| Eviltwin 22.01.2007 11:09 |
Ah yeah! Let's get it on! link |
| Ale Solan 22.01.2007 11:12 |
Yeah, that made my day. Fucking hilarious. PS: No mail yet & you have email. :* |
| Serry... 22.01.2007 11:16 |
Oh no... |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 11:17 |
Ugh...................... We have had a Bush or a Clinton in power in the US since 1981....................... Enough is enough. Vote for somebody else, anybody else. 28 years of rule from the same two families? No thanks. Personally, I don't even see Hillary making it out of the Dem primaries. I think that the next Pres is someone that as of now is completely off the radar. Again, how can the people clamoring for change in this country, to a man or woman, in good faith vote for someone who has been part of the problem? |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.01.2007 11:20 |
Anything's better than one of Bush's background guys. Having said that, I don't think the democrats could do much worse than Hillary C. |
| Ale Solan 22.01.2007 11:24 |
Serry... wrote: Oh no...Oh yes. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 11:25 |
The next Pres, if a Republican, will have to be completely removed from Bush. Hillary stands no chance, but has deep pockets, and you can never count out the back room dealings of the Clintons. Obama has entirely too much baggage to make it thru the primaries. Rudy would be interesting, but his personal life will give the media far too big a target for him to really be viable. Gingrich has great ideas, but he was blackballed by the media in 1998, so he isn't viable either. If people think that Bush is controversial, just wait and see what happens if Hillary is indeed on the ticket. I don't think, though, that the Dems are that silly. She is probably the only candidate on that side to guarantee a Republican victory in '08. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.01.2007 11:29 |
Why do you think Rupert Murdoch is paying for her campaign? It's not 'cause he's switched sides, that's for sure!!! |
| Gratzi 22.01.2007 11:32 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Anything's better than one of Bush's background guys.Couldn't agree more. But still, are the Democrates willing to risk like that??? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 11:35 |
I think, even though I would prefer the Republicans to win in '08, that Hillary running on the Dem side would be very very bad for our country. We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get. Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period. The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle? |
| Mr.Jingles 22.01.2007 12:07 |
If Hillary runs against John McCain, I'm most likely to vote for him instead of her despite the fact that I tend to vote Democrat. Hillary is IMO too partisan and I frankly was absolutely dissapointed of her support Israel during the Lebanon conflict last year when both sides were targetting innocent civilians. I think it's pathetic that people pick who to vote for without watching a fuckin' debate. It really opens your mind to the choice you will be making to ensure what candidates you consider capable of running your country instead of saying... "I'll vote for this candidate because he/she seems nicer". It makes me sick when Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Barack Obama on the simple and sole fact that he's black (C'mon, we all know it's true). Obama is more than welcome to the presidential race but people need to compare the different proposals of the candidates and not only make picks based on image like a naive teenage girl who follows the mainstream on everything. |
| PieterMC 22.01.2007 12:11 |
Jingles for President 2008 |
| Mr.Jingles 22.01.2007 12:38 |
PieterMC wrote: Jingles for President 2008Erin for VicePrez, and you Pieter... Would you mind being the first lady? |
| sparrow 21754 22.01.2007 12:44 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Ugh...................... We have had a Bush or a Clinton in power in the US since 1981....................... Enough is enough. Vote for somebody else, anybody else. 28 years of rule from the same two families? No thanks. Personally, I don't even see Hillary making it out of the Dem primaries. I think that the next Pres is someone that as of now is completely off the radar. Again, how can the people clamoring for change in this country, to a man or woman, in good faith vote for someone who has been part of the problem?when bush was elected the first time i said the same thing. people my age have only known a bush or clinton power.... honestly at this point i dont care as long as someone gets rid of bush in the near future. he has ruined our country. that obama guy seems pretty cool (i said OBAMA not osama XD) |
| PieterMC 22.01.2007 12:46 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Would you mind being the first lady?:-P |
| user name 22.01.2007 12:46 |
While I may not agree with him on several issues, I believe that should Senator McCain be elected in 2008, it would be very good for America. Edit: I guess Jingles beat me to the McCain suggestion. But still, discuss. |
| sparrow 21754 22.01.2007 12:57 |
