Hilary looks
angry, calculating, ruthless, hateful.


Americans are suckers for people with charm.
She hasn't got it.

Agreed. Plus she's got Bubba the moron as her 200-pound albatross. :rolleyes:

Click and scroll down for her most recent picture:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012808/content/Does_Our_Looks-Obsessed_Culture_Want_to_Stare_at_an_Aging_Woman_. guest.html

:eek:

Agreed. Plus she's got Bubba the moron as her 200-pound albatross. :rolleyes:

Click and scroll down for her most recent picture:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012808/content/Does_Our_Looks-Obsessed_Culture_Want_to_Stare_at_an_Aging_Woman_. guest.html

:eek:

yes cause just anyone can be a rhodes scholer

Then why is she winning?

Americans are suckers for people with charm.
She hasn't got it.

OK, so we have a bet on. Since the American people's wish has nothing to do who is going to be the prez....:eek:

This is from a Republican

Obama is the Democrats' Reagan

Obama beat the Clintons like a drum tonight. And then he beat their sorry [deleted] again in this magnificent victory speech. Watch the speech. Really, watch: if this man gets his party's nomination, he's going to be the next president. By a landslide. And he is going to transform this country. If I were a Republican, I'd be very, very afraid. Oh wait, I am a Republican. Dang. Lord have mercy, I wish that man were a conservative. Because there's no doubt in my mind about what he can accomplish for liberalism if he's elected. You've heard of Reagan Democrats? Barack Obama is the Democrats' Reagan.

No kidding, this is a terrific speech. Look, I don't want a man who believes the things Barack Obama believes to be president. But I've got to confess, he makes me proud of my country. When's the last time you heard from a politician that made you proud of your country? Here's the speech -- spend the next 17 minutes watching it. Whatever you think of Obama, you won't regret listening to this oratory. How any Democratic voter could choose Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama is a mystery to me.

I know, I know, it's only a speech. And you don't vote for a candidate solely because he gives a good speech, which is to say, entirely for therapeutic reasons. But if this Obama keeps talking like he does here, he's going to be president.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/01/obama-is-the-democrats-reagan.html#comments

Then why is she winning?

Exactly, she's showing a double digit lead in Florida, as well as leads in CA & NY.

If she carries those three states, she's probably going to pick up enough in some of the other battleground states to secure the nomination.

I was shocked to see her with a double digit lead in the polls in my home state of TN. She's not real popular around here, but then again, neither is her opponent.

"Bubba" is hardly an albatross. Voters, wayward souls that they are, still love Bill.

As for his wife, I've never counted her out of this race — and won't now. She's too adept, her network too large and her ties too expansive to be dismissed by the occasional lost primary.

Obama might indeed be the Democratic Reagan, style over substance. I hope not.

Well, I think Regan had plenty of substance (else why would people love/hate him), but I agree with your general sentiment, Spider. Obama is an empty shirt.

I don't think people liked Reagan because he did anything of substance. He acted like the kind of leader they wanted to see on TV, dignified and seemingly tough on the commies.

Obama might indeed be the Democratic Reagan, style over substance. I hope not. Reagan was fronting for some very substantial interests - and they protected his image for him, in return for access to the executive branch powers for themselves.

The question would not be the emptiness of style, but the substance of what's going to move into the White House behind it.

What worries me is that the bigot vote has nowhere to go, in this Dem primary stuff. The hated Hillary vs some black guy, or Kerry's choice for VP amd his weenie furrowed brow ?

In the election, it will.

I don't think people liked Reagan because he did anything of substance. He acted like the kind of leader they wanted to see on TV, dignified and seemingly tough on the commies.

Given your overt partisanship, forgive me if I take what you wrote with the proverbial grain of salt.

Obama is going to be your next President Americans.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Obama is going to be your next President Americans.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It's can't be any worse then Bush's Presidency. The only way for us to go is up from here.

or down

Come on, you'd have to find someone braindead to do worse than Bush.

I don't follow US politics much, but I think that Hilary would be a fairly conservative (in European eyes), proper president, who says and does all the right things in a politically correct fashion.

Obama's presidency may be more unpredictable and thus more refreshing and interesting.

Come on, you'd have to find someone braindead to do worse than Bush.

I don't follow US politics much, but I think that Hilary would be a fairly conservative (in European eyes), proper president, who says and does all the right things in a politically correct fashion.

Obama's presidency may be more unpredictable and thus more refreshing and interesting.

Both are good candidates from my view i just think that an Obama presidency would be a welcomed change for our country.

I guess Clinton's not winning anymore. I don't think she has a chance, either.

I guess Clinton's not winning anymore. I don't think she has a chance, either.

From her statement at the debate last night I'd say she is thinking about stepping down at least.

Vote Different. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo)

Vote Different. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w&feature=related


You = conned.

Secret confession time: I'm a Conservative. I will not be voting for a Democrat.

On this 22nd Day of February in the Year of Our Lord 2008, it looks like Senator Obama has the Democrat nomination pretty well in the bag. Then again, three months ago all the 'smart guys' were getting ready for a campaign where Senator Clinton and Mayor Giulianni were the prime movers. So much for the obvious.

Senator Obama has the 'momentum' at the moment, but Senator Clinton has (I believe - I really don't care that much about the Democrat race) the advantage in votes for the convention. Still, right now it looks a lot like Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. On the other hand, Senator Clinton is pretty determined, has political smarts, connections and clout. And gobs and gobs of money.

In both the primary and general election, there will be those who will vote for Senator Obama because he's black and those who won't vote for Senator Obama because he's black. There will be those who will vote for Senator Clinton because she's female and those who won't vote for Senator Clinton because she's female. There will be a few Republicans who vote for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama (but not for the other) and a few Democrats who vote against either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama (but not against the other). I have no idea how it will balance out - ask me again in December.

Frankly, the campaign and stress (and years - bunky I sure understand the part about the years) look to be adding up on Senator Clinton's appearance. However, I don't think she's too old or tired to be President. But there are a lot of people who vote on appearance and qualifications or beliefs on key issues are ignored.

I would suggest to you all, however, to keep sight of your own values and goals. Be true to what you see as the best possible future for the United States. And that's not a personality, by the way; that's a set of values and visions for how you want the U. S. to be for the next several years.

If you think Senator Obama would be the best choice for President, do you know why? What about the Senator marks him as the man to be the most powerful political man in the world? Likewise for Senator Clinton; what makes her the person to lead the U. S. and set policy for the next while? What are they going to do - or abstain from doing - that will have a positive effect on the nation and the world?

Look at the issues you feel are the most important to the U. S. for the next five years, ten years, fifty years; who we select as the next President will affect how things go much longer than his or her term in office.

I will vote for the Republican nominee, looks like Senator McCain. Not with a great amount of excitement. but his views on this nation align closer with mine than either Senator Clinton or Obama. I think he will take a closer view of the Constitution, I think he will prosecute the War on Terror in an effort to keep Americans as safe as they are going to get in a time when so many want to kill us. I think he will show fiscal restraint (and that's a relative term these days, by the way) and not foul up the economy by 'fixing' it. I would have preferred someone else, but that's how things go.

Sometimes, life just isn't convenient.

Archie: "If you think Senator Obama would be the best choice for President, do you know why?"

Obama has best articulated the desire for a major change of course: Most USAmericans agree that present leadership has taken us in a completely wrong direction. We're in trouble now. Obama offers the cleanest break available from the dangerous mistakes that we have made.

"What about the Senator marks him as the man to be the most powerful political man in the world?"

That's not what we need. A more humble Presidency will better serve our Republic. The "Unitary Executive", "Signing Statements", secret lobbying, and other abuses of power must be banished for the health of our nation. We need a consensus-builder, not another cowboy.

"Likewise for Senator Clinton; what makes her the person to lead the U. S. and set policy for the next while?"

Clinton is not a voice for change.

"What are they going to do - or abstain from doing - that will have a positive effect on the nation and the world?"

Obama will get us out of Iraq. He will endeavor to de-escalate our ridiculous culture war with Islam. Focus counter-terrorism on the perpetrators, abandoning the scattershot, counterproductive "War on Terror". End deficit spending. Reign in corporate looting of our government. Break our petroleum addiction, and apply our ingenuity to regaining our energy independence. There's so much that can only be done by making a new start, and Barack Obama is not only articulate himself about solutions, he is gathering a much smarter, and less insular team than the present cabinet. Barack has obvious strengths in the very areas where our present President is personally weak.

"I will vote for the Republican nominee, looks like Senator McCain. Not with a great amount of excitement."

I'm sorry for you. Traditional Republican-Democrat dichotomies don't hold true any more. For example, the GOP is no longer the party of small and less intrusive government. There are many new possibilities be excited about. Getting our nation back on track is not a partisan project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w&feature=related


You = conned.

Another comment taking out of context found on Youtube..oh, and thats from Fox too ? Well done. Your source reliability is improving.

Why do people still watch Fox ?

Are all this political threads just wishful thinking on the OP's part ?
Why do you feel the need to share your ideas about who makes a chance and who doesn't.
Who cares !? Let's just wait and see.. alright ? :cool:

Why do people still watch Fox ?

