NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my prediction. I think the Republicans will lose some seats in 2006. This will trigger a move to the center that will cause them to win the 2008 Presidential election.

My guess is that either Rudy or McCain will get the nomination. (I like them both, but I have to vote for McCain based on experience and the fact he was a Captain in the USN.)

I think voters on both sides are going to be sick of partisan politics when 2008 rolls around. The likely Dem candidate is Hitlary Clinton. She is someone who is sure to grab the left vote, but she isn't too popular among moderates. If anyone was asked to name a moderate in the Senate, the 1st name to come up is McCain.

I personally say I like McCain more than Bush. I like Bush, but he is too far to the right on social issues (I love his economic plans and foreign policy though.) That is why McCain is good. He is in line with the President on those issues and just not as conservative on social issues. Guiliani is the same way, except I don't think being the Mayor of NYC is the best job to have before the presidency.

Nah ... Hillary won't run. Not too sure McCain will either, but it's more likely.

I've been meaning to get a run down on which seats are up for election in 2006. Anyone have that info on hand so I can be lazy and not look it up?

I want Jon Stewart for president. Simple as that.

Problem is he probably wont run...he's making too much money MAKING FUN of presidents...why would he want to be one.

A guy can dream though.

There is no centre; it was eroded away over the last mandate.

There is now only right-wing and extreme right-wing.

If someone who agrees with Bush's foreign and economic policy runs, then that does not exactly constitute a shift to the centre, does it?

Hillary will run in 08 and she WILL WIN!

Go Hillary! Go Hillary!

I want her to run on a campaign of "Bringing back dignity to the White House" just to slap the GOP in the face with their whole "There were WMD in Iraq" thing.

The only way Hillary would lose in 08 is if the GOP got Oprah to run for President on their ticket.

Hillary will run in 08 and she WILL WIN!

Go Hillary! Go Hillary!

I want her to run on a campaign of "Bringing back dignity to the White House" just to slap the GOP in the face with their whole "There were WMD in Iraq" thing.

The only way Hillary would lose in 08 is if the GOP got Oprah to run for President on their ticket.

*overloads and dies from a sarcasm-serious feedback*

If someone who agrees with Bush's foreign and economic policy runs, then that does not exactly constitute a shift to the centre, does it?

Honestly, I don't want a centrist economic policy, and I don't want another Bush (who gave in to senators whining about Chinese textiles and CNOOC). I want a committed free trader who isn't going to give in to unions whining about outsourcing and who will try to revive old, dead protectionist tactics (like several candidates did in 2004, which is why I couldn't vote Democrat). At the same time I want a fiscal conservative who believes in controlling both spending and tax cuts.

Honestly, I don't want a centrist economic policy, and I don't want another Bush (who gave in to senators whining about Chinese textiles and CNOOC). I want a committed free trader who isn't going to give in to unions whining about outsourcing and who will try to revive old, dead protectionist tactics (like several candidates did in 2004, which is why I couldn't vote Democrat). At the same time I want a fiscal conservative who believes in controlling both spending and tax cuts.
That is why I want McCain in there. McCain is a true fiscal conservative who will tell Congress to shove it when they try and pass pork filled bills. That is one thing I don't like about Bush. He doesn't use the red pen to stop pork, but then again few on either side have done that. McCain woudl though.

Hillary will run in 08 and she WILL WIN!

Go Hillary! Go Hillary!

I want her to run on a campaign of "Bringing back dignity to the White House" just to slap the GOP in the face with their whole "There were WMD in Iraq" thing.

The only way Hillary would lose in 08 is if the GOP got Oprah to run for President on their ticket.
FUnny, I recall Hitlery and her husband saying there were WMD's in Iraq for 8 years.

I want a committed free trader...
:fluffle:

At the same time I want a fiscal conservative who believes in controlling both spending and tax cuts.
I'm more pragmatic about that. Do it if it makes sense, but don't do it just for its own sake.

:fluffle:
Thanks.:cool:

I'm more pragmatic about that. Do it if it makes sense, but don't do it just for its own sake.

I agree.

Oh, perfect - if this holds true then we'll become even more Republicratic.:mad:

FUnny, I recall Hitlery and her husband saying there were WMD's in Iraq for 8 years.

LIES! Lies put out by the Neo-Con Right in an attempt to shift blame for their own mistakes onto the Clinton Administration (which the GOP hated and still hates to this day). In fact I believe that if the GOP had HALF the chance, they would blame the sinking of the Titanic on Bill and Hillary if they could.

SO I don't buy it!