giuliani (sp?) would be good too i think. he cleaned up NYC... |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 13:12 |
I was a McCain backer in '00.......things would be far better now, I believe, had he won the nomination instead of Bush. Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator. What cogent argument can anyone make to say things would have turned out any better under either of those two failed politicians? Needless to say, while McCain is a good man, and would make a good president IMO, he will be what, 74 or 75 when '08 rolls around? Methinks it is time for some new blood. We do not know, though, enough about the Obama's and his ilk yet to make a decision, do we? |
| Eviltwin 22.01.2007 13:28 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I was a McCain backer in '00.......things would be far better now, I believe, had he won the nomination instead of Bush. Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator. What cogent argument can anyone make to say things would have turned out any better under either of those two failed politicians? Needless to say, while McCain is a good man, and would make a good president IMO, he will be what, 74 or 75 when '08 rolls around? Methinks it is time for some new blood. We do not know, though, enough about the Obama's and his ilk yet to make a decision, do we?Any suggestions? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 13:37 |
Not yet..... In todays political climate, who in their right mind would even WANT to run? If you'r enot getting blasted by the media, you're getting blasted by your opponents. It will be fun, though, I must admit, to watch the scramble on the Democratic side. It's gonna be a bloody mess. Hillary, like Ricky Bobby, plays for keeps..... link |
| Mr.Jingles 22.01.2007 14:33 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.Gore failed at what aside from saying that he invented the internet? By miles Gore is a better choice than someone like Gingrich. Kerry on the other hand failed miserably when he gave the re-election to Bush after voting for the war in Iraq and then being against it. |
| deleted user 22.01.2007 14:37 |
BUSH FOR PRESIDENT!! I mean Reggie. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 14:52 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Gore had 8 years in office as VP to run off of, as well as 8 years as Senator in Tennesee, and 8 years in the House of Representatives.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.Gore failed at what aside from saying that he invented the internet? By miles Gore is a better choice than someone like Gingrich. Kerry on the other hand failed miserably when he gave the re-election to Bush after voting for the war in Iraq and then being against it. All of that, and he could not even convince the people of Tennessee to vote for him for President. John Kerry's problems run far deeper than that flip flop. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.01.2007 14:53 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I think, even though I would prefer the Republicans to win in '08, that Hillary running on the Dem side would be very very bad for our country. We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get. Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period. The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle?R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. He's making his campaigning for the R. side cheaper. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 15:01 |
Jingles, Regarding Newt, read up on what he is doing now. He makes a lot of sense on a lot of topics, especially Health Care. link Everyone won't agree, but he does make sense. I just don't see how, with the tar and feather job he got at the end of his speakership, that he could withstand the media for the '08 cycle. |
| Eviltwin 22.01.2007 15:04 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:American women aren't.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I think, even though I would prefer the Republicans to win in '08, that Hillary running on the Dem side would be very very bad for our country. We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get. Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period. The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle?R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. ; ) |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.01.2007 15:08 |
<font color=red>?Sasha wrote:They allow you to vote? Wow. The second progressive move the US government made since the Civil War. It's almost starting to look like a trend.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:American women aren't. ;)Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I think, even though I would prefer the Republicans to win in '08, that Hillary running on the Dem side would be very very bad for our country. We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get. Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period. The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle?R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. |
| user name 22.01.2007 16:00 |