You have got to be kidding me !

http://vettri.net/gallery/celeb/megan_fox/FrancisHillsPS/MeganFox-FrancisHillsPS-Vettri.Net-13.jpg

What, Punky Brewster's on Fox?

No that IS Fox, Megan Fox.. lol
Oh ok, never mind.. want me to delete ?

I guess Clinton's not winning anymore. I don't think she has a chance, either.

Even Bill wouldn't be supporting her if he didn't have to.

I'll give you the scenario, you give the response.

Bill: Honey, I love you. You're my wife.
But Obama is just better than you.

Hillary:.................................

hillary: took you long enough to come out of the closet.

Hilary to me sounds like your mother complaining about the state of your bedroom. Come on Hilary. We are all grown up now. Why shouldn't we have a comic book collection under our beds?

Another Secret confession : I just found out that this doesn't elect the actual president, but rather the leader of each party. WTF ? In australia we have a system, where we elect the senators then they elect their party leaders, who then run for election.

Challanger you got our system wrong, we vote for the house of reps and that decides the goverment. The house of reps is more important than the senate as far as the goverment is concerned

Yes there are leaders of the senate and some ministers are senators but the leader, deputy leader and the tresure (not sure if there are anymore) HAVE to come from the house of reps under law

Admitidly the oposition leader COULD come from the senate but then he could never be PM

Challanger you got our system wrong, we vote for the house of reps and that decides the goverment. The house of reps is more important than the senate as far as the goverment is concerned

Yes there are leaders of the senate and some ministers are senators but the leader, deputy leader and the tresure (not sure if there are anymore) HAVE to come from the house of reps under law

Admitidly the oposition leader COULD come from the senate but then he could never be PM

Ah, yes, we aren't an uni system forgot about that bit.

What I meant is that the party elects the leader of the party.

Perhaps the problem for Hilary is this.

The US has just spent 8 years spending 3 trillion dollars in order to make the world even more screwed up than it was already.

Now the US is facing years of recession, and the arduous task of clearing up after Bush's partying. The biggest oil, arms and construction bash of all time.

If the people go Democrat, they have the choice between a wise old bird who understands the incredible difficulty of the task she has ahead, and a young brilliant optimist.

Hope or Experience?
Your choice America.

I don't know whether the current battle between Obama and Hilary will be destructive to the Democrat Party, but it certainly makes this US pre-election more interesting to bystanders.


Even though behind, Hilary is on the up.
Obama needs to come up with something more than hope now.

Okay, if you think that the Presidential election is a beauty pageant, we are indeed lost. -_-

Anyway, she won Texas and Ohio. Yay!

Okay, if you think that the Presidential election is a beauty pageant, we are indeed lost. -_-

Anyway, she won Texas and Ohio. Yay!

Mmmmhhh.........
Which do you think is prettier?

Clinton's Blueprint for Victory (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/the_blueprint_hillary_rodham_c.html?hpid=topnews)

Clinton's Blueprint for Victory (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/the_blueprint_hillary_rodham_c.html?hpid=topnews)

"It Pays to advertise"
If this 3am theme wins the election, it could be the most influential advert in history.

"It Pays to advertise"
If this 3am theme wins the election, it could be the most influential advert in history.

Americans are the best in advertising next to horse trading....Remember the "Buy American Act". That means buy from anywhere except America.

God know what the Republican strategy is.

They are contending with either the first woman president
or the first black president.
All very commendable, but a potential vote loser either way.

What do they come up with?
The first very very old president.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

God know what the Republican strategy is.

They are contending with either the first woman president
or the first black president.
All very commendable, but a potential vote loser either way.

What do they come up with?
The first very very old president.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

If Mccain becomes president i truly feel there will be riots and war across the world.

If Mccain becomes president i truly feel there will be riots and war across the world.

Nah...just drop a nuclear bomb on his captors...revenge is sweet...

If Mccain becomes president i truly feel there will be riots and war across the world.

There might be in some of the regions of the world populated by the crazies who take to the streets at the drop of a hat, but there wont be anything like that in the U.S. People will get up and go to work like any other Wednesday morning, because that's what we do, here in the real world.

If Mccain becomes president i truly feel there will be riots and war across the world.

Bollox, nothing like that. Besides, who can be possibly worse than Bush?

Whats next?
A dwarf president?

There might be in some of the regions of the world populated by the crazies who take to the streets at the drop of a hat, but there wont be anything like that in the U.S. People will get up and go to work like any other Wednesday morning, because that's what we do, here in the real world.

Nope the Obama mania is part to huge,of course people will go to work,however riots will play on the worlds perception of the countrys flawed politics and that will damage the perception of America to the lowest point.It actually could place the country in danger from terrorist who will further develop a hate,since foreigners tend to despise the U.S conservative rule here more than anything.

Whats next?
A dwarf president?

No, that should be the vice president. You could call him Mini Vice for short.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~finkelsn/pics/mini-me.jpg

http://www.lermanet.com/images/Evil-Hubbard-and-Mini-Me-scavige.jpg

I believe one of the most important virtues of being a human is experience, and this is something Hillary has that Sen. Obama lacks. We don't want a president who just uses simple phrases and good looks to win us over (hence the nickname "Democratic Reagen"). Whe want someone who knows what to in their presidency.

And people, my school is filled with students who almost seemed brainwashed by obama, that is another reason I do not favor him. They seem to have no independent thought on the subject, just because they went to his speech at the Kohls Center. Apparently they don't realize that these speeches only tell you what you want to hear.

You have got to be kidding me !

http://vettri.net/gallery/celeb/megan_fox/FrancisHillsPS/MeganFox-FrancisHillsPS-Vettri.Net-13.jpg

lol :)

Nope the Obama mania is part to huge,of course people will go to work,however riots will play on the worlds perception of the countrys flawed politics and that will damage the perception of America to the lowest point.It actually could place the country in danger from terrorist who will further develop a hate,since foreigners tend to despise the U.S conservative rule here more than anything.

Well, there wont be any riots in the U.S. If there are riots outside of the U.S., riots incited by people who don't even vote, well then that would say a lot more about the particular priorities of those people, than it would anything directly about the U.S.

But to follow your logic for a second: There will be riots if Obama wins because that will damage the perception of America and foreigners hate the U.S. conservatives and apparently, in your mind anyway, Obama is a conservative?

Epic fail.

Well, there wont be any riots in the U.S. If there are riots outside of the U.S., riots incited by people who don't even vote, well then that would say a lot more about the particular priorities of those people, than it would anything directly about the U.S.


There could be riots no matter who wins...due to serious depression in about 3 years. The handwriting is on the wall. This is based on Weak Signal Theory.

There could be riots no matter who wins...due to serious depression in about 3 years. The handwriting is on the wall. This is based on Weak Signal Theory.

Or Peak Oil theory.

Well, there wont be any riots in the U.S. If there are riots outside of the U.S., riots incited by people who don't even vote......


Why don't they make a law that people preparing to riot should have a vote on it first. That would clear up this problem.

Hilary, No Chance.

Now she's been caught fibbing.
What do you think that's done to her chances?

No charm, no problem, you can always go negative. It's OK if people don't like you as long as people are not comfortable voting for your opponent.

Hillary has actually given up on the 2009 Presidential race. What she's doing now is campaigning for John Mccain, hoping that he wins the general election. Why do you ask? So Hillary can run in 2012. So now, her modus operandi is to sabatoge the Democratic ticket to ensure they lose the general. This is also a way for her to punish the Democratic party, for them nominating someone instead of her. It's sad that other voters haven't seen the real motives behind her sinister plan.

We are watching a "Who will blink first?" contest. They don't usually last long.

Obama can win the Democrat race if he doesn't blink.
Hilary can make sure that Obama does not make President if she doesn't blink.

They need to run as President and Vice president to combine the now heavily devided and antagonistic Democrat vote. The number of people who now will not vote for the opposing Democrat of preference, must be making party organisers nervous, and especially now that McCain is stealing Democrat clothes on American foreign Policy.

If Obama does blink, he can be vice President, and go for the top job in 8 years time. (How old is he now? Twelve???). He will also look good sacrificing his opportunity for the good of America, blah de blah.
If Hilary blinks, she's pretty much finished. And there is no chance her running as vp under Obama.
Or am I wrong on this?

My current prediction. Hilary/Obama ticket.
Soon.

We are watching a "Who will blink first?" contest.

Obama can win the Democrat race if he doesn't blink.
Hilary can make sure that Obama does not make President if she doesn't blink.

They need to run as President and Vice president to combine the now heavily devided and antagonistic Democrat vote. The number of people who now will not vote for the opposing Democrat of preference, must be making party organisers nervous, and especially now that McCain is stealing Democrat clothes on American foreign Policy.

If Obama does blink, he can be vice President, and go for the top job in 8 years time. (How old is he now? Twelve???)

My current prediction. Hilary/Obama ticket.

As much as a Hilary/Obama ticket makes sense for a 16 years plan, Obama is ahead in the delegate, popular, poll counts and as long as Obama stays ahead (and does not "blink" as you say) we will end up with a bizarro-bush president with a older bizarro-Cheney VP, no matter if Hillary does or doesn't blink.