The unbeatable combination would be McCain and Powell, but I don't think they would have a chance for nomination.

I also don't believe Hillary will win the nomination. There is an old saying: He who goes in as a Pope comes out as a Cardinal. Very seldom does the front leader at this stage win the nomination. The only exceptions are VP's who are the natural inheritors.

If I was to bet right now, I would say Warner, who just left the Governor of VA. Moderate who has been able to work with Rep. legislature. Governors traditionally make better presidents then congress people. They also don't have a long voting record that shows a lot of compromise. Compromise is needed in a legislature but doesn't show as much (even though it's there) as a governor.

LIES! Lies put out by the Neo-Con Right in an attempt to shift blame for their own mistakes onto the Clinton Administration (which the GOP hated and still hates to this day). In fact I believe that if the GOP had HALF the chance, they would blame the sinking of the Titanic on Bill and Hillary if they could.

SO I don't buy it!
Are you a moron? Do you recall Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 when Bill Clinton bombed Iraq because they had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. He spent 8 years claiming they had them and then bombed facilities believed to have been used in their manufacture. Please shut the fuck up until you come back at me with facts instead of screaming "lies" and crying before crawling under a rock.

LIES! Lies put out by the Neo-Con Right in an attempt to shift blame for their own mistakes onto the Clinton Administration (which the GOP hated and still hates to this day). In fact I believe that if the GOP had HALF the chance, they would blame the sinking of the Titanic on Bill and Hillary if they could.

SO I don't buy it!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Oh COME ON! We BOTH know that was just Bill's way distracting everyone from the whole "Monica" thing. Of course a Neo-Con like you would dreg up this particular episode of history while ignoring the fact that the UN has already reported that by the end of the 90's Saddam's WMD capacity was ZERO and his ability to rebuild a WMD arsenal was also ZERO.

So Shut the fuck up you stupid Neo-Con Nazi!

So Shut the fuck up you stupid Neo-Con Nazi!
Great, you made my block list

Funny, I recall Hitlery and her husband saying there were WMD's in Iraq for 8 years.
I have nothing of any significance to add to this debate, I just love the fact you call her "Hitlery" hehe! :D

I have nothing of any significance to add to this debate, I just love the fact you call her "Hitlery" hehe! :D
I have to say Hillary a dem I dislike more than most. (only Teddy "Swimmer" Kennedy tops her.) My Dad named our dog Hillary because he couldn't think of a better name for a bitch.

On the topic of centrist candidates. If the dems ran Lieberman, I'd have a hard time voting against him. Of course they wouldn't run him though.

Oh COME ON! We BOTH know that was just Bill's way distracting everyone from the whole "Monica" thing. Of course a Neo-Con like you would dreg up this particular episode of history while ignoring the fact that the UN has already reported that by the end of the 90's Saddam's WMD capacity was ZERO and his ability to rebuild a WMD arsenal was also ZERO.

So Shut the fuck up you stupid Neo-Con Nazi!
Congratulations, you are a moron. I don't think Hillary was covering for Monica in 2002 when she made her statements. The UN never reported he had 0. When they were kicked out in 1998 they claimed he had them. And in 2002 before the Iraq War, the CIA didn't just say we had them, The British, Germans, French, Russians, and UN all said Saddam had them.

When you have to resort to calling the other side names like "neo-con" or "nazi" you know you lost. Same applies when conservatives call leftists "commies."

Let me put it this way...

2008 wil be the first major election I can vote in. I'm also going to say that I AM a democrat. Here's why I'm not voting for...

Hillary: Hates videogames, but has probably never played one. Huge phony and a cutthroat.

Nader: 'nuff said.

Edwards: Too inexperienced.

Warner: Have you BEEN to the South lately?

Here's why I will vote for:

McCain: He's a moderate sensible politican that I have a great deal of respect for.

Giuliani: Come on, I live in New York, It's Rudy Giuliani, how could I NOT?

Obama: Damn, that guy can move a crowd!

Of course, that's just my personal opinion.

Oh COME ON! We BOTH know that was just Bill's way distracting everyone from the whole "Monica" thing. Of course a Neo-Con like you would dreg up this particular episode of history while ignoring the fact that the UN has already reported that by the end of the 90's Saddam's WMD capacity was ZERO and his ability to rebuild a WMD arsenal was also ZERO.

So Shut the fuck up you stupid Neo-Con Nazi!

First off, Clinton was two years out of office when Hillary made his statements. Second, there were other leading democrats making the same statements -- do you want me to get those, too? I can and will -- all I have to do is go to my bookmarks folder.

