Do you think electing the beotch President will result in
civil war? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Or will we just bend over and take it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

We bent over and took it ... for two terms, when her hubby was elected. Why not in 2008??

BTW, will Bill then be called, "First Gentleman"???

L.W.

Not likely. "Bent Gent", maybe.

LW,

My head tells me you are right on, but my heart still has hopes to the contrary? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> We will probably know soon
enough! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> As for slick willie....how about
1st house husband? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Not that she's who I want for president BUT... We are bending over and taking it right now!!

"And the truth shall set you free!" We are getting hosed now with Bush. No am not voting for Hillary and no I will not do so but one thing is certain: Bush has ruined many Republicans and many are unhappy as can be and most likely, Bush has shot any Republican's chance for the Whitehouse in 2008. People are flat fed up with everything, prolonged war, fuel prices and lost jobs overseas. The demos just have to pick someone and they will likely get the vote. I do fear the Hillery will be the one. I sure the hell hope not. I would however vote for many moderate Democrates out there before I would vote for a Liberal Republican. The demos pick a good person w/ a moderate record and they will get my vote.

CM

ANY vote for ANY Democrap is SEDITIOUS!!!!!
The libs ARE the downfall of America!!!!
Until the vast majority of the population
realizes this,nothing will change.
Voting Dem is not an option!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone really truly believe Hillary has a snow balls chance in hades?

But if Robber Baron Bush and his crowd keep alienating honest Americans then anything can happen.

And you are perfectly happy with high fuel prices, a winless war and jobs fleeing the country faster than the eye can follow and open borders? Is this your idea of a Perfect America?

Sorry pal, Don't lump all Democrats into the same pile. The Republicans are flushing America down the drain plenty fast.

By the way, I am a registered Republican. I have voted both ways and I vote for the Man, not the party.

CM

Democrats are in the same pile!
If you can't see that....
Well ...you can't be helped!
Lest make it simple:Every time YOU vote for a Democrat...You are endorsing TED KENNEDY'S
views!!!! Do you get that?
Look up Sedition in the dictionary.
If you support a jackass like Kennedy,you are guilty of sedition!
There are laws that take care of people who are guilty of sedition that are not enforced...Lucky for you...
Bart

I normally would stay out of these kind of debates, but allthough I agree that the Republicans are spineless, the Democrats are still inline with NAMBLA, PETA, etc. The presidant does not run the country, but his judges do, so that is why I will pick a Republican.

Do you really think a Dem will get lower gas prices? Stop illegals? They want votes, so your theory is out the door.

Just my opinion and the world would be borring if all agreed!

Before Bush we had a much better economy, had a balanced budget with a reserve to help Social Security, had a control on fuel prices, and weren't in Iraq having OUR kids killed. Oh, and the areas we like to hunt in were better protected. We did have an assault weapons ban however. We need someone else in the Whitehouse. Why don't you all stop dumping those of us that are moderates in with the liberals while we're at it? Also, for those that consider abortion the big issue, I don't like it but Bush didn't stop it, but I guess it is OK for our kids to die in Iraq ?? Are we trading fetus' for teenagers and young men?

Condi Rice as POTUS and Colin Powell as the Veep. I'd expect a sweep, they would make a great administration and it would unite the country on race better than anything could on the short term.

Wik,

The seeds were planted during the 8 year klinton regime. Remember the Nasdaq bubble that cleaned out many peoples retirement ?

How about the rampant corporate corruption : Worldcom, Enron etc...

Not to mention the fact that klinton sold us down the river to China (I am sure in return for much $$$$)

You liberals are a brainwashed bunch aren't you ?

Tony.

PS : about Iraq, the general public doesn't have a clue what is really going on there. My daughter is dating a Marine who spent 9 months in Iraq, including the battle of Felugia (sp?). What he has to say about what the liberal controlled press and how they are twisting (spinning) what is going on over there cannot be printed here.

Get a clue.

Ron Paul Prez, Condi veep.

hicountry, I do have a clue. Take a good look at how things are going right now! Do you think Bush is doing a good job!?

Fine as long as you stay away from the koolaid. If you think there's a link between abortion and Iraq, you haven't just missed the point, you don't even know what they are. Talk about apples and oranges! Rotten ones at that! Did you forget about Somalia, two embassies in Africa destroyed, World Trade Center I, and the Cole for starters while Willie blew them off as did Monica him. Economies flow in cycles. Clinton was fortunate to ride that in as was Hillary making 100K on a 1K investment: shrewd.........or something! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

wiktor,

Not a strong arguement at all. Before Bush we didn't have 9/11 either. Wonder how someone like Slick Willy would have handled that one? Kind of funny how the sitting President gets the blame for things that were happening,in the works,beyond his control,or bad decisions and policies made from a previous presidential adminstration. Rising gas prices and jobs leaving the country are two things that have been happening before Bush even ran for office. The Dems have done more to destroy traditional American values,take away our guns, and appoint liberal activist judges than the Republicans ever dreamed of. I will never vote Democrat. They go against all that I hold dear.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
To God Alone Be The Glory!

