NationStates Jolt Archive

whether you hate em' or not everyone has gotta agree that the US plays a big role in the world so who do you want to lead em' after Bush leaves in '09.

Al Gore.

not hilary

not hilary

I second this.

not hilary

we can only hope

Of the choices mentioned so far..Guliani. He did a pretty good job of being the mayor of New York, so he might have what's needed to be a good president.

Of the choices mentioned so far..Guliani. He did a pretty good job of being the mayor of New York, so he might have what's needed to be a good president.
Seconded.

this has been my prediction since 2003

Republican Ballot:
President: Rudy Guiliani
Vice: Condileeza Rice

so far I think its going good.

Pat Robertson and Bill O'Riellies love child. I think it would shock Americans into smartening up, if only for a decade...

me
(What? You said who do I want)

Al Sharpton

whether you hate em' or not everyone has gotta agree that the US plays a big role in the world so who do you want to lead em' after Bush leaves at the end of 2007.

Just as a point of correction, there won't even be a US presidential election until the end of '08, and the next president won't get sworn in until January of '09.


As long as it isn't Hillary or Al Gore, I'm not sure who I'll vote for.

Condi Rice. I know it's not going to happen, but it would rock so hard...

Hillary Clinton, but only if Jeb Bush gets it next time. I'm really looking forward to the chronology of Presidents reading: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

Al Sharpton
lol

Just as a point of correction, there won't even be a US presidential election until the end of '08, and the next president won't get sworn in until January of '09.


Thanks for that sorry about the misinfo Im kinda tired.

I want Russ Feingold to run for President. Hell yeah.

Bruce Willis

I want Russ Feingold to run for President. Hell yeah.

Seconded.

Though, ideally, anyone who wants to be President is unfit for the job.

I want Russ Feingold to run for President. Hell yeah.
He'd be great if not for his support of protectionist economic policies, which clearly show him to be little more than an average populist.
Though, ideally, anyone who wants to be President is unfit for the job.
Not necessarily. There are certain men (and women I suppose) who are just born to lead. Everything about their personality suggests so.

Not necessarily. There are certain men (and women I suppose) who are just born to lead. Everything about their personality suggests so.
I think he means that the person just wants the position to help himself, instead of helping the country. What we outta do is kidnap some smart people, put guns to their heads and tell them "If you don't govern, we'll kill your family." But then I suppose we should put the guns to their family members' heads. I guess I won't be president. But the plan will work. As the "USA is doomed" thread showed us, the smart always submit to peer pressure.

I think he means that the person just wants the position to help himself, instead of helping the country. What we outta do is kidnap some smart people, put guns to their heads and tell them "If you don't govern, we'll kill your family." But then I suppose we should put the guns to their family members' heads. I guess I won't be president. But the plan will work. As the "USA is doomed" thread showed us, the smart always submit to peer pressure.
Well, as long as we’re throwing out crazy ideas that will never be implemented... Why not require acing a civics test and having a tested IQ above 115 as a requirement to vote or hold high public office?

Not necessarily. There are certain men (and women I suppose) who are just born to lead. Everything about their personality suggests so.

Unfortunately, people with that talent and a ethical/moral bent don't do well in America's two parties. They usually go on to have success elsewhere.

Well, as long as we’re throwing out crazy ideas that will never be implemented... Why not require acing a civics test and having a tested IQ above 115 as a requirement to vote or hold high public office?

Then the question arises: Who writes the test?

Someone who is not one of the following:

1, A member of the Bush family.

2, A close friend of anyone within the Bush family.

3, A Republican that isnt truly a moderate one.

4, a conservative christian.

5, a supporter of teaching I.D in schools.

6, anyone who is willing to support any attempts to overturn Roe V Wade.

7, anyone who is willing to allow "preventitave strikes", without clear and present danger.

8. anyone who is in the business of, or related to, oil production.

9. A democrat without a set of testicles, possibly a penis.
and by that, I mean, cojones, not exsclusively men.

10. See #1.

Then the question arises: Who writes the test?
Have them take the ones that those seeking citizenship have to.

Have them take the ones that those seeking citizenship have to.

I distrust politicians' ethics and morals, not their ability to pass a highschool-level test.

Well, as long as we’re throwing out crazy ideas that will never be implemented... Why not require acing a civics test and having a tested IQ above 115 as a requirement to vote or hold high public office?

Good idea, but start with 90 and for the love of god make them independant

Someone who is not one of the following:

1, A member of the Bush family.

2, A close friend of anyone within the Bush family.

3, A Republican that isnt truly a moderate one.

4, a conservative christian.

5, a supporter of teaching I.D in schools.

6, anyone who is willing to support any attempts to overturn Roe V Wade.

7, anyone who is willing to allow "preventitave strikes", without clear and present danger.

8. anyone who is in the business of, or related to, oil production.

9. A democrat without a set of testicles, possibly a penis.
and by that, I mean, cojones, not exsclusively men.

10. See #1.

lol. I forward this guy^

I distrust politicians' ethics and morals, not their ability to pass a highschool-level test.
Really? I think the biggest problem with poltics is a lack of inteligence and reasoning ability. The IQ test is far more important.
Good idea, but start with 90 and for the love of god make them independant
90? Then any Wal Mart going hick or church attending schmoe could vote.

Really? I think the biggest problem with poltics is a lack of inteligence and reasoning ability. The IQ test is far more important.