I'm glad to see, however, that the mere rebuttal of your unsubstantial arguments inclines you to use extreme vulgar language, a series of flaming insults, as well as the immediate label of neo-con and a "nazi."

I could go on to explain why I am neither, however, it is not worth my time. Instead, I shall report this incident to the moderators, and they shall deal with it as they see fit.

I think they'll move to the center socially, but I see a growing fiscal movement in the US towards the right. Also, I think the hawkishness won't decrease on the Rep side.

I think they'll move to the center socially, but I see a growing fiscal movement in the US towards the right. Also, I think the hawkishness won't decrease on the Rep side.

There's hawkishness on both sides. And I hope we keep moving to the right financially, and a tad downward socially. But what the hell, I just don't like corruption and stupidity.

So Shut the fuck up you stupid Neo-Con Nazi!

This kind of response is inappropriate and not tolerated on the forums; consider this your unofficial warning to chill out and calm down.

So Shut the fuck up you stupid Neo-Con Nazi!
Wow, it only took you thirteen posts to break Godwin's law.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/sirus_4rilla/RETARD.jpg
Brush up on it here (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/).

Sen. Clinton is "sure to grab the left vote"?

For what, exactly?

My prediction is that Republicans will lose very few seats if any in 2006, and another religious neo-conservative will be nominated in 2008, but he will lose to Hillary Clinton. I can guarentee you that McCain won't even run for the Republican nomination because he has no chance. Masses of registered Republicans don't think like political strategists, and they are not going to nominate a centrist just to increase their chances of winning. That is perhaps what Democrats do, but Republicans vote for whoever gives them a big stiffy. Republicans will not lose very many seats in 2006 because Democrats have not and will not be able to present themselves as worthy alternatives. I hope I am wrong.

This is my prediction. I think the Republicans will lose some seats in 2006. This will trigger a move to the center that will cause them to win the 2008 Presidential election.

My guess is that either Rudy or McCain will get the nomination. (I like them both, but I have to vote for McCain based on experience and the fact he was a Captain in the USN.)



While the Republicans may lose some seats I disagree there will be a move to the left. (the only thing in the center is the fence) Niether Rudy or McCain will be on the ticket unless McCain switches sides. Rudy is too liberal and McCain and Clinton have way too many skeletons in their closets that they just could not explain away. McCain has also burned a lot of bridges within the Republican party since his last attempt, which would be very difficult to repair. His best bet would be to change parties because a lot of democrats like him.
Hillary now has to explain her work for CPUSA and the Black Panther Party, most would never have known about had she not lied about it in her last book. Her claim was she worked on some sort of child support stuff for a different attorney at the firm. Well, they did some checking and dug up the public records so she's pretty much sunk. Given her and Bill's love for money, compliments of communist chineese military personel, she will probably have a lot of questions as to why only 2% of her campaign contributions in her last senate bid came from New Yorkers. Might lead some to believe that she may not be on their side after all.

Of course this is only my opinion, but I don't believe these names are being tossed about entirely by accident. I think McCain keeps coming up because he is least likely to be attacked by democrats, and Hillary gets tossed out there because Republicans believe they could run "Whizzo the Clown" against her and win. I think both sides want to keep their real prospective candidates off the radar screen so the other side can't get a jump on trashing their credibility before they start. At least that is what I would do if I were a political strategist calling the shots.

snip

In which case, she'll inevitably lose to a Democratic challenger in the primaries. She'll go the way of Dean.

This thread just reaffirms my belief that we have a one-party system here in America. The illusion is maintained by bipartisan bickering over which programs and special interests groups get approval or payment.

Either way, Leviathan grows and liberty loses ground.

This thread just reaffirms my belief that we have a one-party system here in America. The illusion is maintained by bipartisan bickering over which programs and special interests groups get approval or payment.

Either way, Leviathan grows and liberty loses ground.

Without a doubt. I am getting so sick of voting for the least worst candidate. (I know it's bad grammer but it is the best discription of what I do in a voters booth)

Without a doubt. I am getting so sick of voting for the least worst candidate. (I know it's bad grammer but it is the best discription of what I do in a voters booth)
I hear ya. Sadly, I don't think we'll get better candidates until we get a better system (through reform, preferably). In a way, I suppose we get the leaders we deserve in a democracy.

What cracks me up so much is that Conservatives are soooo terrified of Hillary Clinton that they're already slinging mud against her for the 2008 election when, in fact, Hillary Clinton will not run in 2008.