Like I said before, I don't really think issues should be a dominant part of the next presidency. Someone like McCain could easily unite both parties, which I think is the main problem of the present. Right now, the differences between the two parties are minimal at best, but you could never tell. |
| Mr.Jingles 22.01.2007 16:05 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Jingles, Regarding Newt, read up on what he is doing now. He makes a lot of sense on a lot of topics, especially Health Care. linkAfter misusing tax exemptions for political purposes there's not much hope for any politician. Aside from that, the constant anti-gay and sexist remarks through his political career and the constant displays of public hypocrisy for claiming to be a man of morals when he's clearly not, show that Newt is one of the least qualified politicians to run the country. Chances are that since the late 90s the man has changed, but it will be definitely hard to gain his trust. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 16:29 |
Which is why he would have a tough time even winning the nomination. That said, his ideas are definately worth a look. |
| Maz 22.01.2007 16:35 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: That said, his ideas are definately worth a look.Until you see his discussion about "Patriotic Education." link "The traditional notion of our country as a union of one people, American peoples, has been assaulted with multicultural, situation ethics, and values neutral model where Western values and American civilization are ignored, minimized or ridiculed." Apparently, being multi-cultural is a bad thing according to Newt. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 16:44 |
That is not at all what he is saying.... It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces. Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.01.2007 16:45 |
You are playing Goebbels again...poorly The guy is not on about illegal immigrants. The guy is having a go at everything that is not WASP. And not in a subtle way either. |
| 7 seas of Rhye 22.01.2007 16:48 |
Right now it looks like the democrats who will run are Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. I wouldn't mind having anyone of them as president. I'm just happy that Bush will finally be out of office. |
| Mr.Jingles 22.01.2007 16:58 |
Thank God Newt is not a Democrat Otherwise we'd have a long post about what an awful human being Newt Ginrich is. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 17:17 |
I said, quite clearly, that SOME of his ideas are great. Some, not so much. So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical. I do, though, agree with the premise of the entire little article that whats his chuck posted. Take what you want from it, depending on your personal beliefs. He seems to spell his thoughts out quite clearly in the first three paragraphs. "We should not worry about people who want to come to the United States to work hard, pay taxes, obey the law, and become Americans. In fact, we should be delighted to have new Americans join our country because historically they have been the source of enormous talent, energy, and courage. From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew Carnegie to Albert Einstein to Henry Kissinger to Arnold Schwarzenegger, people who wanted to improve their lives, and in the process improve the country, have enriched America. Nor should we be concerned that a substantial number of new Americans are Hispanic. America has a long history of absorbing and blending people of many languages and backgrounds. There have always been non-English newspapers in America and now we have non-English radio and television. I am also not worried that some immigrants come here only to earn money and then go home (Italian immigrants, in particular, did that in the past). What should worry us is the breakdown of will on the part of America to control the borders and to ensure that new immigrants learn to be American. What should worry us is a breakdown of will to protect America’s unique civilization." If Newt was a Democrat, and his ideas were the same, I'd agree just as much...... |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 17:25 |
But, leave it to old numb-nuts to turn a civilized discussion into calling someone a Nazi propaganda minister, for simply posting a fella's ideas, and asking for opinions on it. We would expect nothing less, now would we? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 22.01.2007 17:28 |
As I said before, the party has already started between Obama and Clinton... link This will be fun to watch! |
| Sherwood Forest 22.01.2007 17:40 |
sasha your a joke if your serious |
| Maz 22.01.2007 19:04 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I do, though, agree with the premise of the entire little article that whats his chuck posted.I am going to assume you were not referring to me, Haystacks, as "whats his chuck." I did not attack you at all, much less with any Nazi remark, so please don't lump me in with TQ. Don't blame me for lowering the debate and being "typical, typical, typical," especially when I did not throw the opening salvo. As for my comment, it was directed at Newt's discussion on education, not illegal immigration which you mention. "Unless we act to change things, our next generation will grow up with no understanding of core American values. This will destroy America, as we know it, as surely as if a foreign conqueror had overwhelmed us." This has little to do with illegal immigration, and everything to do with those educators who do not white-wash American history. According to Newt, too many educators teach "some radical reinterpretation or bias that distorts America and defames our society." |
