go there.
But when it comes to Rudy and guns. Or more specifically Gun ownership.
Rudy is at least as bad as even a mid (neither best nor worst) Democrat.
He'll try to take your guns man.
I only caught the last couple of minutes of the debate last night.And the interview he gave on class clown "A" Shawn Hannity and his equally moronic co host Colms .So I cant comment on the entire thing.
But it seems Rudy is going ot run on what he did in NYC, Many years ago.
While I liked him when it first became apparent he was going ot run. I have since soured on him.
What he did in NYC worked great in NYC.
But NYC is NYC.
NYC is not the nation.
It wont work nation wide
-
Thompson / Tancredo
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh... my other take on fred is that... of all the republican candidates...
He would be the one that democrats would be eager to have an excuse to vote for.... There is probly a huge segment of the democrat voter block who would love any excuse to not vote for hillary.
I mean.... hell... old fred is downhome and... an actor!
lazs
That statement may very well be true.
I read an article recently that stated that ALOT of democrats and more importantly democratic candidates up for election/re election in their respective offices secretly dont like Hillary but are afraid to say so publically because they fear "Clinton retribution".
They are afraid she is so polarizing a candidate that she will bring people out to the polls who normally wouldnt vote (ala Bush 04 election)
Just to vote against her and the party. Thus hurting their chances.
-
Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson/Newt Gingrich
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson/Newt Gingrich
i'm all for hunter thompson!
:cool:
-
Originally posted by JB88
i'm all for hunter thompson!
:cool:
He's just a little bit DEAD. I tried to read his stuff, I just got annoyed, and got a headache. The guy was a nutcake.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Thompson / Tancredo
hmm posibilities here...
the ti tt y ticket.
or T T ticket...
Mr. T's Ticket
-
I don't get it, there is only one candidate that has demonstrated his belief in the US Constitution. There is only one candidate that wants to give you your freedom back and reduce the amount of government in your lives.
What the hell is the debate here?
-
If you mean Ron Paul, he fails the test in several areas. And by the way, they haven't been successful in taking MY freedom away. They've been successful in taxing me silly, and wasting the money on crap I do not agree with. But I haven't had my freedom restricted.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If you mean Ron Paul, he fails the test in several areas. And by the way, they haven't been successful in taking MY freedom away. They've been successful in taxing me silly, and wasting the money on crap I do not agree with. But I haven't had my freedom restricted.
...
Liquids - Airplane.
-
Wait lol, are you suggesting that the banning of taking liquids onto an airplane during a period when it was a potential threat was somehow taking away your freedom?
Ok, I'll bite, My freedom to fly with protections in place trumps their freedom to blow me up.
K?
You are not free to yell Fire in a crowded movie theater.
You are not free to run red lights and create chaos in a controlled environment.
You are, still, free to chose your lifestyle, your career, your state you live in. You are still free to critique your government and more importantly, if you don't like it you can run for office and change it.
People have a twisted expectation of Freedom.
Did I misunderstand your Liquids-Airplane analogy?
-
I think Mitt Romney stood out favorably in the debates last night. I'm really hoping Giuliani doesn't win the nomination.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Maybe you want to tell more of the story, not just one little bit?
Fred Thompson quotes and votes:
So he was for it before he was against it.
Where have I heard that before???
Is he a flip-flopper?
-
I thought last election was between the two worst candidates in my lifetime. Looking at next years crop of vegetable heads is even more depressing. Except for the smart one, Ron Paul, looking at the rest of them in both parties is like one of those times you're playing gin, and you get a hand so bad that no matter how you shuffle it up and change it around... it's a crap hand. You're going to lose.
-
When Gulianini told a reporter he'd "Get his wife's input on important decisions" as President, I had flashbacks of the HillaryCare crap from the 90s. No...no...no. We elect YOU, not your wife!
Since then, Rudy has been out for me.
I like Fred, I like his candid way of discussing the issues at hand without a bunch of kooky soundbites. His demeanor reminds me a lot of VP Cheney. His interviews come across as very well versed, thought out and explains his views eloquently.
As for a VP for Fred should he make it that far, I'm still on the fence. Romney hasn't turned me off while McCain did years ago. The "Maverick" showed he had no alligence. To his supporters, party and so forth.