90? Then any Wal Mart going hick or church attending schmoe could vote.

You realize that politicians used "qualifications in order to vote" in order to keep blacks from voting under the Jim Crow laws, right?

You realize that politicians used "qualifications in order to vote" in order to keep blacks from voting under the Jim Crow laws, right?
Yeah. I don't see how that's relevant. This is about keeping stupid people as far away from the abilty to effect other people's lives as possible. They can be stupid, just not about my rights and just not about things that require reason to sort out, like healthcare and welfare.

Of course, it's just a dream.

Really? I think the biggest problem with poltics is a lack of inteligence and reasoning ability. The IQ test is far more important.

The IQ test wouldn't do any good. Even Bush who seems pretty dumb graduated from a number of elite universities. I would be greatly suprised if more than 1 or 2 people in congress even struggled with such a test. Changing who can vote would make a difference, but that's not right. How can we be a society for equality if we have such built-in elitism?

As for who should be the next president:

Dennis J. Kucinich

Bruce Campbell.

The IQ test wouldn't do any good. Even Bush who seems pretty dumb graduated from a number of elite universities. I would be greatly suprised if more than 1 or 2 people in congress even struggled with such a test.
An IQ test isn't like a regular test.
Changing who can vote would make a difference, but that's not right. How can we be a society for equality if we have such built-in elitism?

I'm all for discriminating against the stupid.
Dennis J. Kucinich
Are you kidding? Another populist. Just look at his stance on the flag burning ammendment. The man's opinions are as fickle as those of his district.

Someone who doesn't piss me off every other day would be nice.

Party member, not Party slave would be good, too.

I think an agnostic would be a nice change. (Or a Taoist. Or at least someone into the idea of karma on a global scale.) Think of all the work he or she would get done on Sunday, and not being beholden to a "base" you've promised a theocracy to would be cool, too.

No lawyers.

Business savvy without having been any business' bitch.

Someone who makes less than $100K a year for a change -- someone for whom the Presidential salary will be meaningful (and who will therefore feel obliged to earn it).

Someone who reads polls without treating them as platform planks.

Someone with military knowledge at least, but if also a service record, let it not become a campaign issue.

Someone not afraid to tell any member of the news media that they're completely full of shit (the media, not the candid...actually, that'd be refreshing, too).

Someone who loves this country but who thinks it's okay if we start seeing other countries, too.

Someone who might know a few phrases of Spanish but who refuses to pander to the Beaner (ask Carlos Mencia, that's the right term) vote by dragging them out whenever they're in Texas or Brown California.

Someone who understands the need for BOTH nuance and crystal clarity when those respective needs arise.

Someone who speaks in words we can understand without sounding like they're uneducated.

Someone who doesn't change their views to court a voting bloc unless they were honestly convinced their stance was wrong and can admit it in public.

Hell, someone who can admit they were wrong at all would be nice.

Someone who doesn't need a photo op to convince us they married their spouse because they loved them. (I'm talkin' to you, Gore.)

Someone smooth, but not slippery.

In short...

...someone who surely doesn't exist or is too smart or secure to try for the job.

God help us.

me
(What? You said who do I want)I'd vote for you if I could. Not because I know anything about you, but because you aren't a corporate twat yet.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Bruce Campbell.

Based soley on the "Gimme some sugar, baby" platform.

Hes got my vote.

Definitely John McCain.

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Please tell me that's a joke.

Based soley on the "Gimme some sugar, baby" platform.

Hes got my vote.

That or the primitive screwhead foreign policy doctrine.

Based soley on the "Gimme some sugar, baby" platform.

Hes got my vote.
I'm more a fan of his "groovy" and "this...is...my...BOOMSTICK!" platforms.

That or the primitive screwhead foreign policy doctrine.


I do however question his "Shop Smart, shop S-Mart." policies.

Arnold Schwarzenegger
I wish that this could only be considered as a joke response.

I'm all for discriminating against the stupid.
lol:p

I'm more for GM them out of the gene pool.

this has been my prediction since 2003

Republican Ballot:
President: Rudy Guiliani
Vice: Condileeza Rice

so far I think its going good.


sounds right.

Right now, it appears the best candidate is Dennis Haysbert. If nothing else he knows exactly how the people want a President to act. It's hard to imagine him actually being worse that his contemporaries in practice to boot.

WOOT! ROCK ON DENNIS!!!

I want to see Elmo as the next president. Along side with Dennis

Nader ftw!

Colin Powell, Wesley Clark or Ron Paul (despite the abortion thing), Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer.

Or Jim Lehrer. Get Jim Lehrer into office, for crying out loud!

Republican Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, actually Midland Texsas.

how about: you start a BIG revolution and overthrow all authority and stop thinking that you're the best in the world.

I like chocolate bars and chocolate milk. What about Ray Nadin, then we could have a "Chocolate Nation", instead of just a city. Of course, life after hurricanes would suck...

Colin Powell, Wesley Clark or Ron Paul (despite the abortion thing), Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer.

Or Jim Lehrer. Get Jim Lehrer into office, for crying out loud!
Jim Lehrer, how about Tom Lehrer (http://www.casualhacker.net/tom.lehrer/song_index.html)?

Mr.T for president

Well, preferably Ah-Nold, but there's some nonsense about him not being a natural born US citizen.

So...