Obama is 47 (not 12), he's 3 years older then JFK, and he has the same amount of political experience as Abraham Lincoln did.

My current prediction. Hilary/Obama ticket..
Clinton:
"And now I'd like to ask this lying, untested, inexperienced,America hating,racist, non-intervetionalist,dirty business dealing, ball of fluff to be my running mate". *cheers*

Obama: "Thank you, I'd love to serve my puppet of big business, endlessly scandalous, perjurist,cheating, Bald faced lyer and commander and cheif, not to mention downright scary, president of the USA." *cheers*.

Clinton:
"And now I'd like to ask this lying, untested, inexperienced,America hating,racist, non-intervetionalist,dirty business dealing, ball of fluff to be my running mate". *cheers*

Obama: "Thank you, I'd love to serve my puppet of big business, endlessly scandalous, perjurist,cheating, Bald faced lier and commander and cheif, not to mention downright scary, president of the USA." *cheers*.

Untested: None of the 3 candidates are technically test, none of them have had position of executive power.

inexperienced: As I mentioned before obama has had the same amount of political experience (state and national senate) as Abraham lincoln.

non-intervetionalist: hey there are allot of things we should not have intervened in.

America hating,racist: There no evidence obama hates america or wants revenge on the white man, aside for guilt by association which both Hillary and McCain also have.

dirty business dealing: I would like examples, enough of which to prove obama does more dirty deals then Hillary or McCain, as they can all be classified as dirty dealers.

ball of fluff: Just like Reagan, and Reagan got everywhere by talking out of his ass. The ability to hypnotize people with your inane speaking has got to be the most effective way to power.

puppet of big business: Which one isn't?

endlessly scandalous: All three have had scandals all though the Clinton's combined have had the most.

cheating: Hilary managed to keep her cock in her pants, it was her husband that didn't.

lying, perjurist, Bald faced lier: Their politicians, lying is a way of life.

not to mention downright scary: Yes a women taking power? That is REALLY scary! What next, men having to get beer from the fridge for their women, oh the horror!

My current prediction. Hilary/Obama ticket.
Soon.

Politicians doing horse trading...nah!

Either way, they would not be able to solve American economic meltdown....4 year tops...

Politicians doing horse trading...nah!

Either way, they would not be able to solve American economic meltdown....4 year tops...

Yes, it might be beter to let McCain take the fall and end up the next Hurbert Hover, and who ever comes after him could end up the next Franklin Roosevelt.

It sounds like Hillary has grabbed the radical feminist...they want Hillary come Hell or high water..no matter what. Hell she could be Satan's spawn and they would care less. She is a female and that is all that is important...it is ok that she take special interest money, it is ok if she lies so much she cannot remember the truth.

It sounds like Hillary has grabbed the radical feminist...they want Hillary come Hell or high water..no matter what. Hell she could be Satan's spawn and they would care less. She is the scared feline and that is all the care about.

Likewise obama has garbed the radical black...ists(?) as many are voting for him simply to see a black man president.

True but you can make a rational case for Obama.

True but you can make a rational case for Obama.

And you can't for Hillary?

No, my issue with Hillary is integrity. She has shown through her recent actions she has no problem with lies and distortions if it gets her what she wants. And that just is not right. She has unfairly slurred Obama's reputation, lied about her own background. In addition, she has accepted hughe sums from special interests. And her husband has got a multimillion dollar business catering to special interests. That is probably why she is reluctant to disclose her family finances and that of the Clinton Presidential Museum. These are financial practices that would never be tolerated in private industry and should not be tolerated in government.

No, my issue with Hillary is integrity. She has shown through her recent actions she has no problem with lies and distortions if it gets her what she wants. And that just is not right. She has unfairly slurred Obama's reputation, lied about her own background. In addition, she has accepted hughe sums from special interests. And her husband has got a multimillion dollar business catering to special interests. That is probably why she is reluctant to disclose her family finances and that of the Clinton Presidential Museum. These are financial practices that would never be tolerated in private industry and should not be tolerated in government.

Touché, and obama gets almost all of his money from public donors (like me) that have never met him in person and never imposed their demands on him. But McCain though is such a nice guy and so undemanding that he does not even get much money at all.

I used to support McCain back when he was a maverick. But it seems he has sacraficed his soul too. His problem is he rejected the Independents who supported him by becoming George II's lackey. But George II's people never really accepted him because he was at one time a maverick who threatened their livelyhood. So now both groups do not trust him.

That's nothing a little Shock and Awe can't fix.

A lot of women do not like Hillary perhaps because they feel it should be a man's job. A lot of men do not like Hillary perhaps because she is a woman. Let us see what happens....

Obama is 47 (not 12), he's 3 years older then JFK, and he has the same amount of political experience as Abraham Lincoln did.

47!!!!
Must have had an easy life.

If he does become President, he may become to African Americans what JFK was to Irish Americans.

Abe might be a harder act to follow.

I don't know if you picked those two Presidents with assassination in mind,
but Obama will need to be heavily protected if he makes it to the chair.

Anyone like to venture comparisons between Obama and the other two,
Garfield and McKinley?

A lot of women do not like Hillary perhaps because they feel it should be a man's job. A lot of men do not like Hillary perhaps because she is a woman. Let us see what happens....

I don't care about the race or gender of the next president as long as they are an honest broker for the people the represent and not the special monied interests, and have the ability to competently lead and string together a few words that make sense.

47!!!!
Must have had an easy life.

If he does become President, he may become to African Americans what JFK was to Irish Americans.

Abe might be a harder act to follow.

I don't know if you picked those two Presidents with assassination in mind,
but Obama will need to be heavily protected if he makes it to the chair.

Anyone like to venture comparisons between Obama and the other two,
Garfield and McKinley?

Hey knock on wood, just testing my power of precognition, if obama gets the assassination I'll be very sad, but seeing it coming will be a reasonable consolidation prize.

Come on, you'd have to find someone braindead to do worse than Bush.

I don't follow US politics much, but I think that Hilary would be a fairly conservative (in European eyes), proper president, who says and does all the right things in a politically correct fashion.

Obama's presidency may be more unpredictable and thus more refreshing and interesting.

Actually, a smart and idealist person can bring down a government through good intentions faster than idiots ever could. An idiot can wreck a few things but people know when they have an idiot and can minimize damage. A smart person is completely unpredictable and prone to stupid mistake an idiot could never make.

Okay, let's say Presisdent Obama completely withdraws from iraq in two years. We leave behind Billions of dollars of equipment that the invading Iranians now have. Before long Pakistan and Suadi Arabia fall as well and Israel is only a smoking crater. We trade three stuanch allies and a sort-of ally for three new enemies.

Let's say President Clinton succeeds in requiring people get health insurnace. Rates skyrocket as their is no longer a viable option. People have to buy the cheapest insurance they can just to avoid jail time. I though it was the people who told congress how to spend our money not the other way around.

A democratic President leads nation wide movement to strike out second amendment. They succeed and only the military is allowed guns. Thre months in we are invaded by Chinese army who outnumber the citizenry of the US 4 to one. Only reason they didn't before, they figure one scoped rifle per person in private hands would be more dangerous than all the armed forces and nuclear weapons the US has.


All of these are hypothetical of course. They could go smoothly. But remember no good deed goes unpunished.

Actually, a smart and idealist person can bring down a government through good intentions faster than idiots ever could. An idiot can wreck a few things but people know when they have an idiot and can minimize damage. A smart person is completely unpredictable and prone to stupid mistake an idiot could never make.

Okay, let's say Presisdent Obama completely withdraws from iraq in two years. We leave behind Billions of dollars of equipment that the invading Iranians now have. Before long Pakistan and Suadi Arabia fall as well and Israel is only a smoking crater. We trade three stuanch allies and a sort-of ally for three new enemies.

Let's say President Clinton succeeds in requiring people get health insurnace. Rates skyrocket as their is no longer a viable option. People have to buy the cheapest insurance they can just to avoid jail time. I though it was the people who told congress how to spend our money not the other way around.

A democratic President leads nation wide movement to strike out second amendment. They succeed and only the military is allowed guns. Thre months in we are invaded by Chinese army who outnumber the citizenry of the US 4 to one. Only reason they didn't before, they figure one scoped rifle per person in private hands would be more dangerous than all the armed forces and nuclear weapons the US has.


All of these are hypothetical of course. They could go smothly. But remember no good deed goes unpunished.

And McCain continues to waste our money in Iraq, while failing to allow enough money to go to programs like alternative energy, peak oil hits and the country goes completely bankrupt from its massive debt as other countries demand what is owed due to the economic damage from the global energy crisis. Or McCain continues to ignore the health care problem and health insurance continues to sky rocket up as it is anyways (by the way Clinton's plan does not give jail time for none compliance). Or ... wait you honestly believe democrats want to strip away the second amendment?

Actually, a smart and idealist person can bring down a government through good intentions faster than idiots ever could. An idiot can wreck a few things but people know when they have an idiot and can minimize damage. A smart person is completely unpredictable and prone to stupid mistake an idiot could never make.

