presidential candidates

presidential candidates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MasDom -> presidential candidates (1/7/2007 12:51:56 PM)
http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm I especially love the comedians and Nazi party leaders near the bottom of possible candidates. The sad thing is I realize how much our most likely choices really differ. [:D]Althow I do like McCain. But still.....ever feel their just not trying any more?

cuddleheart50 -> RE: presidential canidates (1/7/2007 12:54:12 PM)
I cant wait until the elections.

MasDom -> RE: presidential candidates (1/7/2007 12:55:14 PM)
What I mean is were are all the people who want to make a change?

Chaingang -> RE: presidential candidates (1/7/2007 1:56:03 PM)
McCain is a wanker.

cuddleheart50 -> RE: presidential candidates (1/7/2007 2:17:21 PM)
Hmmm, then maybe I should vote for McCain. [;)]

toservez -> RE: presidential candidates (1/7/2007 2:20:37 PM)
It is sad but there does seem to be very few people who are true leaders running for the office. Maybe because of 9/11 and protection is so high on everyone’s priority list that standing out on things that would make a difference makes you more of a target and the person cannot survive the onslaught. Certainly in my lifetime the Republican money behind the scenes normally picks their candidate before their primaries even start and the Democrats have some sort of free for all. Good points and bad points for each and certainly appears the losers are always us. I have done a 180 on McCain. I use to love him but now he seems like some desperate old man who has publicly sold his soul for his shot. He seems to have loss all integrity in his obvious move to the hard right to get the money and nomination and then go toward the center thing that all Republicans do.

Sinergy -> RE: presidential candidates (1/7/2007 7:33:11 PM)
The problem I have with McCain goes back to imagining his State of the Union speech, and then that little voice in my head voice-overs it with Christopher Walken's dissertation about having that uncomfortable hunk of metal up his ass for 4 years in that Hanoi Pit of Hell. Which is not to say I wouldnt vote for him, assuming I didnt vote for Nader again. Sinergy

WyrdRich -> RE: presidential candidates (1/7/2007 8:04:33 PM)
ROFL Dear God, I can hear it.

Archer -> RE: presidential candidates (1/7/2007 11:30:09 PM)
Firmly in a Red state I have the luxury once again of voting Libertarian without worry that it will toss the election like the first time I voted for someone Independant for President. (Thank you Ross Perot) Of course I doubt either of the majors will run anyone worth a damn this time either, same tired ideas, same talk fiscal responsibility but never make any actual cuts, just find more ways to get more money so the government can PROVIDE for whoever's votes they want to buy. And don't think that both parties are not doing it, Republicans may be beholding to big business, but the Democrates are just as beholdin to big labor, and their own blocks of votes paid for through programs and subsidies. They both buy our votes with tax money.

SusanofO -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 12:51:01 AM)
As a serious comment on the upcomig election: I really like Barack Obama and think he's got a good chance of getting the Democratic nomination. I think Obama's got a lot going in the charisma department, and I think that counts for more than many would like to perhaps admit, when it comes to actually winning an election. I have a sneaking suspicion Obama may turn out to be less-than-stellar, upon close inspection, when it comes to making policy decisions, in the sense that he will be just as moderate and effective as maybe many others would have been when it comes to decision-making and actual results -but - I do think he is as smart and hard-working as they come, and he seems sincere (to me) as far as his reasons for wanting to be in the area of high echelon governmental elective public service - as sincere as a politican can get, anyway. Then again, Hillary Clinton is probably (I think) going to run on the Democratic ticket, and she's got Bill Clinton helping her, which is no small thing as I think he is the personification on charisma, and also really brainy, in a natural, laid-back, folksy yet driven kind of way that many find appealing. Plus, he's got all of his old buddies he can call upon for favors in Hillary's name - to raise funds, to get her into places to make speeches, etc. That is not insignificant pull in her favor. I read an article in TIME (magazine) today that said the problem both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might have, is that they are both going to be compared to Bill Clinton, and if one likes Bill Clinton (and many do- maybe at least as many as dislike him) then they might know this is a tough perception to overcome in the public eye. He (Bill Clinton) was just so brainy and charismatic, that he is tough for other Dem candidates to be compared to. But, since Bill Clinton was, in fact, the last Dem who was President, and also since he accomplished a lot while in office (I remember he balanced the budget, which at the time was no small feat, and he also began true and significant welfare reform, among other things), that is unfortunately who any Dem running for President will be compared to (besides the somewhat desperate need some will feel, I imagine, to be finally rid of George Bush, and expressing general disillusion with the Republican party in general, perhaps, by not electing another Republican to office, for a significant while - or at least a term anyway). On the Republican side, I agree John McCain would make a good candidate (at least in my eyes). I am not sure the fields are ripe for picking, as far as winnable Republican Presidentail candidates. And if I was the Republican National Committe Chairman right now, I'd be a little worried about that, frankly. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 2:47:56 AM)
On second thought, I think Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, from my own home state of Nebraska, would make a great Republican Presidential nominee. He has charisma, and can really come across as a real "Alpha-dog politician" (in the vein of a Bill Clinton, sans the scandals with females) - a guy with a lot of integrity, brains, and a can-do attitude (which he really does have, I think). Plus, he is darn easy on the eyes (which doesn't count for a lot with me, as far as voting for someone, but I think in this age of the 10-second political TV advertisement, with ever more visual imagery available in the form of things like 24 hour news channels and the internet, that can really impact someone's political image in ways some would rather not admit, for better or worse). Chuck Hagel is pretty much a moderate Republican with some definitely liberal opinions (and plenty of conservative ones). I am not sure he'll run, but know he is seriously considering it, but if he does, if he can overcome his lack of name recognition, and do enough fund raising, I think he might be the Republicans' greatest hope for a victory (outside of John McCain, that is). - Susan