Well, if I clone Thomas Jefferson, would that still count as natural born?

Well, preferably Ah-Nold, but there's some nonsense about him not being a natural born US citizen.

So...

Well, if I clone Thomas Jefferson, would that still count as natural born?


Al Sharpton, lol ok seriously, As long as our next president is not Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Or Jeb Bush, I am kinda apathetic at the moment.

this has been my prediction since 2003

Republican Ballot:
President: Rudy Guiliani
Vice: Condileeza Rice

so far I think its going good.

I typically vote libertarian (more in protest than anything) but I could get behind this ticket.

Sadly I don’t think it really possible – a McCain / Giuliani is more likely.

Of course Colin Powel would be great to throw into the mix, but he would never run out of respect for his wife. It is grossly unfortunate that our political culture thinks personal attacks against a candidate’s spouse are acceptable (we can thank Andrew Jackson for starting that – the original jackass and start of the Democrats).

i think i have an idea for a sitcom

jesus as president

and an atheist as his vice president

think of all the wacky arguements they would have ;)

maybe even add disciples to his cabinet

and mohammed being a leader of a country that is causing alot of problems

i single handedly killed this thread

I could actually be happy seeing Colin Powell in office. That man's got it where it counts: brains...something seriously lacking in Washington right now...

i single handedly killed this thread
No, you're just dumb.
I personally support Giuliani and Frist.
McCain?> Fuck no. The man is a media whore, and he doesn't the GOP nomination.
Same goes for Rommey.
As for Democrats: please nominate Feingold and Dean. I'm begging you.

Ahnold!

Colin Powell.

As for Democrats: please nominate Feingold and Dean. I'm begging you.

The last thing the Democrats need is a panderer like Feingold; he's the Democratic version of John McCain.

Al Franken and Micheal Moore.

Al Franken and Micheal Moore.

ROFL

thats hilarious, democrats should choose them, that way it will be an easy win for the republicans:D

Al Franken and Micheal Moore.

The last thing we need is an extremist of any stripe.

I can't think of anyone I'd want to entrust with that much power. Of the alternatives likely to be available in '08, maybe Bill Van Auken or Leonard Peltier; at least they would shake things up a bit.

Al Franken and Micheal Moore.

Against Coulter/Savage.

If that happened, I would leave this country permanently. I'd be forced to seriously consider joining Al-Qaeda in such an event...

Against Coulter/Savage.

If that happened, I would leave this country permanently. I'd be forced to seriously consider joining Al-Qaeda in such an event...

Don't let the FBIs catch you saying that. They'll put you in Gitmo and take away your porn.

Someone who is not one of the following:

1, A member of the Bush family.

2, A close friend of anyone within the Bush family.

3, A Republican that isnt truly a moderate one.

4, a conservative christian.

5, a supporter of teaching I.D in schools.

6, anyone who is willing to support any attempts to overturn Roe V Wade.

7, anyone who is willing to allow "preventitave strikes", without clear and present danger.

8. anyone who is in the business of, or related to, oil production.

9. A democrat without a set of testicles, possibly a penis.
and by that, I mean, cojones, not exsclusively men.

10. See #1.
Thirded... More or less. #1, 2, 4, 5,7, 8 and 10 anyways.

The last thing we need is an extremist of any stripe.

Neither Al Franken nor Michael Moore are extremists, merely partisan liberals.

I am an extremist, and politically both Franken and Moore are far to my right.

Don't let the FBIs catch you saying that. They'll put you in Gitmo and take away your porn.

Damn them...I could take being stuck in Gitmo but no porn?! WTF is that!?

Someone who possesses the administrative and political acumen to clean up the shit-filled monkey house that the Bush Administration leaves behind in the Executive Branch after 2008.

Someone who possesses the administrative and political acumen to clean up the shit-filled monkey house that the Bush Administration leaves behind in the Executive Branch after 2008.

They're going to need to clean up since about 1973 or so...it goes way farther back than Bush or Clinton. If they can do it, more power to them.

They're going to need to clean up since about 1973 or so...it goes way farther back than Bush or Clinton.

What is "it"?

You know what, fuck this "president" crap. The system has failed us! It is time for we, the proletariat (read: /B/tards, Generalites, Bloggers etc.), to rise up and take back the country!

Come comrades! Let us take our stationwagons to Washington where we'll egg the white house and pie the capitalists.

[/Commie mode]

What is "it"?

The corruption and incompetence in the US government and the two political parties. I'd go back further, but most of the people from before Watergate are either dead or totally removed from politics.

The corruption and incompetence in the US government and the two political parties. I'd go back further, but most of the people from before Watergate are either dead or totally removed from politics.

Why do you think it is the people in the system? If the problem has lasted so long, couldn't it be the system itself?

I'm a realist. I'd like someone who wasn't a whore to religion, corporations, the military industrial complex, a voting block that was only out for it's own good, and who I could trust to tell the truth.

Unfortunately, the only people to gain high office are those who deserve it least. So... In lieu of that I will choose the lessest evil and go with Feingold, preferably with John Edwards as a running-mate.

The Dems should stop running on "We'll do anything for your vote" and run on "This is what we think. If you vote for us, this is what we will do.". Otherwise they'll just be whoring themselves out to the far-right in America. It is time to take a stand, not time to back off and let doomsayer's drag down the principals of the Democratic party.