Okay, let's say Presisdent Obama completely withdraws from iraq in two years. We leave behind Billions of dollars of equipment that the invading Iranians now have. Before long Pakistan and Suadi Arabia fall as well and Israel is only a smoking crater. We trade three stuanch allies and a sort-of ally for three new enemies.

Let's say President Clinton succeeds in requiring people get health insurnace. Rates skyrocket as their is no longer a viable option. People have to buy the cheapest insurance they can just to avoid jail time. I though it was the people who told congress how to spend our money not the other way around.

A democratic President leads nation wide movement to strike out second amendment. They succeed and only the military is allowed guns. Thre months in we are invaded by Chinese army who outnumber the citizenry of the US 4 to one. Only reason they didn't before, they figure one scoped rifle per person in private hands would be more dangerous than all the armed forces and nuclear weapons the US has.


All of these are hypothetical of course. They could go smothly. But remember no good deed goes unpunished.

Sounds like someone has been listening to too much Limbaugh! If Iraq fails it will not mean that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fail. Second, we should not be dependent on these countries. I remember 30 years ago our leaders telling us we needed to invest in alternative energy and become oil independent. What have we done in thirty years to free us from oil imports...absoutely nothing. What will we have done thirty years from now with the same types of clowns in office, absoutely nothing.
As for health insurance, it has very little to do with the rising costs of healthcare. In fact health insurance is one of the few factors restraining the growth of healthcare costs. What needs to change in healthcare is to limit costs...and that has not happened because of special interests (e.g. American Medical Association, Big Pharma, etc). Special legislation bought with lobbyst dollars which restricts competion and markets which causes prices to soar and huge inefficiencies in the system. I think your representation of Clintion Healthcare is quite distorted.
Finally the second admendment, I have heard no one on the Democratic side say anything about getting rid of the second admendment. But when it comes to national security, you might want to check with you Republican buds about why we are outsourcing military contracts to China. Does not seem wise to me since they are a likely enemy.

Again, it sounds to me like you have been listening to too much Limabugh and Hannity.

Healthcare:

The doctors growth has not kept up with the population growth. You can buy $4.00 drugs at Walmart meaning, both Walmart and the drug companies make money on that. We buy both generic and non-generic drugs from China and India and mark it up to perhaps 1000%. 90% healthcare is basic drugs and a visit to the doctor. If wages have fallen, why the doctor charges so much?

Economy

None of the 3 candidates have a solution to bring back manufacturing (physical products) to USA. And without that, a whole generation of people will be underemployed. No country has become rich on service - unless you rent out your military to the rest of the world which is what the Army is planning....(saw Joe Liberman's hearing on Army FM3.0 in CSPAN2)

TW, it looks like you have become Hannitized.

And McCain continues to waste our money in Iraq, while failing to allow enough money to go to programs like alternative energy, peak oil hits and the country goes completely bankrupt from its massive debt as other countries demand what is owed due to the economic damage from the global energy crisis. Or McCain continues to ignore the health care problem and health insurance continues to sky rocket up as it is anyways (by the way Clinton's plan does not give jail time for none compliance). Or ... wait you honestly believe democrats want to strip away the second amendment?


Actually McCain is our most likely candidate to encourage alternative energy. Alternative Energy is great for big business, national secuirity, and defense.

As for the health care problem, it's only a problem be the Citizen allow it to be. Yes the doctors are relatively powerful, but like any service provider are subject to the whims of customers. Enough people start going for the cheapest competent care they can and soon Doctors and Hospitals are feeling the pinch. Expecting the government to bail you out is literally jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

As for Hillary's plan, how exactly do you think they will enforce their law? She's already said she won;t be doing more taxes and is thinking of requiring people to purchase health insurance.

As for the last, all the Gun coontrol advocates I have spoken to are Democrats. Never met a republican gun-control advocate. Though I do believe there are Democrats that believe in Second Amendment, but they are surprisingly silent.

Actually McCain is our most likely candidate to encourage alternative energy. Alternative Energy is great for big business, national secuirity, and defense.

As for the health care problem, it's only a problem be the Citizen allow it to be. Yes the doctors are relatively powerful, but like any service provider are subject to the whims of customers. Enough people start going for the cheapest competent care they can and soon Doctors and Hospitals are feeling the pinch. Expecting the government to bail you out is literally jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

As for Hillary's plan, how exactly do you think they will enforce their law? She's already said she won;t be doing more taxes and is thinking of requiring people to purchase health insurance.

As for the last, all the Gun coontrol advocates I have spoken to are Democrats. Never met a republican gun-control advocate. Though I do believe there are Democrats that believe in Second Amendment, but they are surprisingly silent.

Both Obama and Clinton have detailed New Apollo type energy plans on their websites, McCain has only paid vague lip-service, I don't see were you believe McCain would be more for it then the other two, unless you somehow believe the other two don't prioritize "business, national secuirity, and defense" and see that New Apollo is the stone the could kill all three birds with one shot!

Hillary's plan would fine people, I'm not a support of it, Neither obama or hillary plans go far enough by my standards, you don't need to fine anyone if universal coverage was guaranteed. Look at the French, they have government health care with optional privatized insurance and private and public hospital in commercial and government funding competition to maximize health improvement and quality of care for its patients, it might just be the perfect merger of private and public health care because they pay half as much per person as we do (~$4000, verse us at ~8000) and they live longer, they have less infant mortality, higher chance of recovering form cancer, they have the #1 rating WHO rating, while we are 37th!

Gun control does not equal taking all guns away and repelling the 2nd amendment, it means registering your weapon and require you jump through certain hoops to get a license to own a automatic carbide like a AK47 other so call "assault weapon". Its pragmatic not totalitarian.

Gun control and the Republican Party, could it be that Republicans are against gun control because they recieve 85 per cent of the more than 11 million dollars spend by the NRA.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/
Doctors control the supply of doctors. We have not added a seat to the medical schools in the United States since 1980despite the population increasing by 33 percent over the period. Econ 101, supply and demand says few supply equals higher prices. Higher prices will eventually lead to greater supply if markets are free. That has not happened for more than 30 years because supply has been through fiat of law , been severely limited by actions of the AMA and our Federal Government...since the Federal Government funds the training of medical doctors. The reason your suggestion will not work is because supply and demand are not in equilibrum and kept that way artificially...Econ 101.
Your suggestion on price shopping will not work for several reasons. But one reason, is the American Medical Association, and the state medical boards which regulate professional conduct. These boards forbid practices that allow physicians to compete for business. These boards label such practices as unethical. I wonder why. I don't expect government to bail me out. But I do expect government to fix the problems they create. Funding of physician training should not be a government function. It should be a function of the free market. Physician training should be a function of the free market.
McCain is the least likely to encourage alternative energy as he owes much to the industry. Why would big oil want a competing product with lower margins than oil? Alternative energy is not attractive to them. So if you want to rely on big oil for alternative energy, it will never happen...just has it has not happened for the last 30 years in which we gave the oil companies generous research grants and tax credits to bring alternative energy to market.
What amazes me most about Republicans is how little they know about current affairs and their own government.

Both Obama and Clinton have detailed New Apollo type energy plans on their websites, McCain has only paid vague lip-service, I don't see were you believe McCain would be more for it then the other two, unless you somehow believe the other two don't prioritize "business, national secuirity, and defense" and see that New Apollo is the stone the could kill all three birds with one shot!

The ONLY thing a New Apollo Energy program s going to generate is a monumental waste of money. Yes, we will get the new sources of energy. Yes it will work. But we would have gotten it twice as fact and a tenth the cost if private corporations research them.

Hillary's plan would fine people, I'm not a support of it, Neither obama or hillary plans go far enough by my standards, you don't need to fine anyone if universal coverage was guaranteed. Look at the French, they have government health care with optional privatized insurance and private and public hospital in commercial and government funding competition to maximize health improvement and quality of care for its patients, it might just be the perfect merger of private and public health care because they pay half as much per person as we do (~$4000, verse us at ~8000) and they live longer, they have less infant mortality, higher chance of recovering form cancer, they have the #1 rating WHO rating, while we are 37th!

Ah the French, who still come to this damn country for state of the art treatment. Good plan, just cover everything but don;t be an innovator. Yeah that will work, for about 3 seconds.

The Government should have NO BUSINESS telling me how I must spend my money. It's that pure and simple. I am not forced to have Home Insurance unless I get a mortgage. I am not forced to get car insurace unless I have a car. But I will be forced to get health insurance just becuase i am alive. Bullshit. Our time would be better spent making a comprehensive bill that forces insurance companies to offer a specific set of coverages for a specific fee. That way people know what is covered.

Gun control does not equal taking all guns away and repelling the 2nd amendment, it means registering your weapon and require you jump through certain hoops to get a license to own a automatic carbide like a AK47 other so call "assault weapon". Its pragmatic not totalitarian.

Would you want to have to file paperwork and register your right to speak? No. The you better wise up to what infringement means. Infringing the common citizen rights with paperwork and registration is the opposite of pragmatic. Pragmatic would be handing them a pistol with their diploma so that if ever there comes the day they need to defend themselves they won;t have to call a number and hope that somebody can drive to their house in less than ten seconds.