I was just sitting here wondering who the Republicans might put up to run against Mrs. Bill, and probably Condie is the best choice. But I don't think the leaders of the GOP have the guts to run a woman. So who does that leave? Can't think of anyone who could beat Mrs. Bill.

I detest her (not quite as much as I detest Hanoi Jane) for having no character or core. She blows with the wind. 10 years ago she was an unashamed liberal, and today she takes every opportunity to be seen in the center or even a bit right.

Anyway I think she is a shoo in for Demo candidate, so the GOP better get to work fast trying to beat her.

Wik,

Quite a list of accomplishments for klinton :

1) Rampant corporate corruption
2) Gutted the US military and infastructure
3) Nasdaq debacle (real nice wealth effect that vanished, along with the "budget surplus", see #2 above)
4) A blue dress with a stain
5) Sold the USA mfg down the river to China for campaign contributions and other kickbacks (his boy Gore did the dirty work)
6) allowed Bin Ladin to walk when he had him in the crosshairs TWICE, of course leading up to 9/11

Bunch more, but I gotta go back to work...........

Later spot.

Tony

All I want to say is in reference to the union article also. I see a union employed person is complaining about fuel prices. Well us non union folks have been forced to buy union wage created autos, and many appliances, tires etc.... for all these years.

Welcome to the world.

Sorry I'm off topic.

And while we are at it, those that did not vote Republican about 8 years ago, are the ones that allowed Clinton in, even if they didn't vote Democrat.

I'm with a few others here, there is no perfect party but unless I vote Republican I'm screwing myself.

TLee-- Paul/Rice-- theres a good thought.

Jeff

How soon we forget. Bill Clinton and Monica making the White House nothing more than a cheap motel in the bad part of town. Lets not forget WACO, TEXAS. Clinton also gave China (RED China that is) the technology to develop ICBM's and multiple warheads. Not long ago a high ranking general in China stated that if the U.S. interceeds on the part of Tiawan when China makes its move there are 100 ICBM's targeting U. S. cities which will be loosed. They didn't get the technology from Russia, no they got it from the head liberal of the day, William Jefferson Clinton. I am sure he has a very well stuffed bank account.

Regarding the economy, Clinton didn't have anything to do with it. The cyclical moves were placed in motion by Reagan and Bush I. What we are experiencing today are the result of the turn in the cycle spurred on by Clinton and his staff. The good that W is doing will show up a bit later. You have got to remember that economic cycles don't change suddenly. Greenspan is responsible for keeping everything on an even keel. Note that he doesn't make sudden changes. And, he does a really good job.

When deciding which party to throw in with you have to look at what they stand for. For example abortion, tax and spend, creating a society that is dependent upon governmental handouts. The poor, mostly minorities but not always, are dependent upon the check that comes in the mail as well as food stamps and free medical care, (not really free you and I pay for it.). They are not encouraged to break the ties that bind them to poverty and get educated and then become employable and find a better life. Education is essential to get ahead, a handout only keeps you bound. Disarming the population is another issue one needs to consider. I don't know how anyone who truely believes in the second ammendment can vote the way some of us do. Any of us who post here and on other sites who vote for a party that has one of its planks in their platform the removal of firearms from the citizenry are hypocrites at the very least. If the party you support is one that is as described above better look again.

THANK YOU!!!! Someone FINALLY said it! El presidentes have very little to do with the economy (to paraphrase: it's the ECONOMY, stupid - not politics).



Again, well said. And, having looked at both the platforms and the actual on-field performance of both of the two majors, I choose neither. One is against everything I believe in, both in platform and in actions; the other says that it supports some things I hold dear - and then sells out.

And these are supposed to be choices? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I would never vote for Hillary, or any other Democrat I can think of, however, I fail to see how so many of you think Bush and the current crop of Republicans are doing a good job. Bush is no conservative. Examine the following list:

- Abortion. Despite a Republican controlled congress and a so-called Christian Republican president, abortion continues unabated (in fact a recent study shows they have increased in recent years). If Bush were the Christian he claims and abortion was a priority for him, they have the power to stop it, if not the political will.

- Taxes. Yes, there have been some tax cuts, but no restructuring of the tax code, no major tax cuts. Meanwhile, reforms like repeal of the estate tax languish (just put off the other day until the Senate gets back from break).