We'll probably run Hillary, which is the last thing we need. (Worse, a Clinton/Lieberman ticket! Ew!)

Someone who is not one of the following:

1, A member of the Bush family.

2, A close friend of anyone within the Bush family.

3, A Republican that isnt truly a moderate one.

4, a conservative christian.

5, a supporter of teaching I.D in schools.

6, anyone who is willing to support any attempts to overturn Roe V Wade.

7, anyone who is willing to allow "preventitave strikes", without clear and present danger.

8. anyone who is in the business of, or related to, oil production.

9. A democrat without a set of testicles, possibly a penis.
and by that, I mean, cojones, not exsclusively men.

10. See #1.
As long as you don't want a left-wing ideologue ... lol.:D

Bill Owens (current governor of Colorado)
George Allen (current Virginia Senator)

At the moment, Al Gore* and Wesley Clark are the two people I'd like to see in the White House.

* - the new, more open Al Gore... you know, the one that managed to escape his handlers? Yeah, that Al Gore.

Jeb.

this has been my prediction since 2003

Republican Ballot:
President: Rudy Guiliani
Vice: Condileeza Rice

so far I think its going good.


Except that would still leave the country controlled by the republican party

Hillary Clinton, but only if Jeb Bush gets it next time. I'm really looking forward to the chronology of Presidents reading: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

We don't need another Bush in the White House

Pat Robertson and Bill O'Riellies love child. I think it would shock Americans into smartening up, if only for a decade...

Pat Robertson isn't qualified

Al Sharpton


Not sure if he is qualified

Except that would still leave the country controlled by the republican party

yeah but I really dont see anyone capable on the democratic party, so I will be willing to bet the executive (maybe not the legislative) will stay under the Republican party. unless someone like Ross Perrot or Nader wins (lmao)

Someone who is not one of the following:

1, A member of the Bush family.

2, A close friend of anyone within the Bush family.

3, A Republican that isnt truly a moderate one.

4, a conservative christian.

5, a supporter of teaching I.D in schools.

6, anyone who is willing to support any attempts to overturn Roe V Wade.

7, anyone who is willing to allow "preventitave strikes", without clear and present danger.

8. anyone who is in the business of, or related to, oil production.

9. A democrat without a set of testicles, possibly a penis.
and by that, I mean, cojones, not exsclusively men.

10. See #1.

well then im good to run for President cause im not one of the following im 5. (#s 3,4,5,6,7)

A fat black lesbian who only speaks Spanish.

A fat black lesbian who only speaks Spanish.

Think she'd do a better job than georgie porgie?

Think she'd do a better job than georgie porgie?

Yes. Yes, I do. I think the stool I left in this morning's toilet trip would do a better job than the Shrub.

Well, as long as we’re throwing out crazy ideas that will never be implemented... Why not require acing a civics test and having a tested IQ above 115 as a requirement to vote or hold high public officeor hold high public office?


IQ above 115 as a requirement to hold high public office ... Yes

IQ above 115 as a requirement to vote ... No

It is a constitutional right to vote, it isn't a Constitutional right to hold
a public office regradless of the level of Government.

yeah but I really dont see anyone capable on the democratic party, so I will be willing to bet the executive (maybe not the legislative) will stay under the Republican party. unless someone like Ross Perrot or Nader wins (lmao)


Then find someone else who is qualified for the job. It doesn't have to be Republican or Democrat.

A fat black lesbian who only speaks Spanish.
And sympathizes with France.

sounds right.


No it doesn't

Republican Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, actually Midland Texsas.

As I said we have had to many Bushes in the Whitehouse already

Nader ftw!


That's a joke

Colin Powell, Wesley Clark or Ron Paul (despite the abortion thing), Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer.

Or Jim Lehrer. Get Jim Lehrer into office, for crying out loud!


Colin Powell ... maybe

Al Gore says he has no plans to run, so I'm gonna have to say Hillary Clinton. Im sure most disagree with this on NS, but hey, theres a good chance of it and there nothing you can do about it :p

I typically vote libertarian (more in protest than anything) but I could get behind this ticket.

Sadly I don’t think it really possible – a McCain / Giuliani is more likely.

Of course Colin Powel would be great to throw into the mix, but he would never run out of respect for his wife. It is grossly unfortunate that our political culture thinks personal attacks against a candidate’s spouse are acceptable (we can thank Andrew Jackson for starting that – the original jackass and start of the Democrats).


Powell & Giuliani is a possiblity

Rudy Giuliani

You know what, fuck this "president" crap. The system has failed us! It is time for we, the proletariat (read: /B/tards, Generalites, Bloggers etc.), to rise up and take back the country!

Come comrades! Let us take our stationwagons to Washington where we'll egg the white house and pie the capitalists.

[/Commie mode]


The common america citizen needs to take back the country. At least some of us has common sense.

Jeb.


No Thank You

I would prefer someone who isn't a good example of the Peter Principle

Wes Clarke

yeah but I really dont see anyone capable on the democratic party, so I will be willing to bet the executive (maybe not the legislative) will stay under the Republican party. unless someone like Ross Perrot or Nader wins (lmao)


The Republican Party isn't any better, that's the problem. We need some new blood, instead of the same ol, same ol.