The Dems continue to make light of the real world security threats that are out there. None of their "head in the sand" approaches make any sense.
-
Too bad Ron Paul has a snowball's chance. He's definitely the smartest guy in the room.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
...
Liquids - Airplane.
YOU, living in the land of highly regulated government provided socialist health care as well as severely restricted and heavily regulated private firearm ownership propose to lecture ME on freedom and liberty?
Spare me, you are in no position to offer such a lecture. I choose my own doctor, my own insurance, and most everything else to do with my health care. I keep a closet full of firearms, and carry one everywhere but bars and schools. I travel at will, I hunt and fish at will, I play with my "toys" (AKA firearms, race cars, hot rods, boats) pretty much as I please. I can fly pretty much any where I want (I have no desire to go to Cuba, or places like it). The police don't even pay me any attention, never mind bother me. No, you have zero credibility and standing to lecture me on freedom. Go play in your nanny state.
-
If ron paul got up to where I had a chance to vote for him instead of a democrat... of course I would. He has a few ideas that are a little spacey some not well thought out brainiac libertarian stuff but.. over all.. he would be good for the country... maybe slow the tide of taxes and socialism as much as LBJ increased it...
He won't be in the running tho.
Dred... I don't like rudy at all. He only looks good when you put him up against a democrat... it is more like the last election.. with him and hillary, I am faced with a horrible choice or with cutting mine and my kids throats. I will hold my nose and vote for rudy.
On gun control... the worst republican will always be better than the best democrat when it comes to pres and gun control. The pres either takes or gives the democrat menopausal old ladies the courage to ram gun control down our childlike throats (for our own good)...
The democrat party line is... more socialism and more gun control... no matter what the candidate says... that will be his guiding light...he will always go along with that party line when the chips are down... they may let him appear to be a maverick if they already have the votes needed but....
Look at who introduces the gun control stuff... It is 99% menopausal sewing circle democrats.
No matter what rudy thinks personally.. he won't sign bills on gun control unless it is a landslide... it is political suicide for a republican pres... instant loss of 10 million or so votes. vetoing anti second amendment stuff causes no loss of votes. You never had those aholes anyway.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
YOU, living in the land of highly regulated government provided socialist health care as well as severely restricted and heavily regulated private firearm ownership propose to lecture ME on freedom and liberty?
Spare me, you are in no position to offer such a lecture. I choose my own doctor, my own insurance, and most everything else to do with my health care. I keep a closet full of firearms, and carry one everywhere but bars and schools. I travel at will, I hunt and fish at will, I play with my "toys" (AKA firearms, race cars, hot rods, boats) pretty much as I please. I can fly pretty much any where I want (I have no desire to go to Cuba, or places like it). The police don't even pay me any attention, never mind bother me. No, you have zero credibility and standing to lecture me on freedom. Go play in your nanny state.
lols, I refute your point so you freak out and go for the inductive fallacy and personal attack, nice.
:)
Just because I live in Canada doesn't mean I am a socialist. Just like you living in American obviously doesn't mean you care about your freedoms.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
lols, I refute your point so you freak out and go for the inductive fallacy and personal attack, nice.
:)
Just because I live in Canada doesn't mean I am a socialist. Just like you living in American obviously doesn't mean you care about your freedoms.
Freak out? Hardly. I just get tired of people like you who live in socialist nanny states preaching to me about freedom. You are worthy of neither "freaking out" nor anger. Nor are you worthy of a "personal attack". I not only exercise my freedoms, but I guard them carefully.
-
:aok Awesome response to Thr-yawn
-
From what I read it seems that McCain and Guiliani are the top two contenders for the nomination but I think that will change with Thompson and Romney being the top two. Not sure how I feel about Thompson but I'd feel better about voting for Romney than I did for Bush.
-
I will feel a lot better voting for romney or fred that I would about voting for rudy... I do not trust anyone from new york city.
The crop of democrats is hopeless tho... worse than last time and the time before if that is possible. They have given up all pretense and are letting their liberal socialist light shine.
I think a lot of democrats would be relieved that they didn't have to vote for hillary or osamabama if fred or romney were the the republicans in the race... I think that rudy is just too new york for anyone. he would be easy to hate.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dago
No way should anyone vote for Guilliani.