Doctors control the supply of doctors. We have not added a seat to the medical schools in the United States since 1980despite the population increasing by 33 percent over the period. Econ 101, supply and demand says few supply equals higher prices. Higher prices will eventually lead to greater supply if markets are free. That has not happened for more than 30 years because supply has been through fiat of law , been severely limited by actions of the AMA and our Federal Government...since the Federal Government funds the training of medical doctors. The reason your suggestion will not work is because supply and demand are not in equilibrum and kept that way artificially...Econ 101.
Your suggestion on price shopping will not work for several reasons. But one reason, is the American Medical Association, and the state medical boards which regulate professional conduct. These boards forbid practices that allow physicians to compete for business. These boards label such practices as unethical. I wonder why. I don't expect government to bail me out. But I do expect government to fix the problems they create. Funding of physician training should not be a government function. It should be a function of the free market. Physician training should be a function of the free market.


Odd, I have noted several Medical schools expanding their facilities for more students. I have also noted more hospital becoming teaching hospitals with more interns and residents. I have noticed a general increase of private practices. I have noticed that some doctors advertise low rates.

Of course I actually pay attention to the medical world as I know a few people in it.

The ONLY thing a New Apollo Energy program s going to generate is a monumental waste of money. Yes, we will get the new sources of energy. Yes it will work. But we would have gotten it twice as fact and a tenth the cost if private corporations research them.

Which private company has Billions of dollars research money and is interested in such research? Bill Gates is not or Exxon is not....

Do you know that:

DOE has significant resources that can be accessed by the private sector, e.g., 10 national laboratories plus many other laboratories and specialized facilities with a replacement value approaching $100 billion, about 60,000 highly skilled and experienced scientists, engineers, and technicians, thousands of licensable patents and software packages, and annual R&D investments of more than $6.5 billion.

The ONLY thing a New Apollo Energy program s going to generate is a monumental waste of money. Yes, we will get the new sources of energy. Yes it will work. But we would have gotten it twice as fact and a tenth the cost if private corporations research them.

LOL! oh that rich! and that's why private corporations converted our energy economy 10 years ago... oh wait they didn't did they? No, private corporations only care about profit, soooo as long as oil is cheap, by the time oil gets expensive we are already in the shit hole, got to do these things pro-actively!, like ooooh 40 years ago, when the local USA oil supply peaked and everyone said "hey its going to happen to the world in a few decades we better prepare" where the fuck was the billions in private investment then? They just bought oil from the Saudis and payed the very people that made todays terrorist problem.

Ah the French, who still come to this damn country for state of the art treatment. Good plan, just cover everything but don;t be an innovator. Yeah that will work, for about 3 seconds.

I like that one, you know how many US citizen run to canada (and canada system is nowhere near as good france) for cheap medical care and drugs, compared to how many Canadians come down here? Only the wealthy come to the USA and only the wealth get top care, the rest of us get crap, 37th in the world quality care if not lower! Did you know its your tax dollars are paying for universal health care in Iraq and Afghanistan, everyone of them gets assured medical coverage, but not ever US citizen!

The Government should have NO BUSINESS telling me how I must spend my money. It's that pure and simple. I am not forced to have Home Insurance unless I get a mortgage. I am not forced to get car insurace unless I have a car. But I will be forced to get health insurance just becuase i am alive. Bullshit. Our time would be better spent making a comprehensive bill that forces insurance companies to offer a specific set of coverages for a specific fee. That way people know what is covered.

Hey I'm not for the Hillary plan, and I agree the insurance companies need their balls cut off. but its not a matter of being told how you spend your money, it a matter of who going to pay for you when your dieing and you have no health insurance, or the health insurance company bailed on you.

Would you want to have to file paperwork and register your right to speak? No. The you better wise up to what infringement means. Infringing the common citizen rights with paperwork and registration is the opposite of pragmatic. Pragmatic would be handing them a pistol with their diploma so that if ever there comes the day they need to defend themselves they won;t have to call a number and hope that somebody can drive to their house in less than ten seconds.

Speaking does not kill people. Lets be fair though, Guns don't kill people either, but they sure do make it easier! You can buy a pistol no problem, just got to make sure you don't have a criminal history, and defending your self that fine, but if you kill someone, well we want to be able to identify that it was you that did it, and we also don't think its safe for others if you going around with a M14 "hunting", you don't need a automatic rifle to hunt, unless your hunting two legged mammals. The government is not either out of your face or totalitarian, the government has got to be balanced between giving and taking, like say giving people the right to defend them selfs, and not giving people the right to murder others with ease... can't have the death rate of the wild west these days.

hilariously hillary! For president

Great reasoning skills TW, I know a few in the industry too. I have neighbors who are physicians and I used to be in the industry. So what! The AMA is one of the major lobbies in Congress for restricting free markets to drive up healthcare costs. They were at one time convicted of Trust violations. Then the got smarter, you just need to pay congress for the legislation you want...don't have to violate Trust laws. The AMA just recently suggested that maybe their 30 year prognosis of a physician glut may have been a wee bit off.
My point is simply, free markets work and they should be allowed to work. But, special interests in Washington buy legislation that muck up the free markets...and that is why in we have such a mess in healthcare today! My point is the American citizen needs to reclaim their government.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/6/268?ck=nck

I again repeat, free markets work! The problem in the United States is that they are not allowed to work for the citizen! The average Joe is gettting screwed because someone is paying off his political leadership.

Great reasoning skills TW, I know a few in the industry too. I have neighbors who are physicians and I used to be in the industry. So what! The AMA is one of the major lobbies in Congress for restricting free markets to drive up healthcare costs. They were at one time convicted of Trust violations. Then the got smarter, you just need to pay congress for the legislation you want...don't have to violate Trust laws. The AMA just recently suggested that maybe their 30 year prognosis of a physician glut may have been a wee bit off.
My point is simply, free markets work and they should be allowed to work. But, special interests in Washington buy legislation that muck up the free markets...and that is why in we have such a mess in healthcare today! My point is the American citizen needs to reclaim their government.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/6/268?ck=nck

I again repeat, free markets work! The problem in the United States is that they are not allowed to work for the citizen! The average Joe is gettting screwed because someone is paying off his political leadership.

free markets work, but not at everything, they are not a cure all.

As usual Electric, I agree with your impecable knowlege and reasoning skills. Free markets are great when it comes to production and allocation of goods and services. However, wealth tends to accumulate at the top and in order to keep the system healthy, income redistribution is vital to keep the economic system and free markets viable...must keep them competitive.

One more thing TW, the market should dictate physician training and not the industry trade group via agents in state and federal government. In the United States Physician training is 33 percent longer than any other country in the world. And by all measures, our physicians are no better and by some measures worst than others trained in foriegn countries. I think India has produced some of the best physicians I have ever known.

LOL! oh that rich! and that's why private corporations converted our energy economy 10 years ago... oh wait they didn't did they? No, private corporations only care about profit, soooo as long as oil is cheap, by the time oil gets expensive we are already in the shit hole, got to do these things pro-actively!, like ooooh 40 years ago, when the local USA oil supply peaked and everyone said "hey its going to happen to the world in a few decades we better prepare" where the fuck was the billions in private investment then? They just bought oil from the Saudis and payed the very people that made todays terrorist problem.

Hey, you are just as guilty for that as they are. You were demanding cheap energy then and you got it. So hut your pie hole. The demand for alternative energy is just beginning to to reach the profitable level. Already we are seeing vast improvements he flexfuel vehicles, electric cars, solar panels, and so on. Not becuase the Government said anything, but becuase the consumer is demanding these items. Demand equals profit and profit is what corporations do best. As proved by every product on the market Corporations will produce anything the public asks for. When enough of us say we want Solar cars, wind turbine electricity and so on we ill have it in 32 different flavors thanks to the greed of corporations.

I like that one, you know how many US citizen run to canada (and canada system is nowhere near as good france) for cheap medical care and drugs, compared to how many Canadians come down here? Only the wealthy come to the USA and only the wealth get top care, the rest of us get crap, 37th in the world quality care if not lower! Did you know its your tax dollars are paying for universal health care in Iraq and Afghanistan, everyone of them gets assured medical coverage, but not ever US citizen!

Okay, poor americans run to Canada, but rich people from all over the world come to America. As we all know poor people go for what they can afford and rich people get the best. Which is what you are agreeing with here. What I am suggesting is that people in this country start demanding fairer medical pricves by shopping around, haggle, and of course get quality insurance that you know the coverage of.

I am big believer that a person should earn everything they get. If some shmuck refuses to work he should NOT be covered. If he has a job it is his responsibility to take care of himself. Of course this does not apply to handicapped and dependant children


Hey I'm not for the Hillary plan, and I agree the insurance companies need their balls cut off. but its not a matter of being told how you spend your money, it a matter of who going to pay for you when your dieing and you have no health insurance, or the health insurance company bailed on you.

If the helath insurance bails on you, then the governement needs to smack them around as they basically stole form you. If you have no insurance that is your own fault and you should not be expecting ANYONE to bail you out. We give too many handouts in this country and not enough hand ups.