Al Gore says he has no plans to run, so I'm gonna have to say Hillary Clinton. Im sure most disagree with this on NS, but hey, theres a good chance of it and there nothing you can do about it :p


She's already had eight years in the Whitehouse. Remember ... President
Hilary and Rev. Bill

Al Gore says he has no plans to run, so I'm gonna have to say Hillary Clinton. Im sure most disagree with this on NS, but hey, theres a good chance of it and there nothing you can do about it :p

No one would take him seriously

Why do you think it is the people in the system? If the problem has lasted so long, couldn't it be the system itself?

Because not everyone is corrupt; were it more widespread I might think that it's the system but most politicians in the US local/state/federal government aren't corrupt. Some are less than competent or are vote-chasing panderers but are not actually corrupt.

Jesse Ventura. :)

No, you're just dumb.
I personally support Giuliani and Frist.
McCain?> Fuck no. The man is a media whore, and he doesn't the GOP nomination.
Same goes for Rommey.
As for Democrats: please nominate Feingold and Dean. I'm begging you.
Bill "Doctor Dingbat" Frist? Are you shitting me?

A man so arrogant he diagnosed a patient some 800 miles away (Terry Schiavo) based SOLELY on a single years-old videotape?!?

No. I could get behind one or two republicans, but NOT Frist. Shit, you may as well have said a Frist-Santorum ticket for the complete nutcase exacta!

The last thing the Democrats need is a panderer like Feingold; he's the Democratic version of John McCain.
There y'go:

McCain/Feingold -- just like the campaign reform legislation.

There y'go: McCain/Feingold -- just like the campaign reform legislation.

Interestingly enough, it's also a dangerously worded piece of legislation that could threaten our First Amendment rights...these are exactly the guys I want making that kinds of legislation in to law. (Not to mention Feingold is a protectionist; I prefer presidents who want to project jobs and increase our living standard, not destroy them with failed economics.)

Reposting this with letters. Just to see what happens.

A) Someone who doesn't piss me off every other day would be nice.

B) Party member as opposed to Party slave would be good, too.

C) I think an agnostic would be a nice change. (Or a Taoist. Or at least someone into the idea of karma on a global scale.)
i. Think of all the work he or she would get done on Sunday and the time saved on church photo ops.
ii. Not being beholden to a "base" you've promised a theocracy to would be cool, too.

D) No lawyers.

E) Business savvy without having been any business' bitch.

F) Someone who makes less than $100K a year for a change -- someone for whom the Presidential salary will be meaningful (and who will therefore feel obliged to earn it).

G) Someone who reads polls without treating them as platform planks.

H) Someone with military knowledge at least, but if also a service record, let it not become a campaign issue.

I) Someone not afraid to tell any member of the news media that they're completely full of shit (the media, not the candid...well...actually, that'd be refreshing, too).

J) Someone who loves this country but who thinks it's okay if we start seeing other countries, too.

K) Someone who might know a few phrases of Spanish but who refuses to pander to the Beaner (ask Carlos Mencia, that's the right term) vote by dragging them out whenever they're in Texas or Brown California.

L) Someone who understands the need for BOTH nuance and crystal clarity when those respective needs arise.

M) Someone who speaks in words we can understand without sounding like they're uneducated.

N) Someone who doesn't change their views to court a voting bloc.
i. Unless they were honestly convinced their stance was wrong and can admit it in public.
ii. Hell, someone who can admit they were wrong at all would be nice.

O) Someone who doesn't need a photo op to convince us they married their spouse because they loved them. (I'm talkin' to you, Gore.)

P) Someone smooth, but not slippery.

In short...

...someone who surely doesn't exist or is too smart or secure to try for the job.

God help us.

Interestingly enough, it's also a dangerously worded piece of legislation that could threaten our First Amendment rights...these are exactly the guys I want making that kinds of legislation in to law. (Not to mention Feingold is a protectionist; I prefer presidents who want to project jobs and increase our living standard, not destroy them with failed economics.)
I'd ask you to explain how McCain-Feingold was dangerous to the First Amendment, but only if it doesn't turn into a hijack. In short, I won't argue, just hit me with it.

Jesse Ventura. :)
I'd vote for him. But I'd vote McCain first.

Course I have to hope McCain runs because after doing background checks, all the other republicans suck. What defines a republican now?

How are they socialy conservative? They don't do anything to enforce social conservatism! All they do is complain about it breifly then move onto something else.

Allowing coporations to outsource jobs and create monopolies is not a free enterprise. That's an idiotic enterprise.

Choosing between the parties has become like chossing between Stalin and Hitler. Sure neither one is as indivudaly evil as those two were, but it's on that same "level". Hitler was NOT right-wing, he just was comapred to Stalin cause Stalin was so far gone.. And they're both maniacs so it's a moot point..

I want someone that will do the following;

Do something, ANYTHING about abortion.

Help stop inflation. (Especialy with gasoline.)

And officaly privatize social sercurity, healthcare, and everything else. Cause this half-ass crap just aint' cutting it and despite what democrats might want to think we will never ever be a socialism.

Reposting this with letters. Just to see what happens.

A) Someone who doesn't piss me off every other day would be nice.

B) Party member as opposed to Party slave would be good, too.

C) I think an agnostic would be a nice change. (Or a Taoist. Or at least someone into the idea of karma on a global scale.)
i. Think of all the work he or she would get done on Sunday and the time saved on church photo ops.
ii. Not being beholden to a "base" you've promised a theocracy to would be cool, too.

D) No lawyers.