It might be worth remembering that when he was mayor of New York, he advocated licensing for gun owners, avidly supported federal gun control measures such as the Brady Law and the "assault weapon" ban, blamed lax gun laws in other states for violent crime in New York City, and participated in litigation that aimed to impose national restrictions on the gun industry.
Guilliani is no friend of the honest law abing gun owner.
BTW, Lazs, is Kalifornia really getting ready to ban lead bullets?
I'd much rather the GOP lose the presidency than have yet another conservative pretender further dismantle Reagan's principles---Not sure what Bush is, but he isn't a conservative, nor was his father, nor is Rudy....even McCain voted AGAINST the Bush tax-cut budget a few years ago....Romney seems a stuffed shirt to me. Quite like Duncan Hunter, but he has no national recognition. $#$$^ Rudy would destroy any semblance of what Reagan started. We would have a choice of Liberal Hillary, or slightly-right-of-liberal-Rudy.....Thompson SEEMS like a good candidate, but Bush seemed that way as well.....sigh
-
I'm still hoping Duncan Hunter can pull it through.
-
by... how would losing and getting the worst possible leader help us?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
by... how would losing and getting the worst possible leader help us?
lazs
Just like with alcoholism, sometimes you need to hit rock bottom before you wake up and begin to heal.
or so goes the theory.
-
Ron Paul even though a little eccentric and aloof in a weird kind of way. I feel he has the country's best interest's at heart. Fred Thompson??? Please. Giulliani ahh........NO. Romney......Whatever dude? Mc cain Great Patriot but a hot head, he would push the button faster then Giulliani. "They said what"? "Nuke em"! It will be interesting to see how these independent straw polls shake out. Primaries are coming I will be registering Republican. I also feel that this is our last oppertunity to save this country from a socialist future!
!
-
I think Rudy has proven himself already to be a good leader whether you consider him a in-the-closet socialist or a crook. Even if you disregard what he went through during 9/11, his record alone in New York is impressive and speaks for itself. Not one canidate currently running Democrat or Republican can claim such success while in polical office.
-
Regarding illegal immigration the candidates seemed to range from Giuliani welcoming them to Tancredo ready to kick them all out. I was surprised to hear Romney speak the obvious truth that the only real way to end the massive illegal immigration problem is to attack the magnet that draws them, employment. I had to do a double take to make sure it wasn't our own lazs up there. ;)
-
Originally posted by soda72
I think Rudy has proven himself already to be a good leader whether you consider him a in-the-closet socialist or a crook. Even if you disregard what he went through during 9/11, his record alone in New York is impressive and speaks for itself. Not one canidate currently running Democrat or Republican can claim such success while in polical office.
The question is, whether the majority of Repubs will agree with his view on illegal immigration. Something tells me he'll be changing his stance once he realizes that he can't win the 'minutemen lovers' with a position on illegal immigration like this....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_immigration
Giuliani has too many positions contrary to the hyperbolic and jingoistic mantra of the 'conseritive family values' voter. IMO.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
attack the magnet that draws them, employment.
:O
-
Originally posted by moot
:O
You know what I mean. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Giuliani has too many positions contrary to the hyperbolic and jingoistic mantra of the 'conseritive family values' voter. IMO.
flatbar like sheriff bart.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Freak out? Hardly. I just get tired of people like you who live in socialist nanny states preaching to me about freedom. You are worthy of neither "freaking out" nor anger. Nor are you worthy of a "personal attack". I not only exercise my freedoms, but I guard them carefully.
Just because you exercise some freedoms, doesn't mean you aren' t losing and have lost others. And if you guard some, you are still losing and have lost others. There is only one candidate that has demonstrated and who's main platform is to give you those rights back. He's the only guy with whom you have a chance of getting them back. If freedom is so paramount to you, then what is the decision here?
-
Cut down the immigration problem at its source? What about profits, lost fraudulent votes and healthcare burdens? :eek:
The illegal portion of the population is a vital part of the country and cannot be done without! :noid
-
Originally posted by moot
Cut down the immigration problem at its source? :eek:
Well, we don't want to attack "employment" in general which I thought you were mocking me on. We can stop illegal immigration by preventing illegal aliens from gaining employment in this country. Many of them would probably even then go home.
Ah, the sarcasm missed it's target, or at least I was too slow to catch it. ;)
-
Illegal Immigration............