| magicalfreddiemercury 22.01.2007 19:07 |
<font color=red>?Sasha wrote:I wish I could agree with you Sasha.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president.American women aren't. ; ) I'm afraid too many American women still feel a woman's place is in the home... so they won't vote for her. Too many others say a woman with the balls to run for President of the US should have had the balls to kick her husband to the curb when he cheated on her... so they won't vote for her. Then there are those who can't think for themselves. They won't do anything until they gauge what others are doing, so who knows whether they'll vote for her. And finally, there's the minority - about whom you're speaking - who has already donated to Ms. Clinton's campaign. Considering Bush was elected not once but twice, and that 30-odd percent of the population still gives him the thumbs-up, I'd say it's impossible to guess who - or what - we'll have as our next president. Let's just hope it's someone who can undo at least some damage this administration has caused. |
| Eviltwin 22.01.2007 20:27 |
Sherwood Forest wrote: sasha your a joke if your seriousThat would be...Sasha, you're a joke if you're serious. Please elaborate. |
| Smitty 22.01.2007 22:11 |
About Hillary, I don't think she'd be the ideal choice for office because I feel that a President should have prior military experience since they are the Commander in Chief of one of the largest, and most powerful armies in the world. Just throwing that out there. |
| Maz 22.01.2007 23:35 |
<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: About Hillary, I don't think she'd be the ideal choice for office because I feel that a President should have prior military experience since they are the Commander in Chief of one of the largest, and most powerful armies in the world.link Of that average ranking of the top 10 presidents in various scholarly assements of presidential rankings: -3 were military generals -3 were members of the military for a very short period of time (Lincoln, for instance, was only in a militia for a couple months and saw no combat) -4 had no military experience at all until they became President and Commander in Chief It should also be noted that Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the two presidents during the First and Second World Wars and members of the top 10, were never in the military. Thus, I would argue that military experience is not a necessity to becoming a great president, much less an average president. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.01.2007 06:08 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: That is not at all what he is saying.... It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces. Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone. Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I said, quite clearly, that SOME of his ideas are great. Some, not so much. So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical.So basically, you are first defending him, then, when you see that you have lost that, you accuse us of attacking you over something you *haven't said*, because you only agree with *some of his ideas* as being good? Now that's the lowest of all low tricks in the book, switching positions mid-argument. |
| Sherwood Forest 23.01.2007 06:37 |
<font color=red>?Sasha wrote:no im pretty sure its sashaSherwood Forest wrote: sasha your a joke if your seriousThat would be...Sasha, you're a joke if you're serious. Please elaborate. and im dead serious |
| Eviltwin 23.01.2007 07:14 |
Sherwood Forest wrote:That's what I thought.<font color=red>?Sasha wrote:no im pretty sure its sasha and im dead seriousSherwood Forest wrote: sasha your a joke if your seriousThat would be...Sasha, you're a joke if you're serious. Please elaborate. |
| The Fairy King 23.01.2007 07:15 |
I'd say Sasha for president! And Poppy for Vice President! America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~ |
| Eviltwin 23.01.2007 07:17 |
<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: I'd say Sasha for president! And Poppy for Vice President! America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~United Hooters of America? |
| iGSM 23.01.2007 07:59 |
Pardon for my ignorance of American politics but wasn't there an African-American chap who was a candidate for Presidency? I can't recall his name but I'm hoping for someone to enlighten me. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 23.01.2007 08:26 |
<font color=red>?Sasha wrote:LMAO! :D<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: I'd say Sasha for president! And Poppy for Vice President! America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~United Hooters of America? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 23.01.2007 08:36 |