Let me say that again so people can sig it, quote it, and use it against me later:

Hillary Clinton will not run for President of the United States in 2008.

Why are Republicans so terrified of her? I guess they realise that if she did run, she'd win. Massively. Unfortunately, she will not run.

My prediction is that Republicans will lose very few seats if any in 2006, and another religious neo-conservative will be nominated in 2008, but he will lose to Hillary Clinton. I can guarentee you that McCain won't even run for the Republican nomination because he has no chance. Masses of registered Republicans don't think like political strategists, and they are not going to nominate a centrist just to increase their chances of winning. That is perhaps what Democrats do, but Republicans vote for whoever gives them a big stiffy. Republicans will not lose very many seats in 2006 because Democrats have not and will not be able to present themselves as worthy alternatives. I hope I am wrong.
Your assessment is pretty close to my own, with different reasoning.

The outcry over the Harriet Miers nomination unmasked growing dissatisfaction in Republican/conservative ranks that the very reasons for which they elected Bush were ignored. These being (this is by no means a complete list):

1. The judiciary - SCOTUS judges that will more conservatively interpret the Constitution.
2. Fiscal responsibility - lower taxes, AND lower spending.
3. General conservative philosophy - smaller government, most easily obtained by 2.
4. Immigration, linked to national security.
5. National security.

Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill. The moderate Republicans are making extensions of the current tax cuts very difficult. Bush proposed what is essentially an amnesty program, while doing very little to secure the borders. The Harriet Miers nomination was the last straw.

The results of that debacle, I believe, showed GOP leaders that they had best stick to the principles that got them elected, if they want to continue. If they go the other route - become more moderate to appeal to a wider audience - I believe they will lose. They could still lose going more conservative, but, I believe, not as badly.

A side note, Giuliani is too liberal to get past the primaries, and McCain has pissed off too many Repubican stalwarts, as well as being perceived as hostile to social conservatives, to be considered, either. Successful governors that should be considered would be Bill Owens, governor of Colorado that passed Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), Jaycee Watts, former Congressman from Oklahoma, and black. These are my current pet favorites.

I hear ya. Sadly, I don't think we'll get better candidates until we get a better system (through reform, preferably). In a way, I suppose we get the leaders we deserve in a democracy.
There was an idea I heard in another thread about how we turn service in the Federal government into a sort of draft/lottery - when you're number gets called, you go serve your term limit, then go home (afterwards your draft number is deleted/taken out of future drawings).

It sounds intruiging except for the risk of rigged drafts. And that this lotto is coercive (unless I were to try and justify it under the Social Contract Theory philosophy - it's a strech tho), but it might actually be worth it...

"Republicans will move to center in 2008"

And the Democrats will get religion and move even further to the left. So what else is new? :D

"Republicans will move to center in 2008"

And the Democrats will get religion and move even further to the left. So what else is new? :D

When one party moves to the center, the other moves to the extreme side of their politics. (currently the Dems are at the center so the GOP is at the extreme Right, back in the 60's the GOP was at the center and the Dems were at the extreme Left, it's how American politics has worked for quiet sometime now).

I love his economic plans and foreign policy though.
Indeed, I too love huge debt and a religion bent on killing us.

Indeed, I too love huge debt and a religion bent on killing us.

Yeah .... damn Jedis.

And that this lotto is coercive (unless I were to try and justify it under the Social Contract Theory philosophy - it's a strech tho), but it might actually be worth it...

it's not particularly coercive. no more so than the mere existence of a government at all is anyway. and if pay was kept the same ($158,000 per year for congress critters - which is a mere 3.5 times more than the median yearly household income), even if you allowed people to opt out under certain circumstances, you'd still have more than enough willing participants.

I hope they move to this center:
http://www.jeffersonmentalhealth.org/services.cfm

I hope they move to this center:
http://www.jeffersonmentalhealth.org/services.cfm
Yes!

I like Bush, but he is too far to the right on social issues (I love his economic plans and foreign policy though.).bush pressed for the perscription drug benefit, a huge new entitlement program, the largest in 40 years, he let ted kennedy write the education bill, he said he was happy the supreme court recognized the value of diversity, when it held up race based discrimination in 2003, he waved through campaign finance reform, he did not veto porky farm and highway bills or anything else that helped grow the federal budget as under the most extreme spendocrat, in fact he never used his veto power once. his court nominations are so liberal, that one even failed only because of resistance within republican ranks, he has the plan of allowing illegals obtain guestworker status and he has elevated blacks and latinos to higher posts in his government than they had in any administration before... the list goes on. how could you possibly say he is too far on the right? i think he would be an ideal member of the democratic party.
the only thing, that makes him attractive for people on the right to vote for is his comittment to a proactive war on terror and his tax cuts, which many economists agree on, where too small.