No problem we annex Mexico. Tax all service related industries an Annex tax. Pay all native born Americans An annex dividend annually, and the remainder pays off the Federal Reserve and then we kick them out.
Hello Ron Paul are you listening??:rofl
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Just because you exercise some freedoms, doesn't mean you aren' t losing and have lost others. And if you guard some, you are still losing and have lost others. There is only one candidate that has demonstrated and who's main platform is to give you those rights back. He's the only guy with whom you have a chance of getting them back. If freedom is so paramount to you, then what is the decision here?
No he's the only guy YOU think is capable. The first problem is he's loony enough he won't get elected.
-
holden.. no thanks on the alcoholism and rock bottom thing... been there and it is to be avoided if possible.... I don't know how long it would take to fix the constitution back even to where it is now if hillary ran things say.
arresting the employers will work... it won't put a burden on the economy at all unless you really do like inferior jobs that take twice to 5 times the labor just to screw em up. Houses won't cost any more.... I know white landscapers who can mow your lawns for the same price in half the time and know what plants are and don't charge much more.
I think republicans like rudy like democrats like hillary... it is VERY conditional... meaning... they think that hillary and rudy are the only people capable of defeating each other at this point.. everyone would hold their nose to vote for either of em..
The republicans are better off than the dems tho.... romney and fred are both attractive candidates that either party can vote for instead of hillary or osamabama.
Fred is the best bet. folksy and... and... he is an actor!!! AN ARTIST!!! If he was running against hillary you would almost be able to hear the sigh of relief from the democrats who will vote for him.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Fred is the best bet. folksy and... and... he is an actor!!! AN ARTIST!!! If he was running against hillary you would almost be able to hear the sigh of relief from the democrats who will vote for him.
lazs
And a sigh of relief from the republicans that don't have to vote for Giuliani.
-
Fred's big advantage is that he comes off as a common-sense kinda guy - which I think is really the thing that Americans are looking for at the moment. All the debate over the more idiotic provisions of the immigration bill gave a lot of people a reminder of the truly perverse nature of washington politics, and I think they'll still remember this come election day.
I have to admit I'm in the "anybody but Hillary" category. Fortunately, there are a lot of Democrats there too, and I don't think she has the nomination quite yet. Hopefully the Democrats will come to their senses before they select someone as corrupt as Hillary to be their nominee. Edwards isn't much better, and while I disagree with practically every policy position Obama has, I figure he has the most integrity of the 3.
Fred might get my vote, but he's going to have to earn it. I'm done giving the Republican party the "benefit of the doubt".
-
You'd vote Obama despite disagreeing with every one of his policies and solely because of his integrity? You don't think Paul has as much integrity as him nor any better policies?
-
Yep... old fred would be a huge relief for republicans and democrats... republicans wouldn't have to hold their nose and vote for rudy the stinker from new york and democrats wouldn't have to hold their nose and vote for hillary the stinker pretending to be from new york...
does anything good ever come from that city?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yep... old fred would be a huge relief for republicans and democrats... republicans wouldn't have to hold their nose and vote for rudy the stinker from new york and democrats wouldn't have to hold their nose and vote for hillary the stinker pretending to be from new york...
does anything good ever come from that city?
lazs
venture capital and really hot babes
-
Do they have that horrible accent?
lazs
-
not if you stuff their mouths with something.
-
Originally posted by moot
You'd vote Obama despite disagreeing with every one of his policies and solely because of his integrity? You don't think Paul has as much integrity as him nor any better policies?
Lets face the fact that Ron Paul has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as I do.
I'm not saying I'd vote Obama - I'm just saying he's the least objectionable of the 3 (to me anyway). All I'm hoping from the Dems is that they have enough sense to not put up a candidate who is demonstrably corrupt (Hillary), because I don't think the country can stand another round of Clinton scandals. On the other hand, nobody in my lifetime did more damage to the Democratic party than Bill Clinton, so maybe I should register as a Dem and start campaigning for Hillary...
EagleDNY
Vote HILLARY - because they didn't sell enough pardons the first time round...
Hillary '08 - Interns for Bill '09!
Hillary For President - because China needs more missile technology...
Hillary 2008 - she'll make China pay (in cash, small denominations only)