iGSM wrote: Pardon for my ignorance of American politics but wasn't there an African-American chap who was a candidate for Presidency? I can't recall his name but I'm hoping for someone to enlighten me.Rigth you are. Barack Obama. link |
| The Fairy King 23.01.2007 08:50 |
<font color=red>?Sasha wrote:Yes ma'am!<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: I'd say Sasha for president! And Poppy for Vice President! America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~United Hooters of America? |
| iGSM 23.01.2007 09:12 |
Thank you kindly. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 23.01.2007 09:23 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:You are hopeless. I see that you also whitewash over your Nazi accusation.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: That is not at all what he is saying.... It all has to do with the vast illegal immigrant problem that America faces. Coming here legally is a wonderful thing. Coming here illigally is not. Not for the person, not for the American people, not for anyone.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I said, quite clearly, that SOME of his ideas are great. Some, not so much. So, I get attacked again? Typical, typical, typical.So basically, you are first defending him, then, when you see that you have lost that, you accuse us of attacking you over something you *haven't said*, because you only agree with *some of his ideas* as being good? Now that's the lowest of all low tricks in the book, switching positions mid-argument. You have problems. What have I lost? Nothing. I said that I agree with the premise of the posted statement, did I not? There are other ideas of his that I do NOT agree with, but, let me ask you, do you agree lockstep with EVERYTHING that people say or think? And, yes, you are the one here who constantly refers to name calling. This is at least half a dozen times that you have referred to me as a Nazi. Why? Because I don't agree with your ultra-liberalism? With the education part that Zeni brought up, I would agree in part, but not totally. American history, depending on the political persuasion of the educator, can indeed be taught with a skewed revisionism, but I don't know if that is really a big issue. And, no, Zeni, I was not referring to you before. |
| The Fairy King 23.01.2007 09:28 |
Children. -.-' |
| Maz 23.01.2007 09:53 |
Fair enough, Haystacks. My apologies, but it was unclear to me; thus, the testy response. As for education, Newt seems to think it's a pretty important issue, at least in his rhetoric and from his stance as a former history professor. My concern, however, is twofold: first, that kind of education that he wants tends to ignore the plight and contributions of minorities; and second, how does that mentality influence his other ideas. I've encountered students who think that way before. If you do not teach the "America: Fuck Yeah" approach, then you are a bleeding heart liberal one step from being a Red Commie Bastard. Unfortunately, US history is not as pretty as they want it to be. |
| Saif 23.01.2007 10:11 |
Hillary Clinton supports the War on Iraq. So vote wisely if you're against the war and you were rooting for her. I'm not American so I can't tell much about the other candidates but Hillary seems bad. I doubt she'll win...that's why the Republicans are supporting her nomination in a way; to ensure their victory in 2008. I think Barack Obama is a bad choice too. No, he hasn't done anything controversial. But America is, and probably never will be ready for a black president. Sorry, but most Americans are atleast subconsciously racist or would be very picky when it comes to a black candidate...so I have my doubts. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 23.01.2007 10:14 |
You have to have both sides, I think. The plight of minorities in the past in the US is crucial to our history, because if you do not learn from your past mistakes, you're bound to make them again. There is also room for the America first thought as well. I don't think that it does anyone any good to have it all on one side of that argument or the other. In other words, I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. This same thing holds true today, all across the world. Minorities have always been persecuted, if you will, look what is happening in places in Africa, look at Iraq, etc. Give the US credit for doing what it has done to give minorities equal footing. The same cannot be said in other places. |
| Saif 23.01.2007 11:31 |
I never said it happens "only in America" and I don't criticize Bush every chance I get. He has done his share of good. He has eliminated racial profiling in the US at all levels among other good deeds. But that doesn't make America ready for a black president. People wouldn't vote for a gay president either. Just like in India, I doubt that a Manipur or Mizoram native could ever front a ruling party...but it isn't true everywhere. Look at the Dutch, the Germans and the Belgians...they're doing very well, having foreign MPs. But that doesn't mean they're ready for an immigrant to assume power over the state. It just shows that they're progressive... |