bush pressed for the perscription drug benefit, a huge new entitlement program, the largest in 40 years, he let ted kennedy write the education bill, he said he was happy the supreme court recognized the value of diversity, when it held up race based discrimination in 2003, he waved through campaign finance reform, he did not veto porky farm and highway bills or anything else that helped grow the federal budget as under the most extreme spendocrat, in fact he never used his veto power once. his court nominations are so liberal, that one even failed only because of resistance within republican ranks, he has the plan of allowing illegals obtain guestworker status and he has elevated blacks and latinos to higher posts in his government than they had in any administration before... the list goes on. how could you possibly say he is too far on the right? i think he would be an ideal member of the democratic party.
the only thing, that makes him attractive for people on the right to vote for is his comittment to a proactive war on terror and his tax cuts, which many economists agree on, where too small.

Everything you have said is of course absolutely true. I was actually warned by a friend in Texas that Republicans would learn to hate him because he was a liberal in drag. She turned out to be right on the money.

I hope they move to this center:
http://www.jeffersonmentalhealth.org/services.cfm

Lol! Good one. :D

Go Hillary! Go Hillary!

I want her to run on a campaign of "Bringing back dignity to the White House" just to slap the GOP in the face with their whole "There were WMD in Iraq" thing.
lol, Hillary thinks that there were WMDs in Iraq too.

The likely Dem candidate is Hitlary Clinton. She is someone who is sure to grab the left vote, but she isn't too popular among moderates. If anyone was asked to name a moderate in the Senate, the 1st name to come up is McCain.
Why would a leftist ever vote for Hillary Clinton, other than for the purpose of voting against the Republican?

Why is she the most likely Democrat candidate? She could never win. There's too much dirt on her record for the opposition to pick through.

Why are Republicans so terrified of her? I guess they realise that if she did run, she'd win. Massively. Unfortunately, she will not run.
Funny, she seems to disagree with you on too much for you to like her. (unless you have recently gone pro-war)

the only thing, that makes him attractive for people on the right to vote for is his comittment to a proactive war on terror and his tax cuts, which many economists agree on, where too small.

actually, i'd say it's more the cult of personality they built around devotion to dear leader.

Funny, she seems to disagree with you on too much for you to like her. (unless you have recently gone pro-war)

I don't like her much .... I like her husband. I'd love to see him as First Gentleman. That would rock. :D

As far as anyone in the Dem party getting my vote in 2008, they'd need to run Howard Dean, but there's no chance of that.

That is why I want McCain in there. McCain is a true fiscal conservative who will tell Congress to shove it when they try and pass pork filled bills. That is one thing I don't like about Bush. He doesn't use the red pen to stop pork, but then again few on either side have done that. McCain woudl though.

You do know that the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional I hope. Now he could've vetoed the whole bill and tell Congress to lose the pork. Now he could've done that.

On the topic of centrist candidates. If the dems ran Lieberman, I'd have a hard time voting against him. Of course they wouldn't run him though.

I have to agree unfortunately. He'll be a democrat worth voting for.

When you have to resort to calling the other side names like "neo-con" or "nazi" you know you lost. Same applies when conservatives call leftists "commies."

You mean they aren't commies? ;)

Are you a moron? Do you recall Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 when Bill Clinton bombed Iraq because they had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. He spent 8 years claiming they had them and then bombed facilities believed to have been used in their manufacture. Please shut the fuck up until you come back at me with facts instead of screaming "lies" and crying before crawling under a rock.
Well, considering what Bush has turned up, I can only assume that Clinton bombed the right places.

Well, considering what Bush has turned up, I can only assume that Clinton bombed the right places.

Or perhaps, they were moved?

Or perhaps, they were moved?


Maybe Space Aliens moved them, Corneliu.

Or maybe Satan did to spite american christianity.

Maybe Space Aliens moved them, Corneliu.

Or maybe Satan did to spite american christianity.

Thanks for making me laugh. I needed it.

Nah, I bet they were moved to Syria but alas, there's no proof.

Or perhaps, they were moved?
Right... right. I remember now. It's just been a long time since I heard that.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/images/al-qaqaa_041028-d-0000m-002.jpg

Right... right. I remember now. It's just been a long time since I heard that.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/images/al-qaqaa_041028-d-0000m-002.jpg
What is that? The human face on Mars?

What is that? The human face on Mars?