If you prposed a system where the Government helped you get insurance i would consider that fair. A sliding scale depending on your income, dependants, and the cost of living in an area to determine what percentage of the insurance premium the governeemnt pays would be fair. though never more than 90% in my opinion.


Speaking does not kill people. Lets be fair though, Guns don't kill people either, but they sure do make it easier! You can buy a pistol no problem, just got to make sure you don't have a criminal history, and defending your self that fine, but if you kill someone, well we want to be able to identify that it was you that did it, and we also don't think its safe for others if you going around with a M14 "hunting", you don't need a automatic rifle to hunt, unless your hunting two legged mammals. The government is not either out of your face or totalitarian, the government has got to be balanced between giving and taking, like say giving people the right to defend them selfs, and not giving people the right to murder others with ease... can't have the death rate of the wild west these days.

Speaking can kill people. Some eplileptics are sounds sensitive and can be broght inot seizures at times. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a sure way to make sure a few people are trampled.

The rest of what you have to say is total BS. The government does not give us Rights, the Rights were ours to begin with and the Governement is charged with keeping those rights in place. They don't have the Right to modify them at all. the American people can, if you get a 75% majority in each and every state, but the government has only the power allowed in the constitution.

The BS that more guns equals more murders is a complete and utter lie. DC has a strict no guns policy yet has the hightest rate of murders in the country.

BTW the Murder rate in the Wild West was lower than at any other point in our history. Of course Army actions against the Native american are not counted into that, as military action is not murder.

Hey, you are just as guilty for that as they are. You were demanding cheap energy then and you got it. So hut your pie hole. The demand for alternative energy is just beginning to to reach the profitable level. Already we are seeing vast improvements he flexfuel vehicles, electric cars, solar panels, and so on. Not becuase the Government said anything, but becuase the consumer is demanding these items. Demand equals profit and profit is what corporations do best. As proved by every product on the market Corporations will produce anything the public asks for. When enough of us say we want Solar cars, wind turbine electricity and so on we ill have it in 32 different flavors thanks to the greed of corporations.

I was not even alive then, so I don't think you can put blame on me. Alternative energy is now getting competitive primarily because Oil has gotten so expensive, not because the alternatives have gotten cheaper, and likely cases will be that the alternatives may never be as cheap as oil was, or at least for some time because it going to take allot of time and money to get an alternative infrastructure up, something companies, the lobbyist they pay for, and the politicians that work for those lobbyist have been putting off as long as possible and will continue to until it is profitable to change, but by then the damage to the economy might be too great.

Okay, poor americans run to Canada, but rich people from all over the world come to America. As we all know poor people go for what they can afford and rich people get the best. Which is what you are agreeing with here. What I am suggesting is that people in this country start demanding fairer medical pricves by shopping around, haggle, and of course get quality insurance that you know the coverage of.

I don't see a disagreement there, so lets do it, all we need is legislation that forces insurance companies and hospitals into the business of helping people rather then profiting of their suffering, then free market kicks in and its a win-win for the people and the medical community. Another France, except without all the snobbery.

I am big believer that a person should earn everything they get. If some shmuck refuses to work he should NOT be covered. If he has a job it is his responsibility to take care of himself. Of course this does not apply to handicapped and dependant children

I agree again, force labor for those that don't work, why the heck do we have prisons where we just feed, cloth and shelter people that do nothing but threaten society, work them all like slave!

If the health insurance bails on you, then the governement needs to smack them around as they basically stole form you. If you have no insurance that is your own fault and you should not be expecting ANYONE to bail you out. We give too many handouts in this country and not enough hand ups.

I would agree if I believe that it would not fail (as it has). You need some government safety nets, we can't simply let person die because they don't have insurance and we can't just pay for those that don't pay back, that not fair, basic universal medical coverage of everyone paid by Medicare tax or a tariff tax is needed, everyone must pay, to make the system competitive you pay more for extra-coverage from private insurance and the services of the top doctors but basic coverage needs to be guaranteed, and everyone must pay for it.

Speaking can kill people. Some eplileptics are sounds sensitive and can be broght inot seizures at times. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a sure way to make sure a few people are trampled.

There always an exception for anything, just like how you can shoot a man and he can occasionally not die. As such its the probability of harm that is counted, speaking to someone is far less likely to do harm then shooting at someone. And in the cases we speaking to someone is likely to cause harm we have laws against it: I dare you to claim 1st amendment right when you get arrested for declaring you were going to kill someone. Just as we can limit the 1st amendment by making it a crime to verbally threaten to kill or cause harm to someone, we can limit the 2nd amendment.

The rest of what you have to say is total BS. The government does not give us Rights, the Rights were ours to begin with and the Governement is charged with keeping those rights in place. They don't have the Right to modify them at all. the American people can, if you get a 75% majority in each and every state, but the government has only the power allowed in the constitution.

This is a difference in philosophy between us, there are no natural rights, no universals laws. The universals order of things is anarchy with no objectives or care for anything we do, no universal good nor evils. We must make our own laws and put our selfs in order, it can be totalitarian or utilitarian, we decide, and we decide which is "right".

The BS that more guns equals more murders is a complete and utter lie. DC has a strict no guns policy yet has the hightest rate of murders in the country.
BTW the Murder rate in the Wild West was lower than at any other point in our history. Of course Army actions against the Native american are not counted into that, as military action is not murder.

I did not say more guns equals more murders, rather I was saying we should not put guns in the hands of people that are likely to kill, and we should not give them guns that would let them kill many in a fast burst of automatic fire. But statistics are pick and choose, for example Japan has criminalize gun control and has the lowest rates of homocide, the USA has the most liberal gun control laws and has the highest rate of murder per person per GDP in the world. 2/3 of all murders in the USA are caused by guns. Old west homicide rate peak at 7 times todays rates: http://volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml, but again these are all pick and choose statistics, best bet is for moderation which is why I agree with allowing one to get a gun, as long as we try to make sure your only going to use it to defend your self.

If Obama gets nominated and becomes the President and then can not solve our economic problems - then would that be considered buyers remorse?

just a thought...

What do you think about the three candidates performance last Tuesday
when grilling General Petraeus?

I think that Obama's comments most closely match the mood of the General.

As regards what constitutes success in Iraq he said:
"The problem I have is if the definition of success is so high — no traces of al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution; a highly effective Iraqi government; a democratic, multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian, functioning democracy; no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like — then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years."

ie. Which we won't be, no matter who is in power. Nice wishlist though.

I have the feeling that the pragmatist Petraeus may throw a spanner in the works for McCain this autumn.
He does not seem at all happy with the current impasse.
Some progress versus potential setbacks.
If little or no significant and maintainable progress is made soon, he will screw McCain's chances.

Side issue. Who were the military people behind Petraeus in the McCain/Hilary Broadcasts? One looks like a big Eagle. Is it customary for US military personnel to have such incredibly glum expressions. I have seen more cheerful expressions on the faces of disposessed refugees in temporary camps.
They looked severely depressed.

Is today the endgame of Hilary and Obama's grandmaster chess game?

Is today the endgame of Hilary and Obama's grandmaster chess game?

I sincerely hope so!!!! I am so tired of hearing Hillary's atrificial cackle!! I would really like to see the Dems and Republicans start messing it up. Hillary is getting a little old.

Is today the endgame of Hilary and Obama's grandmaster chess game?

I hope so too but I doubt it.

I think, If Hillary loses, it is basically over. But if she wins - the fight will continue to the next one.....

Scenario 1: (most likely) Hillary wins by less then 10 points: Both sides have a victory as Hillary wins the state, but the delegate count remains essentially the same and Barack can claim momentum by sapping Hillary's much larger earlier lead. The fight will go one but chances will be in Baracks favor has the trend in super delagetes goes towards him, the nomination will presumptively be his after the final primary. Because of the damage already done to democrat unity, Obama's unknown VP selection (and McCain's) as well as the normal cycle of media political crap the general election outcome could go either way.

Scenario 2: (likely) Hillary wins by more then 10 points: Hillary will continue to argue that she is the best candidate for the general election. The super delagetes will remain divide or in her favor and the fight will go on all the way to the convention were it will have to be decided, the out come could be either of those two or even a randomly selected other, complete chaos! The general election will be practically in John's pocket as the resulting division of the democrats will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Scenario 3: (Unlikely) Barack wins by even the smallest margin: Hillary will likely drop out before the primaries are over. Obama will likely win the general election. Dream on.

Hillary has one very good argument: She has won most of the big states...

Hillary has one very good argument: She has won most of the big states...

So? The general election is a totally different animal. Winning Big non- democrat states means nothing in the general election as those states are not going to be won by any democrat, win big democrat states means little as those states would likely be won by either democratic candidate in the general election, winning purple states is the most likely indicator for the general election.

So? The general election is a totally different animal. Winning Big non- democrat states

Excuse moi, but both FL and OH are very important states and they are called swingstates because they can go both ways... So it IS important who is more liked in those states.

Now you are right Texas isn't important for Dems, but wait, Obama won more delegates in Texas!!