E) Business savvy without having been any business' bitch.

F) Someone who makes less than $100K a year for a change -- someone for whom the Presidential salary will be meaningful (and who will therefore feel obliged to earn it).

G) Someone who reads polls without treating them as platform planks.

H) Someone with military knowledge at least, but if also a service record, let it not become a campaign issue.

I) Someone not afraid to tell any member of the news media that they're completely full of shit (the media, not the candid...well...actually, that'd be refreshing, too).

J) Someone who loves this country but who thinks it's okay if we start seeing other countries, too.

K) Someone who might know a few phrases of Spanish but who refuses to pander to the Beaner (ask Carlos Mencia, that's the right term) vote by dragging them out whenever they're in Texas or Brown California.

L) Someone who understands the need for BOTH nuance and crystal clarity when those respective needs arise.

M) Someone who speaks in words we can understand without sounding like they're uneducated.

N) Someone who doesn't change their views to court a voting bloc.
i. Unless they were honestly convinced their stance was wrong and can admit it in public.
ii. Hell, someone who can admit they were wrong at all would be nice.

O) Someone who doesn't need a photo op to convince us they married their spouse because they loved them. (I'm talkin' to you, Gore.)

P) Someone smooth, but not slippery.

In short...

...someone who surely doesn't exist or is too smart or secure to try for the job.

God help us.

I could do it, but you'd have to agree not to delve to far into my past. And I want a trap door in the oval office so when someone annoys me, I can press a button and the floor drops away sending the offending person away from my sight and preferably to somewhere painful and embarrassing. Like Ted Kennedy's bathroom. :)

I'd ask you to explain how McCain-Feingold was dangerous to the First Amendment, but only if it doesn't turn into a hijack. In short, I won't argue, just hit me with it.

Blogging and the Internet. I could go in to detail but suffice to say that the bill does pose a risk to bloggers discussing/promoting particular candidates or linking to their sites on their blogs. It would curtail free discussion/promotion of candidates on blogs and could make it difficult for non-news political ones to operate.

I would support the following:

1. NOT an ETHICAL-LIBERAL!!!

2. NOT a FISCAL-CONSERVATIVE!!!

3. Nobody over the age of fifty-five.

4. Nobody that is an adamant supporter or protestor of Roe v. Wade. There are more important things to deal with than abortion right now.

5. Not an Atheist. Keep "Under God," and "In God We Trust."

6. Somebody willing to defend the Constitution, and all the rights that the Amendments protect.

7. Somebody that won't immediately jump into a war without first finishing up another. Afghanistan before Iraq.

8. Somebody that has a relatively high I.Q, but not necessarily astoundingly high.

9. Somebody that has been a governor. That is the training necessary for President. Long time Senators are good for "balancing the ticket." VP's are a flip of the coin. History tells us that.

10. Under no circumstances cna it ever be Hillary Clinton. Case closed.

If such a candidate can not be found, then elect Colin Powell. High time that an African American sat in the Oval Office.

I could do it, but you'd have to agree not to delve to far into my past. And I want a trap door in the oval office so when someone annoys me, I can press a button and the floor drops away sending the offending person away from my sight and preferably to somewhere painful and embarrassing. Like Ted Kennedy's bathroom. :)
LG, you are priceless!

Blogging and the Internet. I could go in to detail but suffice to say that the bill does pose a risk to bloggers discussing/promoting particular candidates or linking to their sites on their blogs. It would curtail free discussion/promotion of candidates on blogs and could make it difficult for non-news political ones to operate.
Got it. Now I have something to cross-reference when looking up holes in the bill. Thanks.

I would support the following:

1. NOT an ETHICAL-LIBERAL!!!

2. NOT a FISCAL-CONSERVATIVE!!!

3. Nobody over the age of fifty-five.

4. Nobody that is an adamant supporter or protestor of Roe v. Wade. There are more important things to deal with than abortion right now.

5. Not an Atheist. Keep "Under God," and "In God We Trust."

6. Somebody willing to defend the Constitution, and all the rights that the Amendments give us.

7. Somebody that won't immediately jump into a war without first finishing up another. Afghanistan before Iraq.

8. Somebody that has a relatively high I.Q, but not astoundingly high.

9. Somebody that has been a governor. That is the training necessary for President. Long time Senators are good for "balancing the ticket." VP's are a flip of the coin. History tells us that.

10. Under no circumstances cna it ever be Hillary Clinton. Case closed.

If such a candidate can not be found, then elect Colin Powell. High time that an African American sat in the Oval Office.

Amendments don't give us right. Amendments specifically state what rights the government cannot take away. There is a difference, especially because the Constitution specifically states that our rights are not limited to what the Constitution outlines.

What's wrong with an astoundingly high I.Q.? Being against that is silly.

*snip*
If such a candidate can not be found, then elect Colin Powell. High time that an African American sat in the Oval Office.
Colin Powell is not from Africa.

I could actually be happy seeing Colin Powell in office. That man's got it where it counts: brains...something seriously lacking in Washington right now...
Yeah, I used to think highly of him. Then he went to the UN and lied, condeming thousands of American soldiers to death, and ten thousands more to grevious injury. Which is unforgivable enough if one is someone like McNamara. But to vow and rise to be one of the founders of the new military leadership based on never repeating that folly.... It does not speak well of the man. He had to chose between serving the man in the office of the President, or serving that office of the People, knowing full well the cost, and he chose the man. Colin Powell is a gutless piece of crap, but one hell of a professional liar.

whether you hate em' or not everyone has gotta agree that the US plays a big role in the world so who do you want to lead em' after Bush leaves in '09.