Real0ne -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 7:01:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasDom http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm I especially love the comedians and Nazi party leaders near the bottom of possible candidates. The sad thing is I realize how much our most likely choices really differ. [:D]Althow I do like McCain. But still.....ever feel their just not trying any more? ] ok so whats the difference? Last election we had kerry and bush. They are cuzinz. They are both skull and bones which if you do a little research you will find has its roots in nazi germany. Look at all the interviews they refused to comment on it? So if the nazis are at the bottom of the list thats a good thing i would think.

TahoeSadist -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 7:31:38 AM)
[/quote]] ok so whats the difference? Last election we had kerry and bush. They are cuzinz. They are both skull and bones which if you do a little research you will find has its roots in nazi germany. Look at all the interviews they refused to comment on it? So if the nazis are at the bottom of the list thats a good thing i would think. [/quote] Maybe I shouldn't let facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory, but unless the Nazi Party was founded before 1832 (and was dormant for almost 100 years...) it has nothing to do with the Skull & Bones group, founded at Yale in 1832. Unless of course there is such a thing as retroactive "roots" http://www.freedomdomain.com/skullbones.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones http://skullandcrossbones.org/articles/skullandbones.htm

Real0ne -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 7:42:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TahoeSadist Maybe I shouldn't let facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory, but unless the Nazi Party was founded before 1832 (and was dormant for almost 100 years...) it has nothing to do with the Skull & Bones group, founded at Yale in 1832. Unless of course there is such a thing as retroactive "roots" http://www.freedomdomain.com/skullbones.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones http://skullandcrossbones.org/articles/skullandbones.htm Excerpts from your first link: They are required as a part of their initiation ceremony to lie naked in a coffin and recite their sexual history. This method allows other members to control the individual by threatening to reveal their innermost secrets if they do not "go-along" George Bush's father as well as George Bush were and are members of Skull & Bones. A major key figure in Skull & Bones was William Averall Harriman. Pamela Harriman supplied the funds to elect Bill Clinton to office. Harriman was THE major backer of the Democratic Party for over 50 years. Major players in Skull & Bones have been linked to the financing of both world wars and the creation of many think-tanks and Universities in this country. Bush's father was a major contributor to the "Hitler Project" as well as the build-up of the Soviet Union. Thus, leading to the inevidable World Wars and the eventual set-up of the United Nations in America. its gets better! http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm Excerpt from the hitler project: Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush. LOL thanks for making my case! i wish it was only a theory, i would gladly exchange going down as a crackpot if it were only theory. The point being that this country and the rest of the world is being run by bankers not who we or other countries elect as their leaders. It doesnt matter!