- Immigration. Need anything really be said. Despite increased security fears and swamping of public services by illegals, Bush does nothing. Unless you count proposing amnesty for illegals and making it so our social security pays to them while they are in Mexico as positive reforms.

- Growth of government. Even without figuring the massive military spending, government spending has increased astronomically with new government programs like prescription drugs for the elderly coming on line. Latest estimates have that boondoggle costing something closer to 1 TRILLION dollars than the lame estimates we were given while they were trying to get it to pass.

There are many more that I could mention, but these sorts of things are not what I expect from a so-called conservative. In fact, they look downright liberal. Notice, I have not mentioned the so-called War on Terror. I do not agree with it's course, but I am willing to give a pass on it for the sake of argument. It is worth mentioning, however, that for better or worse, Bush has presided over some of the most drastic limitations of our civil liberties in history. No, we don't live in a police state, but all the tools are in place. They are just waiting for someone to put them in use against all the internal dissenters and "right-wing wackos". Mark my words, the next focus will be away from foreign terrorists and back to militia groups and so-called "domestic terrorists". Those things hit pretty close to a lot of people on this board. All those tools are put in place by Bush are just waiting for someone like Hillary to come in and use. On whom do you think she will focus?

And finally Bush's stupidity and hubris sometimes seem to combine for monumental errors. Latest example, the recess appointment of John Bolton. Bush wanted Bolton. Bush must get his way, so he appointed Bolton. What is stupid about it? Well, who really cares who our ambassador to the U.N. is? Can anyone name the last three, I can't? Does anyone think that in the end, it will really make that much difference? Then, why did Bush do something that will waste so much political capital and seem to many in Congress to be a sneaky move designed to deprive them of their rightful say about appointments (not saying I agree with them, this is just how many will see it)? Why oh why, when the next big appointee is for the Supreme Court? Why piss off Congress when you will need their help in getting through one of the most important appointments imaginable? Why make them mad over an appointment to the U.N. that is almost laughably irrelevent? The Supreme Court nominee will have a tougher time because Bush ruffled some feathers on this Bolton deal.

For the life of me, I cannot understand it sometimes. I have always wanted a president who didn't compromise his principles, but this one seems to compromise on things that matter and bull his neck up over things that don't.

No, I would never vote for Hillary. But after this eight years, she is likely to be a shoe-in. After that, you can all have her. Me and mine are going to New Zealand.

wiktor,

I guess you're one of those who has forgotten that our world changed on 9/11. (That was brewing before Bush, incidently)

Be fair & realistic when making a judgement. Imagine, if you will, Algore dealing with 9/11 & the consequences.............

badger

Nice summery Cossatojoe,

I believe we have two party's allright, liberal democrats and liberal RINO's, it is time for a Constituiolalist GOVERNMENT, from the President on down. Those there now are not our friends, and that is BOTH sides of the aisle IMHO. No I won't vote Hitlery, I may write in Ron Paul though!

badger, I totally agreed with the war with Afghanistan. Iraq is is getting our boys killed for exactly what? I have a friend that came back and pretty much said that it is a pretty godforsaken country. His sister served two tours and thought the war was bad news. My son is going over in September. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We should have put the real hurt to Afghanistan and not changed our focus. By the way, the tax cuts were a stupid idea when the country is at war and spending the kind of money we are going through.

Back to the topic line for a moment. I wouldn't vote for her but is Hillary the WORST thing that could happen? Imagine the backlash. Bill gave us a Republican-dominated House and Senate for the first time in 40 years, been that way ever since.

A "stealth" candidate on the part of either party could be a whole lot worse IMHO.

Birdwatcher

wiktor,
I just love a "Know-it-all".
SPEW...SPEW...SPEW...
No answers,just criticism....
People that think like you are WORTHLESS to our Republic!!!!
You have nothing to add that is constructive.You only bitch.
I hope that I have made myself clear!

Bart,
I do actually have a lot to contribute but a hothead such as yourself wouldn't listen. People like you are what is wrong with this whole process, I think you are a know-it-all! I hope I made MYSELF clear to you!

Cossatajoe

Have to agree on all points cept about moving to New Zealand...

Bush is a dismal failure and a bitter disappointment, but I only voted for Jr. one time. Second time I went CP.

I think all viable conservative third party folks need to get together NOW to work on a strategy. If the Libertarians, CP, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan could all get together, then maybe the 3rd's might have a chance.