Excuse moi, but both FL and OH are very important states and they are called swingstates because they can go both ways... So it IS important who is more liked in those states.

Now you are right Texas isn't important for Dems, but wait, Obama won more delegates in Texas!!

Like I said the purple state is what matters is does not matter if they are big states.

Hilary is hoping that obama has no substance, and will eventually self-implode.

Well she won so how does that grab ya! :shrug:

What I would like to know is the absolute numbers voted in ALL states, including FL and Michigan. No superdelegates and other bullshit, just the summary of all votes...

Hillary has one very good argument: She has won most of the big states...

Sorry, it is not a good arguement. But rather an arguement for fools. Winning the big states in the primary does not mean anything in the general. You cannot compare the results of two Democrats running against each other with a Democrat and Republican running against each other. It is an apple to oranges arguement to perpetrate a fraud on the simple minded. And I personally find that argument repulsive because it is so blatently fraudlent.

More minority fights yet to come....

At some point, Hilary and Obama are going to have to agree not to attack each other, and turn their attention on McCain.

At The moment, he is looking like Steady Eddy.

People forget that the Clintons did bring prosperity the last time. Why would this time be different?

Like they say....It is economy stupid!

People forget that the Clintons did bring prosperity the last time. Why would this time be different?

Like they say....It is economy stupid!

Peak Oil! That's why!

No the Clinton's brought nothing, presidents usually have little affect on the economy, its just we blame/praise them based on the economy.

Peak Oil! That's why!

No the Clinton's brought nothing, presidents usually have little affect on the economy, its just we blame/praise them based on the economy.

This President started the Iraq war. Are you saying that has little effect on the economy or that all the outsourcing (NAFTA etc...) that Presidents promoted has little effect?

Sorry, it is not a good arguement.

OK, then how about this: Hillary has won more votes in absolute numbers???

Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27036

This President started the Iraq war. Are you saying that has little effect on the economy or that all the outsourcing (NAFTA etc...) that Presidents promoted has little effect?

Read closely again.


No the Clinton's brought nothing, presidents usually have little affect on the economy, its just we blame/praise them based on the economy.

Did a president case the stock market to crash in 1929? Any president would have been forced into WW2 once the Japanese attacked. Nixon did not cause the USA peak in Oil, nor did Bush cause the global peak now.

OK, then how about this: Hillary has won more votes in absolute numbers???

Do you have to do some hillarizing to get to that number? Because the latest numbers I see, she has not won the most votes in total or in representatives.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gddKleD2qYirWThIy2QEDnn5Z1TAD907Q61G0

The latest version of the landing in Bosnia under sniper fire is the lie you just stated...that clinton has more popular votes than Obama. She does that by including Florida and Michigan. And Obama's name was not even on the ticket in Michigan because he lived up to his agreement with the Democratic Party...to not run in Michigan and Florida. Incidently clinton made the same agreement with the Democratic Party...but it appears she did not honor the agreement. So now she wants to be rewarded for cheating...great move on her part. It just goes to prove how morally lacking she is. She will say any thing, do anything including selling he soul to become president. Is that the kind of person you want to be president? I like my presidents to honor their commitments. They could, as clinton is now doing, promise the moon and then not honor the promise. Personally, I like someone who stands by their words.

If you add in the states that were restricted from competing in the primary and for which Obama did not compete in and clinton's name was the only name on the ballot (ahh the good old days of the Soviet Union), she is only ahead in the popular vote by 100k. And that is likely to vanish rather quickly.

So I am impressed with the way clinton distorts numbers and facts. But it does not impress me to vote for her. If she were a woman of integrity, it would be another story. But she is not. And this is just the latest in a long line of clinton distortions. I am not impressed.

Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27036

There is a difference between exit polls and actual votes. According to actual votes, Obama is ahead in all categories, more states, more votes, more delegates.

Read closely again.


Perhaps this may help.

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html

There is a difference between exit polls and actual votes. According to actual votes, Obama is ahead in all categories, more states, more votes, more delegates.

Then how come he did not win those big states?

KMGURU, the economy is not an agile cat it is a lumbering giant snail. It sometimes can take years, sometimes decades for the seeds that are planted to blossom and yield fruits. In the case of the clinton I administration. He really started the age of unfair free trade agreements that were in reality give-a-ways to special interests. They were marketed as free trade agreements. But in reality they were not.

If you should think they were free trade agreements, try going accross the Mexican border any buy fuel for 50 percent of the price being charged in the United States and try to bring it across the border. While you are at it, try buying some prescription drugs made by US Pharma companies that are available for a small fraction of the price in Canada and Mexico and brining them accross the border.

We are now wittnessing the fruits of the clintion I trade policies.

Do you have to do some hillarizing to get to that number? Because the latest numbers I see,

None of the links showed actual numbers. per vote. According to the news, both sides claim that they are leading the popular vote, and I would say with FL and Michigan Hillary does...

None of the links showed actual numbers. per vote. According to the news, both sides claim that they are leading the popular vote, and I would say with FL and Michigan Hillary does...

Read again, they stated the numbers.

"Including Michigan and Florida, Clinton has 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million — a lead of about one-half of a percentage point for Clinton. Without Michigan and Florida, Obama has 14.4 million to Clinton's 13.9 million — a lead of about 1.7 percent for Obama. Neither total includes the primary vote total from Washington state, since it doesn't count toward the nomination and the party awards delegates based on its caucus?"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gddKleD2qYirWThIy2QEDnn5Z1TAD907Q61G0

You also have to consider the caucus states which Obama won hands down. The process does not count votes, like primaries. I recall hearing that if you include the caucus states the lead for Obama would be in excess of a million votes.

We are now wittnessing the fruits of the clintion I trade policies.

If those policies were so bad, how come Bush is supporting it? Last night the FDA chairman was giving testimony in CSPAN. He said that the U.S. companies drugs/material purchase has grown exponentially from China such that FDA can not keep up with the database or inspections. What they have been doing screwing around for the last 8 years?

In the same 8 years China saved up $1.4 Trillion dollars....that we are trying to borrow....

If those policies were so bad, how come Bush is supporting it? Last night the FDA chairman was giving testimony in CSPAN. He said that the U.S. companies drugs/material purchase has grown exponentially from China such that FDA can not keep up with the database or inspections. What they have been doing screwing around for the last 8 years?

In the same 8 years China saved up $1.4 Trillion dollars....that we are trying to borrow....

Bush is supporting cause he is an idiot!! Additionally, he is owned lock stock and barrel by special interests that benefit from these arrangements. These trade arrangements are responsible for the incredibly weak dollar and thereby responsible for the incredibly high prices we are paying for oil and gasoline.

There is no doubt trade and expanded. But it is not fair, it is not balanced and it is weakening the dollar causing inflation and econmic slow down in the United States.

yo don't tread on the future president of United States, Hillary Clinton comes angelic

If you should think they were free trade agreements, try going accross the Mexican border any buy fuel for 50 percent of the price being charged in the United States and try to bring it across the border. While you are at it, try buying some prescription drugs made by US Pharma companies that are available for a small fraction of the price in Canada and Mexico and brining them accross the border.


Trade agreements are between businesses. in 2005, we exported Pharma worth $25 Billion and imported $35.3 Billion. In 2007, we exported $29 Billion but imported $48.9 Billion worth of products. The free trade is going the wrong way....no wonder we have no jobs here, because we buy so much from outside. The trade deficit keeps widening....in a decade, we will produce nothing....the snail will be dead....

In year 2000 when Clinton was in office, the Pharma export was $10.5 Billion and imports were $12 Billion. Our trade deficits are growing at an exponential rate and not at snail's linear rate....does Obama the lawyer understand that? I wonder....

Read again, they stated the numbers.

"Including Michigan and Florida, Clinton has 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million

So I was right. What else?

I hope Hillary wins...then the couple can fix the mistakes of the past and present. Otherwise, this country is headed for disaster. Even the FDA chairman did not know that our Pharma imports are growing exponentially...this administration is clueless....we do not want a repeat....

whats with the "..." people end your darn sentences.

So I was right. What else?

You are just as delusional as the Republicans! I am amazed. You were wrong and are still wrong! You are totally ok in comparing apples to oranges and cheating. I think you belong in the clinton camp.

I hope Hillary wins...then the couple can fix the mistakes of the past and present. Otherwise, this country is headed for disaster. Even the FDA chairman did not know that our Pharma imports are growing exponentially...this administration is clueless....we do not want a repeat....

I agree the country is headed for disaster and it is because of people like the clintons and bush's that have sold out the country to the highest bidder. We need a president and congress that represent the best interests of the citizens of the United States and not the special interests.

hillary and company have been bought lock stock and barrel by those same special interests that purchased the Republicans. So if you want more of the same, go a head and vote for hillary.

I was very impressed with the way she rolled over and played dead as soon as the special interests in Washingtion started objecting to her healthcare plan a decade ago. What makes you think she won't do the same this time around? What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I hope Hillary wins...then the couple can fix the mistakes of the past and present. Otherwise, this country is headed for disaster. Even the FDA chairman did not know that our Pharma imports are growing exponentially...this administration is clueless....we do not want a repeat....