Trucks heading towards Syria.

Or perhaps, they were moved?

Why would someone rid themselves of weapons just before they entered a war?

Saddam must have been an idiot.

Why would someone rid themselves of weapons just before they entered a war?

Saddam must have been an idiot.

Just like him to be an idiot to defy UN Resolutions.

Just like him to be an idiot to defy UN Resolutions.

Meh, people defy UN Resolutions all the time. Not many people purposely make themselves weaker before a conflict though.

Trucks heading towards Syria.
Oh, right...
And were is Syria on that photo?

(Some people will justify Bush's lies with just about anything.)

Thanks for making me laugh. I needed it.

Nah, I bet they were moved to Syria but alas, there's no proof.


Nor any reason at all to believe it.

Oh, right...
And were is Syria on that photo?

(Some people will justify Bush's lies with just about anything.)

Unfair. I doubt the Bush administration would just show a picture of trucks to justify the invasion. They're evil, not stupid.

I've got it, we can amend the Constitution to make it so Arnold can run, and he can get the Nazi nomination. But people won't care that he's on that ticket, because all they'll see is that he's been in movies. People in this country are idiots, which is made obvious by the fact that we've only really had two options for a leader for about 180 years, and no one's done anything about it yet.

I've got a little comparison:

Under the Nazis people had one choice.
Under the Communists people had one choice.
Under the American system people have two choices.


We're one party away from being Nazis or Communists

Unfair. I doubt the Bush administration would just show a picture of trucks to justify the invasion. They're evil, not stupid.
Oh, come on. Isn't that what they did in Iraq?
What reason could they possibly present as "proof"? That Rafiq al-Hariri crap? Even if they were involved, since when does the US prosecute common criminals by waging war on them?

There's hawkishness on both sides. And I hope we keep moving to the right financially, and a tad downward socially. But what the hell, I just don't like corruption and stupidity.
Yes, but the Reps are more hawkish...Which I firmly approve of, by the way. Socially, I hope the overall culture becomes more conservative (less sex on TV, less promiscuity, family values, etc.), while the politicians simply keep their noses out of it. And who does like stupidity and corruption?

I've got it, we can amend the Constitution to make it so Arnold can run, and he can get the Nazi nomination. But people won't care that he's on that ticket, because all they'll see is that he's been in movies. People in this country are idiots, which is made obvious by the fact that we've only really had two options for a leader for about 180 years, and no one's done anything about it yet.

I've got a little comparison:

Under the Nazis people had one choice.
Under the Communists people had one choice.
Under the American system people have two choices.


We're one party away from being Nazis or Communists

I am really thinking about moving to Canada... But then again I guess that is where we will be invading next...

Can you conceive of a greater military objective than wrecking WMD-Havoc on the american troops massing to attack Iraq?

Hussein would have become the hero of mideastern anti-americanism and anti-westernism.

Again, though, people will debase themselves and jump through any hoop to defend their political ideologies.

Can you conceive of a greater military objective than wrecking WMD-Havoc on the american troops massing to attack Iraq?

Yea, its called getting rid of a tyrant that has no respect for International Law.

Hussein would have become the hero of mideastern anti-americanism and anti-westernism.

Actually, most in the middle east are glad that he is gone.

Again, though, people will debase themselves and jump through any hoop to defend their political ideologies.

Like you?

Yea, its called getting rid of a tyrant that has no respect for International Law.



Actually, most in the middle east are glad that he is gone.



Like you?

Since you didnt understand what I posted, I'll rephrase it.

Can you [think of] a greater military [goal] [for hussein] than &c...

I think that the middle eastern elements which are anti-american would have been very pleased if he had managed to kill huge scores of american soldiers.

Which ideology is that?

What is that? The human face on Mars?
The trucks were dismissed as not being anywhere near arms manufacturing sites. I was trying to be sarcastic but it didn't work...

Unfair. I doubt the Bush administration would just show a picture of trucks to justify the invasion. They're evil, not stupid.
That's kind of what they did.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.state.gov/cms_images/Slide20_190.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm&h=143&w=190&sz=17&tbnid=bI7FRtWdi7QJ:&tbnh=73&tbnw=97&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcolin%2Bpowell%2Btrucks%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLB,GGLB:1 969-53,GGLB:en%26sa%3DN

The trucks were dismissed as not being anywhere near arms manufacturing sites. I was trying to be sarcastic but it didn't work...
Look, your post did not show your opinion (and I'm as versed in recent American events as to have ever seen the picture before).
We were sarcastic together, then. My observation could add to yours.
What you should notice is that other posters thought it constituted proof.