| Mr.Jingles 23.01.2007 12:04 |
Saif wrote: But America is, and probably never will be ready for a black president.*sigh* How come things can't be like they are in '24'. |
| The Real Wizard 23.01.2007 12:21 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: I think it's pathetic that people pick who to vote for without watching a fuckin' debate. It really opens your mind to the choice you will be making to ensure what candidates you consider capable of running your country instead of saying... "I'll vote for this candidate because he/she seems nicer".Yeah, the majority of people are one-issue voters. The one issue is often "which party are they from again?" <b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: About Hillary, I don't think she'd be the ideal choice for office because I feel that a President should have prior military experience since they are the Commander in Chief of one of the largest, and most powerful armies in the world. Just throwing that out there.Or maybe the US could finally learn to stay out of other people's business, and then they wouldn't need to have such a huge army to invade other countries unnecessarily. Soldiers who could actually live past age 20... what an interesting concept. Maybe then the US could work on improving their global reputation. At the moment, the only place where the US has a good global reputation is the US. Well, maybe Britain too. Ever wondered why? |
| Megamike The GREAT 23.01.2007 13:38 |
What we need is a lesbian Muslim for president. ahh.. the joys of being a felon on probation, it means that I cannot vote... but if I were allowed to vote I think I would cast it for Hillary, just to see what a woman in charge of the country would do... So I would have to agree with my fellow Michigander here (Sasha) and say Hillary for pres.. Still, It would be fun to see someone like Clint Eastwood or a former stripper or porn star run for president.. |
| Micrówave 23.01.2007 13:43 |
Well, Megamike, All you'd need is for Hillary to become a Muslim. |
| Megamike The GREAT 23.01.2007 13:53 |
She could do one better and divorce that loser of a husband and marry someone that has balls.. like....Bobcat Goldthwait.. hehee.. or even Jesse Jackson.. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 23.01.2007 16:33 |
I guess Hillary in office would beg the question.... Who would bag more women in the Oval Office, Hillary, or Bill????? |
| carboengine 23.01.2007 21:07 |
Oh, God, almost two more years of presidential talk. Hillary likes to play the blame game - way too partisan. And she is dour, and sour always. Obama seems too slick as in - we all want the same thing, let's all just get along. I am for sure not voting for anyone that says we have to do something about health care because they are all lying because it can't be done. (I wish it could be done!) I heard Hillary say the health care thing yesterday. Perhaps she has forgotten that that's what Bill's first campaign was, in part, based on, and when he was elected, she was the head of it, and it came to nothing. Two years ago John Kerry said we had to do something about health care. Umm, John, how long had you been a U.S. congressman? Why didn't you do something about it for all of those years? The U.S. Treasury which prints our money and spits out our coins has a new program: The First "Spouse" coin series. It's a sign of the times. Years ago it would have been called The First Lady series. |
| Mr.Jingles 23.01.2007 22:20 |
If Hilary was elected president, would that make Bill First Pimp? After all, Monica was the official U.S. First Mistress. |
| deleted user 23.01.2007 22:53 |
Bill Richardson 08 nuff said too bad Brian May wasn't born in the US. |
| YourValentine 24.01.2007 03:10 |
Whoever wins will be able to express some thoughts in a language that makes sense and we will look into eyes which display some sort of intelligence. Thanks to whoever invented the "two terms" rule. If the world is lucky the new president will respect international law, lead the USA back into the community of civilized nations and put an end to the illegal occupation of other countries, Guantanamo Bay, kidnapping of citizens of other countries and other severe violations of international law. If the world is very lucky the new President will sign the Kyoto protocol and stop the nation using up one forth of the world's energy resources with no mercy for the rest of the world and the future of this planet. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.01.2007 08:21 |
Leave it to the upcoming Dutch government to turn back the clock 50 years. A cabinet of Christian Democrats (who are currently further to the right than they have *ever* been), Orthodox Christians and vote-horny populists who refer themselves as 'labour' but are basically the "we-agree-with-whatever-will-land-us-the-most-votes"-party, is in the making. Netherlands, I pity thee. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 24.01.2007 09:41 |