popeye1250 -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 10:27:53 AM)
Susan, Bill Clinton wasn't all that popular. Maybe with the left he was but, he never got more than 46% of the vote in either election and his Presidency ended in disgrace and Impeachment by the Congress. And he wasn't well liked by males. Not "one of the guys." As for Bush he's * no Republicanhe's just a shill for big business. I've been reading about Mitt Romney and I like him because he's kind of an "outsider" as far as Washington is concerned. John Mc Cain doesn't have a chance in hell as he lost the whole conservative side of the Republican party with his and Kennedy's "Amnesty" for illegal aliens Bill! Our senator here in S.C. Lindsey Graham is going to be voted out of office in '08 for voting for that Bill. Republicans cannot win* without the conservative side of the party. They have a term for people like Mc Cain, "R.I.N.O."- "Republican in name only" and Mc Cain fits that to a "T". So does Bush! I'd like to see Lou Dobbs the commentator on CNN run for President as an Independant. Oh, what exactly did Clinton "accomplish" during his Presidency? "NAFTA? That COLOSUL MISTAKE of a "free trade" Bill? Someone in here said that Clinton "ushered in" the high tech boom of the '90's. Yup, I bet Bill Gates was just chomping at the bit waiting for that inauguration! Oh wait! It was "Midnight Basketball", right?

Real0ne -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 12:08:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Susan, Bill Clinton wasn't all that popular. Maybe with the left he was but, he never got more than 46% of the vote in either election and his Presidency ended in disgrace and Impeachment by the Congress. And he wasn't well liked by males. Not "one of the guys." As for Bush he's * no Republicanhe's just a shill for big business. I've been reading about Mitt Romney and I like him because he's kind of an "outsider" as far as Washington is concerned. John Mc Cain doesn't have a chance in hell as he lost the whole conservative side of the Republican party with his and Kennedy's "Amnesty" for illegal aliens Bill! Our senator here in S.C. Lindsey Graham is going to be voted out of office in '08 for voting for that Bill. Republicans cannot win* without the conservative side of the party. They have a term for people like Mc Cain, "R.I.N.O."- "Republican in name only" and Mc Cain fits that to a "T". So does Bush! I'd like to see Lou Dobbs the commentator on CNN run for President as an Independant. Oh, what exactly did Clinton "accomplish" during his Presidency? "NAFTA? That COLOSUL MISTAKE of a "free trade" Bill? Someone in here said that Clinton "ushered in" the high tech boom of the '90's. Yup, I bet Bill Gates was just chomping at the bit waiting for that inauguration! Oh wait! It was "Midnight Basketball", right? i disagree, NOT a mistake, planned! its all part of the NWO plan. As a whole they are all working toward the same goal "NWO". Known rigged elections of kennedy, clinton and gw for sure. Of course kennedy didnt play the game according the rules so he is no longer with us. So does it really matter who ya vote for? i dont know for sure but i thi8nk we lost the supreme court too these templars already.

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 12:10:28 PM)
nobody on that list i wouldn vote for

cyberdude611 -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 5:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TahoeSadist ok so whats the difference? Last election we had kerry and bush. They are cuzinz. They are both skull and bones which if you do a little research you will find has its roots in nazi germany. Look at all the interviews they refused to comment on it? So if the nazis are at the bottom of the list thats a good thing i would think. Maybe I shouldn't let facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory, but unless the Nazi Party was founded before 1832 (and was dormant for almost 100 years...) it has nothing to do with the Skull & Bones group, founded at Yale in 1832. Unless of course there is such a thing as retroactive "roots" http://www.freedomdomain.com/skullbones.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones http://skullandcrossbones.org/articles/skullandbones.htm It's no secret... It's a global philosophy called PNAC, which stands for "Product for a New American Century." And it isn't an idea that originated in the 1990s...it began in the 1930s and it was the driving force of the Cold War. The purpose of the Cold War was not to defeat communism, but to create three economic power centers...Japan, Western Europe, and the United States. It worked. By 1980, the 3 power centers (making up only 10% of the world population) controlled most of the wealth throughout the world. The goal from 1980 and through today is to create two other power centers...China and India. And the goal of the US right now is to beef up the economies of Mexico and Canada. This is why neo-conservatives agree with the idea that sending jobs to China and India and that it is a "good thing." And it is also why they agree with granting amnesty to illegal aliens from Mexico.

Real0ne -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 5:05:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia nobody on that list i wouldn vote for granted as far as the big picture is concerned it really does not matter who you vote for but there is still the little picture. i personally use this method and that is if you dont want to vote for anyone then vota against hthe one you dislike the most, but vote.

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: presidential candidates (1/8/2007 5:08:58 PM)
i'm not even registered anyway. have no plans of changing that either.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125