Look, your post did not show your opinion (and I'm as versed in recent American events as to have ever seen the picture before).
We were sarcastic together, then. My observation could add to yours.
What you should notice is that other posters thought it constituted proof.
I wasn't saying anything against you. I realized I wasn't clear.

Huhh.... Did I hear that people agreed that Saddam had WMDs? People from France, Germany, Russia, etc? Man... What is that misinformation...

Just so you know, the USAs and the British government thought that Saddam had WMDs... The proof: beautiful trucks shot by satellites showing rectangular shapes with bunkers around it. That's a proof if I haven't seen one!

I also heard about Hussein goin' against UN resolutions. I have to agree with you. People who go against UN resolutions are stupid and only think about their own nation. That's why I have to agree that Gerogie Bush is also real stupid, since he went against a UN's decision and attacked Iraq. This war gave to the USA's government a debt that was as big as Canada's actual debt, which has increased for the past 40 years (they started to reimburse it about 10 years ago).

Another point is that the Republicans are hyppocrits. There's a conflict that is n't ended and that has started 4 years ago, about a taxation on the wood coming from Canada to the US. The Bush administration know that case, and is being told by the Canada, and the ZLEA (it's in french, but it's the association of free-trade across America) to put this taxation off and give to Canada what they have earned by taxing their wood. This is protectionism, not free-trade. Thing is, the actual Republicans is a selfish government, which contributes to enrich the rich and make the poors starve under the country's increasing debt. The actual power in the world is not the USA. It's China. Imagine a group of 1 billion people, led by a few rich people, where the majority of people work for low salary, and that's developping a car which will be sold BRAND NEW at the cost of 3000$ in american dollars. Try to find a Ford 2006 at 3000 bucks, and you'll understand why China's starting to take over the economical world. It also has the potential to have a better army, larger with weapons as efficient as America's.

Last thing: Japan can develop and make WMDs in 165 days, and doesn't research on it yet. America's power is decreased, there's hyppocrisy in the government, and in 50 years, they will lose their power in the world, because they are protectionnists and detach from matters out of their nation.

I guess they realise that if she did run, she'd win. Massively. Unfortunately, she will not run.
If you think Hillary Clinton has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being elected President of the United States, you're living in a total fantasy and there's no hope for you!

Oh, right...
And were is Syria on that photo?

(Some people will justify Bush's lies with just about anything.)
Absolutely, that is why self respecting Republicants are moving to the centre. :)

Why would someone rid themselves of weapons just before they entered a war?

Saddam must have been an idiot.

Saddam is a creature of habit and based his decisions on recent past history. In the first Gulf War he didn't think we would attack because he how easily the american public could manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As soon as he found out he had been wrong, he promptly sent most of his air force to Iran. A country he had just been at war with for what? Seven years?
Saddam had every reason to believe that he would survive the second round in even better shape than the first time because he now had Russia, France and Germany along with that bastion of international cooperation the UN, with their hands firmly insterted into his pockets. Once France sabatoged all possible pressure tatics to force compliance by announcing that they would not support any action under any circumstance, his only choice was to either use nuclear/biological munitions if they were developed to that point, or move them to a safe location where the US could not recover them. If they were not yet deployable, he had no choice but to move them because they could easily be traced back to France, Germany and Russia where they were manufactured.

Hitlery and her husband

:D I like that.

LIES! Lies put out by the Neo-Con Right in an attempt to shift blame for their own mistakes onto the Clinton Administration (which the GOP hated and still hates to this day).

We had a post on here last week that gave quotes from both Bill and Hillary, along with all the other Dems that are now in denial.

I like Bush...I love his ... foreign policy

Nutter

We had a post on here last week that gave quotes from both Bill and Hillary, along with all the other Dems that are now in denial.
Were they as good as this little gem?

"I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama bin Laden]." -- GWB, White House, Mar. 13, 2002

"Uhh -- Gosh, I -- don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations." -- GWB, Third Presidential Debate, Tempe, Arizona, Oct. 13, 2004

Or this?

"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies." -- GWB, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

"We are in Iraq to achieve a result. A country that is democratic." -- (See above...) 2005 State of the Union address, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2005

What cracks me up so much is that Conservatives are soooo terrified of Hillary Clinton that they're already slinging mud against her for the 2008 election when, in fact, Hillary Clinton will not run in 2008.

Let me say that again so people can sig it, quote it, and use it against me later:

Hillary Clinton will not run for President of the United States in 2008.