Kyoto? Lets read up on the US' position, again, another topic that the Clinton and Bush administrations agree on. There are way too many things totally wrong with it. The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol. The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.[43] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty: "This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere." Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.[citation needed] At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countri |
| Sherwood Forest 24.01.2007 18:12 |
<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: I'd say Sasha for president! And Poppy for Vice President! America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~man i can see this place hasnt changed theres still such imature remarks that make no sense and are not realistic in the least. i dont think anyone who would support Hilary is fit to be in congress then again i could be wrong because Hilary is already there herself! |
| user name 24.01.2007 18:32 |
Sherwood Forest wrote:I have made two observations:<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: I'd say Sasha for president! And Poppy for Vice President! America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~man i can see this place hasnt changed theres still such imature remarks that make no sense and are not realistic in the least. i dont think anyone who would support Hilary is fit to be in congress then again i could be wrong because Hilary is already there herself! 1) You are not making any sense. 2) You seem to not have much political knowledge, if any at all. 3) You don't back up any of your opinions with fact, reason, or any of those other good things. Now tell us, why is Hillary bad, who would you vote for, and why? |
| blerp 24.01.2007 21:53 |
Obama! Obama! Actually, I don't know. I kind of don't care. And bleh to Chris Dodd! :p |
| Lester Burnham 24.01.2007 21:57 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Music Man, I demand a recount of your observations.Sherwood Forest wrote:I have made two observations: 1) You are not making any sense. 2) You seem to not have much political knowledge, if any at all. 3) You don't back up any of your opinions with fact, reason, or any of those other good things. Now tell us, why is Hillary bad, who would you vote for, and why?<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: I'd say Sasha for president! And Poppy for Vice President! America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~man i can see this place hasnt changed theres still such imature remarks that make no sense and are not realistic in the least. i dont think anyone who would support Hilary is fit to be in congress then again i could be wrong because Hilary is already there herself! |
| john bodega 25.01.2007 01:22 |
"Gee Bill, when you said this job sure could suck a man dry, I didn't have a clue what you meant!" (Bill looks guilty) "Uhh... yeah Hillary." |
| user name 25.01.2007 01:28 |
Dr. Perry Cox wrote:Oops. This is what happens when you edit your posts too many times.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Music Man, I demand a recount of your observations.Sherwood Forest wrote:I have made two observations: 1) You are not making any sense. 2) You seem to not have much political knowledge, if any at all. 3) You don't back up any of your opinions with fact, reason, or any of those other good things. Now tell us, why is Hillary bad, who would you vote for, and why?<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: I'd say Sasha for president! And Poppy for Vice President! America would be a more sophisticated and sexier place. :9~man i can see this place hasnt changed theres still such imature remarks that make no sense and are not realistic in the least. i dont think anyone who would support Hilary is fit to be in congress then again i could be wrong because Hilary is already there herself! |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.01.2007 08:54 |
Megamike The GREAT wrote: What we need is a lesbian Muslim for president.I suggest a black lesbian Jewish communist who worships the devil. |
| Mr.Jingles 25.01.2007 09:05 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:That would give people like Pat Robertson a heart attack, and that's a good thing.Megamike The GREAT wrote: What we need is a lesbian Muslim for president.I suggest a black lesbian Jewish communist who worships the devil. He was fuckin pissed off when the first Muslim congressman was elected. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.01.2007 09:11 |
It'd be nice to see what she'd do for the country :P And it would cause a) the South to secede again b) a massive exodus of Southern Baptists to South America, where they'd get butchered by drug dealers. Either way, 'tis a good thing :P |
| The Real Wizard 25.01.2007 14:42 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Hahaha... I'm sure he was! Is there any clip available of him whining about this? I can always use a good laugh.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I suggest a black lesbian Jewish communist who worships the devil.That would give people like Pat Robertson a heart attack, and that's a good thing. He was fuckin pissed off when the first Muslim congressman was elected. |