While I agree Sadamm prob wasn't telling UBL what to do there is credible evidence he and UBL were buddies.
See:

Beyond what people are saying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, there is the evidence. In 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 14 of the document, marked "Top Secret" and dated March 28, 1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have a "good relationship" with the Iraqi intelligence section in Syria. The Defense Intelligence Agency has possession of the document and has assessed that it is accurate. In 1993, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden reached an "understanding" that Islamic radicals would refrain from attacking the Iraqi regime in exchange for unspecified assistance, including weapons development. This understanding, which was included in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in the spring of 1998, has been corroborated by numerous Iraqis and al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody. In 1994, Faruq Hijazi, then deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met face-to-face with bin Laden. Bin Laden requested anti-ship limpet mines and training camps in Iraq. Hijazi has detailed the meeting in a custodial interview with U.S. interrogators. In 1995, according to internal Iraqi intelligence documents first reported by the New York Times on June 25, 2004, a "former director of operations for Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19." When bin Laden left Sudan in 1996, the document states, Iraqi intelligence sough "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." That same year, Hussein agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state television. In 1997, al Qaeda sent an emissary with the nom de guerre Abdullah al Iraqi to Iraq for training on weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell cited this evidence in his presentation at the UN on February 5, 2003. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Powell's presentation on Iraq and terrorism was "reasonable."

In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq's Intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al Qaeda sent a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden to Baghdad for 16 days of meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al Melia hotel and expressed hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden. The DIA has assessed those documents as authentic. In 1999, a CIA Counterterrorism Center analysis reported on April 13 that four intelligence reports indicate Saddam Hussein has given bin Laden a standing offer of safe haven in Iraq. The CTC report is included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's review on prewar intelligence.

In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after learning that Iraq had agreed to help al Qaeda attack U.S. and British interests on the peninsula. In 2001, satellite images show large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists displaced after the war in Afghanistan relocating to camps in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, a report from the National Security Agency in October reveals that Iraq agreed to provide safe haven, financing and weapons to al Qaeda members relocating in northern Iraq. In 2003, on February 14, the Philippine government ousted Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, for his involvement in al Qaeda-related terrorist activites. Andrea Domingo, head of Immigration for the Philippine government, told reporters that "studying the movements and activities" of Iraqi intelligence assets in the

country, including radical Islamists, revealed an "established network" of terrorists headed by Hussein.

Please read this long article at teh following LINK

As to hillary :

Donald Lambro in the Wasington Times reports on words of wisdom from Democratic operative Harold Ickes, one of Hillary Clinton's top advisers. Responding to concerns by leftists over Ms. Clinton's remarks to the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council, Ickes stated, "It's much more important to look at what she does and how she votes." If one looks at her voting record, one finds a near-perfect 95 percent approval score from the strongly liberal group Americans for Democratic Action.

wiktor,
I just re-read all of your replies on this subject.
You have been a doom and gloomer about everything.
How it was better when Klinton was in office. You comment about Social Security is not only laffable,its absoloutly ridiculous!
You called me a hothead, thats about the only thing that you are right about.
Step back,have a cold beer,go and pet a dog,life is good!
Bart

So you think that workers have to make poor non union wages so your washing machine will cost less? Kind of selfish don't you think?

CM

I wouldn't try to reason with him. He's still tramatized by being "forced" into buying union made products. Think he might be a tad jealous us uneducated union goons are overpaid and underworked?

What a grim subject to contemplate.

Seems like we oughta take a good hard look at hell in session.

A fate worse than death?

Lotsa comments on who'd've been better than �bama. Now let's hear who'd be worse than Hitlery.

You do realize the OP was 9 years old right?

Al Sharpton?
Bill Ayres?
Elizabeth Warren?
Valerie Jarrett?

I was all set to protest Bush being blamed for things happening in the current administration when I looked at the dates of the posts. 2005? While the original title is topical enough, as were many of the arguments expressed then, a lot of it is dated.

I'm going back to bed!!

Neither Condi or Colin have the fire and we would have to draft them kicking and screaming. We are pretty screwed right now. I see no one on the horizon who would put America or Americans first and foremost. My bet is on Ted Cruz or Rick Perry because they want the position. If they are not campaigning for it I am going to stay away from drafting anyone. kwg

Good list. I would add bernie sanders, cris cristie, mooshell, and difi.

I don't understand the need to revive old posts that have little to do with anything. Several have surfaced in the last few days. The Presidential election is still 2 years away with a whole new cast of characters. miles

I fully expect Hillary to do about as well as she did in 2008.

Amen

The only way Hildog will let Slick Willie back in the WH is if he is fixed first.
ie - just like neutering a pet dog or cat.

Condi does not want to run because she would not want to answer the same questions...over and over...

Why did you support Bush on Iraq?
Why are you pro-choice?
Why aren't you married?