Why are Republicans so terrified of her? I guess they realise that if she did run, she'd win. Massively. Unfortunately, she will not run.

I'll bet you two cookies Hillary runs in 2008. I'll also bet you two more cookies she loosed to the Republican candidate.

That's why I have to agree that Gerogie Bush is also real stupid, since he went against a UN's decision and attacked Iraq.there is no un decision that says "usa must not attack iraq" and there is no resolution finding the usa in breach with such a decision, because such a decision only exists in your head.
also it was iraq, that repeatedly attacked us and uk planes, which where on un missions to patrol the no fly zones before the usa and their coalition decided to end the ceasefire in place since 1991 and to continue the war form 1991.

I'll bet you two cookies Hillary runs in 2008. I'll also bet you two more cookies she loosed to the Republican candidate.
Gross. Please don't tell me what she'll loosen.

Gross. Please don't tell me what she'll loosen.

:eek: Oops. :D

I'll bet you two cookies Hillary runs in 2008. I'll also bet you two more cookies she loosed to the Republican candidate.

I hope she does run. That way we can all enjoy another 8 year temper tantrum.

Here is whom I consider the ideal candidates for President; Democrats - Lieberman; Republicans - Rudy or McCain.

Why are they ideal? All of them are more to the center. With those candidates, I would expect the campaigns to return to the 1950s where the candidates ran on the issues and not personal attacks. I would defiantly have a hard time making a decision on which person to vote for. I don't agree with any of them on several issues, but I agree with all of them on many issues. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask for or expect.

My prediction for 2008. Hillary will run and win the nomination of the Democratic Party. If the Republican candidate is Rudy or McCain, she will not win the election. If the Republicans nominate anyone else, Hillary could win.

Here is whom I consider the ideal candidates for President; Democrats - Lieberman; Republicans - Rudy or McCain.

Why are they ideal? All of them are more to the center. With those candidates, I would expect the campaigns to return to the 1950s where the candidates ran on the issues and not personal attacks. I would defiantly have a hard time making a decision on which person to vote for. I don't agree with any of them on several issues, but I agree with all of them on many issues. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask for or expect.

My prediction for 2008. Hillary will run and win the nomination of the Democratic Party. If the Republican candidate is Rudy or McCain, she will not win the election. If the Republicans nominate anyone else, Hillary could win.
I really doubt that Hillary will win the nomination.
Two words: Nascar Dad. I just can't see a Hillary for President Bumper Sticker next to a Jeff Gordon one.

Here is whom I consider the ideal candidates for President; Democrats - Lieberman; Republicans - Rudy or McCain.

Why are they ideal? All of them are more to the center. With those candidates, I would expect the campaigns to return to the 1950s where the candidates ran on the issues and not personal attacks. I would defiantly have a hard time making a decision on which person to vote for. I don't agree with any of them on several issues, but I agree with all of them on many issues. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask for or expect.

My prediction for 2008. Hillary will run and win the nomination of the Democratic Party. If the Republican candidate is Rudy or McCain, she will not win the election. If the Republicans nominate anyone else, Hillary could win.

As a Republican the only way I can concieve of hillary being anything short of a landslide victim is if either of those two switched parties and ran on a ticket with her in some fashion. The democrats have lost so many people in the past couple of years that the balance has decisively shifted. Many people will not even consider themselves voting for a republican but instead simply voting against democrats. They have alienated Labor to the point over 7 million of them have decided to disassociate themselves instead opting for independent candidates only. Their relentless attacks on religion and our efforts in Iraq slap about 90% of all americans in face to some degree or another. In short the special interests footing their bills have pretty much destroyed any chance for a return to power for the forseeable future.

Of course this doesn't mean the Republicans are doing anything to stay in power because they are not. At this point however they remain the lesser of two evils.

We had a post on here last week that gave quotes from both Bill and Hillary, along with all the other Dems that are now in denial.

Indeed there was -- considering it was I that posted it. :)

bump

You do know that the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional I hope. Now he could've vetoed the whole bill and tell Congress to lose the pork. Now he could've done that.
And that's what he should've done. I know line item vetos are unconstitutional (an ammendment would be nice).

If you think Hillary Clinton has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being elected President of the United States, you're living in a total fantasy and there's no hope for you!

Funny ... ya'll said the same thing about her chances of winning the Senate seat from New York. ;)

I'll bet you two cookies Hillary runs in 2008. I'll also bet you two more cookies she loosed to the Republican candidate.

Deal! What kind of cookies? I like those lemony ones covered in powdered sugar, myself.