Al Gore though I hear he does not plan to run :(

Not Condolezza Rice that is for sure. She stated she knew Saddam was lying about weapons of mass destruction and was wrong. Whether she was lying or incompetent I am unsure, however I do know that due to that error the US has wasted over $800 billion on the Iraq situation with no end in sight and worse yet are unable to truly be involved in world affairs now as can be seen by the US impotencecy when dealing with Iran...

Colin Powell is a gutless piece of crap, but one hell of a professional liar.
PBS had a whole bunch of documentaries about the sort of backroom debates and stuff that were going on between 9/11 and the invasion. You should try to get your hands on some and watch them.

Powell was the voice against the war the entire time. He didn't think the evidence was there, and he didn't think it was worth risking international relationships over. He was arguing night after night with Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to try and get Bush to decide against the war. Alas, he was overruled, and after that he respected the decision of the president and the cabinet.
Was it the wrong decision? Yes.
But it showed primarily one thing, and that is that the guy will stand by his word and is not gutless.

Colin Powell is not from Africa.
Nice.

Colin Powell is not from Africa.

We're all from Africa.

not hilary

Ditto

John motherfuckin' badass McCain

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Nope. You'd have to amend the Constitution to have him even run. Fortunately, that requires a 2/3 (I think) vote of Congress, so it ain't gonna happen, at least (I hope) not in my lifetime.

PBS had a whole bunch of documentaries about the sort of backroom debates and stuff that were going on between 9/11 and the invasion. You should try to get your hands on some and watch them.

Powell was the voice against the war the entire time. He didn't think the evidence was there, and he didn't think it was worth risking international relationships over. He was arguing night after night with Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to try and get Bush to decide against the war. Alas, he was overruled, and after that he respected the decision of the president and the cabinet.
Was it the wrong decision? Yes.
But it showed primarily one thing, and that is that the guy will stand by his word and is not gutless.
I hate to disagree because I've seen some of those documentaries, but if Powell wasn't gutless, he'd have resigned under protest. I'm sure he didn't need the job.

Nope. You'd have to amend the Constitution to have him even run. Fortunately, that requires a 2/3 (I think) vote of Congress, so it ain't gonna happen, at least (I hope) not in my lifetime.
AND 3/4 of states' approval as well.

Gymoor rime, fixed the post. Mistype, my bad.

Neu Leonstein, you have summarized the reasons for electing Colin Powell. The guy is what we need.

For anybody that thinks Colin Powell is a gutless pig and an unbelievable liar, let us examine the facts as they stand: the evidence was not strong in Powell's eyes. He was a voice of moderation, not wanting to go to war on what the White House had. His speech to the U.N. was not his choosing. It was him doing his job as a Secretary to the President. A role which he fulfilled, doing what was asked of him. His opposition to the war caused him to leave the Cabinet. He stood by Bush for one reason: it was his duty to do so. First and foremost, he was loyal to the office, an office occupied by an idiot, yes, but one that he could not override. That is the job of Congress and the Supreme Court, not the underlings of a President. Second, working on the team still allowed him to at least minimize the magnitude of the mistake of the war. He was key to getting so many other countries to join up with America, and applied his political tact wherever necessary. It is a lesson that soldiers know: If you can't stop the rivers of blood, then at least limit it to streams. Colin knew that damage would be done. He did what he could to limit it, as it was his duty.

Powell for Prez!

I wouldn't mind Senator McCain, and I'm one of them damned liburuls, or so I'm told. ;)

It's a shame Colin Powell won't run, either; he's a man I respect.

PBS had a whole bunch of documentaries about the sort of backroom debates and stuff that were going on between 9/11 and the invasion. You should try to get your hands on some and watch them.

Powell was the voice against the war the entire time. He didn't think the evidence was there, and he didn't think it was worth risking international relationships over. He was arguing night after night with Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to try and get Bush to decide against the war. Alas, he was overruled, and after that he respected the decision of the president and the cabinet.
Was it the wrong decision? Yes.
But it showed primarily one thing, and that is that the guy will stand by his word and is not gutless.
Frontline. I've seen it.

He took an oath to serve and defend the Constitution and the People, not a man. But he chose a man. He chose to go before the UN and help lie the US into fruitless unnecessary war for that man. That in private, where it was useless and unheeded, he gave careful council is poor consolation. Protect his brothers in arms, serve the people faithfully, protect the values embodied in the Constitution, these are all things he was sworn to do, obligations he chose for himself. Were he the last honest man in the administration, he almost certainly could have stopped the war. He chose not to. In the end, the responsability he sought his whole life, the chance to be the wise strong man and unmake the choices that drained a nation of its treasury and children, he finally got it. And what did he do with it? He's worse than McNamara.