Does this mean you believe Hillary when she says she opposed her husband's trade policy? Did she have any Senate votes that showed that she will reverse the Bush/Bill Clinton approach to trade policy. Talk is cheap. I don't believe her as getting it that Americans can not compete with similarly skilled people in other countries who are willing to work for less money.

I also am not sure that Obama get's it that Americans can not compete with similarly skilled people in other countries who are willing to work for less money and I am quite sure that McCain does not grasp that simple concept.

Even if Hillary does understand the problem I have no confidence that Hillary is willing to oppose the special interests. If the USA starts restricting access to the American consumer markets then the other countries will start restricting American corporate access to their consumer and financial markets and their markets are where the rapid growth will be. I just can't see Hillary standing up to pressure when she caved in to Bob Dole on health care 13 years ago and more recently called even trying to take on the insurance companies a mistake that she will not repeat.

God damn the media; why do I know more about reverend Wright than I know about Obama's views on trade policy?

I was very impressed with the way she rolled over and played dead as soon as the special interests in Washingtion started objecting to her healthcare plan a decade ago. What makes you think she won't do the same this time around? What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

So, you think Obama can do all the things we expect him to do? Do not forget this is still a white country! Not a single black Mayor was able to do anything positive in the major crime ridden cities in the last 20 years....they all cowtow to the special interest groups....

And if he makes it worse then what? Another 4 years down the drain? May be my dream about the disaster in 2011/12 will come true....then I would know, this is a deterministic world....:D

I agree the country is headed for disaster and it is because of people like the clintons and bush's that have sold out the country to the highest bidder. We need a president and congress that represent the best interests of the citizens of the United States and not the special interests.

hillary and company have been bought lock stock and barrel by those same special interests that purchased the Republicans. So if you want more of the same, go a head and vote for hillary.

I was very impressed with the way she rolled over and played dead as soon as the special interests in Washingtion started objecting to her healthcare plan a decade ago. What makes you think she won't do the same this time around? What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I had not seen your post yet when I wrote my previous but it looks like I was copying you.

What do you know about Obama? I know he is not the same old style politician. I know he has not stuped to lying to me or the people of the United States as has clinton. clinton has not even got into office yet and has been caught in a number of lies.

So will the next president be any different, we don't know. But I do know Obama has not yet lied or tried to confuse the fact as has clinton. That makes me think he is worthy of a chance. I know clinton, I know what she has done. I don't like her lack of honesty. And I am not impressed with the way she handled heatlhcare the last time around. Additionally, she is married to one bill clinton who caused huge distractions in the White House with his extra marital affairs. Because he had trouble keeping his privates in his pants the nation was distracted from attending to the terrorists at our door. How do you know that will not happen again?
In addition, bill makes tens of millions each year attending to the needs of special interests. How do you know that is not going to affect policy and performance?

We need a full-time president to attend to the intersts of the United States. We do not need distractions. The clintons have a track record and it is not good.

I had not seen your post yet when I wrote my previous but it looks like I was copying you.

Great minds just think alike Nirakar. :) I belive you...good comments.

Even if Hillary does understand the problem I have no confidence that Hillary is willing to oppose the special interests. If the USA starts restricting access to the American consumer markets then the other countries will start restricting American corporate access to their consumer and financial markets and their markets are where the rapid growth will be. I just can't see Hillary standing up to pressure when she caved in to Bob Dole on health care 13 years ago and more recently called even trying to take on the insurance companies a mistake that she will not repeat.

The condition will be right for her to push legislation because of pressure from the citizens. 13 years ago, people had jobs and the country was propsperous. We did not import $49 billion worth Pharma then.

No one understands the exponential nature of the trade deficit unless you are an engineer or a good applied mathematician. Exponential nature creates unstability and falling off the cliff is more likely because you can not put the breaks on in time....

Obama is simply an unknown quantity. To top it off, he is black (not really - half black - but perceptions count) So what can happen and is more likely is that the government bureaucracy will be doing same linear stuff when he is the President and when sh!t hits the fan, they all will blame him and the victims called American public. I am willing to bet on it. He is too young to have the experience to understand the complexities of the globalization.

Then again he can get lucky....but I doubt it....

I have watched many senate and house testimonials on all types of topics. They bring up key aspects and at the end of the day...it is business as usual not withstanding GAO recommendations....American economy is an extremely complex beast...since the same bureaucracy will be there...I doubt anything will change much....nothing to counter exponential changes....

Just like Kennedy was too young aah kmguru? JFK should have listen to his older wiser generals and invaded cuba, then we would all be smoldering radioactive ashes today, much better. The ageist argument against obama always pisses me off as it assumes other young presidents must have been childish buffoons , the man is 47 I think that is plenty old.

Just like Kennedy was too young aah kmguru?

It is like comparing fixing a tube television with a modern integrated circuit board. Our situation is a lot more complex than those simple days. In the good old days, a high school drop out did have a decent living. Mail room clerks could become CEOs...not anymore.

With your named avatar, I thought you would understand better than others....oh...well...

Kmguru, in reading your posts, I think this boils down to an issue of who has the uterus. Obama does not have one. He is black, but who cares. He communicates well with people, a good quality in a leader. In order to effect change in Washingtion, we will need a leader who can elicit action from people...get them motivated. And he has clearly shown that he can do that. He will also need to be a good executive. I think by any measure, he has managed his campaign far better than hillary or McCain. hillary's campaign has been plagued by a series of miss steps and internal shake-ups.
Obama has done well with whites and indeed all races. I find it ironic that the better educated you are the more likely you are to support Obama. What can you infer from that? Why is it the better educated folks are supporting Obama?
It seems Obama's biggest obstacle is with poorer whites with little education.

It is like comparing fixing a tube television with a modern integrated circuit board. Our situation is a lot more complex than those simple days. In the good old days, a high school drop out did have a decent living. Mail room clerks could become CEOs...not anymore.

With your named avatar, I thought you would understand better than others....oh...well...

What does complexity have th do with ageism? your argument is a red haring.

Hillary math:

This is great stuff coming from Mrs. Enfranchisement and one who is raising a big stink about excluding votes from Florida and Michigan to make sure every vote was counted (even if they did violate election rules and hillary had previously agreed to exclude them a few months earlier. She was good not counting those votes when she was ahead in the poles)!

In order to come up with numbers that show she is leading in popular vote she begins by immediately disenfranchising all voters from caucus states (three states). Even though those states broke no voting rules, she eliminates them from the calculation.

Next, she disenfranchises all of the voters in Michigan who voted against her. The votes for other or non-committed just vanish and are not counted in her methodology. She only wants to count the votes in Michigan that were for her…even though Michigan violated election laws and she was the only one on the ballot as the other candidates complied with the election rules and removed their names from the ballot; and she did not.

Funny in Michigan she has no problem disenfranchising all those who voted against her. I find that funny coming from Mrs. Enfranchisement.

Then she adds in the votes for her from the disqualified states of Florida and Michigan. If you give the votes against her in Michigan to Obama; she is still behind in popular vote and delegates.

I just find this amazing. She just amazes me at how far she will go to obfuscate the truth and deceive the public. Just when I think it could not get any worse, she pulls a new one…hillary math.! And what is even more amazing is people eat it up!

And even after all of this manipulation, using her numbers she is only ahead by 100k.

You were wrong and are still wrong!

Not according to YOUR quote. Hillary's vote sum even according to you, is bigger than Obama's. Interesting but even Obama aggreed this morning... :)

FYI I am in nobody's camp, I just enjoy a good show. All 3 are the same but my money is on McCain because I trust Diebold... :D

Syzygys, you are amazing. First you say that my links/quotes do not have numbers in them. So I pull them out of the text. And now you say they don't say what they clearly say.

So given that, facts and rational thought appear not to be how you process information. So fine, stay with hillary. But don't complain to me in a few years when Social Security is bankrupt and benefits are cut dramatically. Don't complain to me when you cannot afford healthcare. And don't complain to me when you cannot buy gasoline or food for your household.
I encountered similar positions with the bushies in the last two presidential elections. Once again, rational thought and facts were of no consequence. So if you want a repeat of George II, then go ahead....be my guest...elect hillary to the presidency. But again, don't be complaining in a few years. You will deserve what you get.

Syzygys, you are amazing. First you say that my links/quotes do not have numbers in them. So I pull them out of the text. And now you say they don't say what they clearly say.

So given that, facts and rational thought appear not to be how you process information. So fine, stay with hillary. But don't complain to me in a few years when Social Security is bankrupt and benefits are cut dramatically. Don't complain to me when you cannot afford healthcare. And don't complain to me when you cannot buy gasoline or food for your household.
I encountered similar positions with the bushies in the last two presidential elections. Once again, rational thought and facts were of no consequence. So if you want a repeat of George II, then go ahead....be my guest...elect hillary to the presidency. But again, don't be complaining in a few years. You will deserve what you get.

I think he said he is for McCain by way of election fraud conspiracy.

I think you hit the nail on the head Electric!

I think you hit the nail on the head Electric!

Well then reword it so you don't specify that he supporting Hillary, hurry before he looks!