Powell didn't stand by his word. Or any of his oaths. He chose to serve the ambition of man before the good of his nation, probably because the worst case specter of a lucrative retirement and knowledge of having done the right thing was too great a burden. While the President maybe be the only power that can hold Powell to account in his professional life, the reason he took those oaths is because it once was expected an honorable man would hold HIMSELF to account. At least people (save the party zealots) are honest about the kind of people Bush, Cheney, and Rice are. They're not being dressed in the garb of put upon saints. Powell is every bit the untrustworthy, bastard they are. Yes, he foresaw the outcome, while they may at least argue they were deluded. Either way, last rational man or not, he didn't just do nothing. He helped them. He chose to help them in a course of action that he knew would kill Americans and hurt the nation by lying to Congress and our nations allies. What is it that disqualifies him as an object of contempt and scorn again? Fuck Powell, he can die in a fire.

I wouldn't mind Senator McCain, and I'm one of them damned liburuls, or so I'm told. ;)
Uh, you're aware that McCain is in the pocket of the neocons, right? The whole "centrist" thing is an act (a "centrist" in the US hardly is, anyway). Look at his voting record. Look at who he meets with.

Please tell me that's a joke.

Arnie can't run anyhow. Stupid Constitution.[/sarcasm]

I think most people would agree that Powell would be a good choice. But he has too much respect for his wife to run - and if he didn't respect her wishes, he wouldn't be a desirable candidate - it's definitely a Catch-22.

I like chocolate bars and chocolate milk. What about Ray Nadin, then we could have a "Chocolate Nation", instead of just a city. Of course, life after hurricanes would suck...

The most incompetent mayor in the US?


Unfortunately, sounds about right. :(

Russ Feingold

For anybody that thinks Colin Powell is a gutless pig and an unbelievable liar, let us examine the facts as they stand:
Sure let's
When Powell gave his speech at the UN he held up a vial of powder as described how much damage that much anthrax could do. Which is fine divested from Iraq, a powder such as that is indeed how a country like Russia would weaponize its anthrax. As it turns out that's somewhat difficult. Instead Iraq's anthrax was more like a two liter bottle of Coke, which is pretty dangerous. The only problem is, the reason powedered anthrax is so nice as a weapon is it's viable for a much longer period of time. The Iraqi bottles of Coke, as Powell well knew, would be completely ineffective as weapons. He actively aided the case for war by repeatedly making statements which he himself knew COULD NOT BE TRUE, and a long laundry list of claims he knew were very unlikely to be true.

What true faith and allegiance did he bear when lying to allies, to Congress, to the American people? No no. Far from true faithful service in keeping with the best American traditions the best that Powell had to offer is submittion to parochial rule. And so no cookie.

whether you hate em' or not everyone has gotta agree that the US plays a big role in the world so who do you want to lead em' after Bush leaves in '09.
John McCain. He's an honest man, isn't beholden to any of the right-wing fringe groups, has the requisite experience, and is former military.

Al Gore.
Aahahahahaha! ROFLMFAO!! Good one! :D

Of the choices mentioned so far..Guliani. He did a pretty good job of being the mayor of New York, so he might have what's needed to be a good president.
He would be my second choice after McCain.

this has been my prediction since 2003

Republican Ballot:
President: Rudy Guiliani
Vice: Condileeza Rice

so far I think its going good.
I could easily live with that ticket.

Al Sharpton
Riiight! :rolleyes:

I hate to disagree because I've seen some of those documentaries, but if Powell wasn't gutless, he'd have resigned under protest. I'm sure he didn't need the job.
Hehe. You know as well as I do that America is no longer a country of dissent, especially in the political system. When was the last time anyone resigned under protest in the upper echelons of US politics?

(And by upper echelons I don't mean small-fry intelligence advisors.)

John motherfuckin' badass McCain

Yeah, so badass that he kisses the ass of the team that told voters he had an illegitimate black child and who accused him of being a manchurian candidate. What a badass.

Jeb Bush. The Dude runs florida like clockwork, and I dig the guy.

Don't even say Judas Mccain.

Joe Quimby. Quimby, He would vote for you if you were going for president.

Celtlund, with Eutrusca for vice (I think he'd like that).

Still waiting for the Megatron/Shockwave ballot.

Celtlund, with Eutrusca for vice (I think he'd like that).
:rolleyes:

John McCain. He's an honest man, isn't beholden to any of the right-wing fringe groups, has the requisite experience, and is former military.
Actually, he is beholden to the right wing extremist groups. Look at who the man meets with. Look at his voting record.
Also, what does military experience have to do with anything?

Actually, he is beholden to the right wing extremist groups. Look at who the man meets with. Look at his voting record.
Also, what does military experience have to do with anything?
You're cherry-picking. Look at the man's entire history and his character, not just the fact that he's met with some of the people whose support he will need to win the nomination.

Military service has a LOT to do with whether I support someone or not. It's not the deciding factor, but definitely near the top of my list. It's a rational thing, you wouldn't understand. :D

You're cherry-picking. Look at the man's entire history and his character, not just the fact that he's met with some of the people whose support he will need to win the nomination.

Military service has a LOT to do with whether I support someone or not. It's not the deciding factor, but definitely near the top of my list. It's a rational thing, you wouldn't undersand. :D

Unless, of course, it's a Dem with a military record.

Military service has a LOT to do with whether I support someone or not. It's not the deciding factor, but definitely near the top of my list. It's a rational thing, you wouldn't understand. :D
Unless you want some sort of Imperial crusade, I can’t see how a military background would be anywhere near a rational reason for supporting a candidate. In fact, it sounds completely emotion driven.

Besides, he won’t run. That would get in the way of Jeb, and McCain is now the Bush family's bitch.

Unless, of course, it's a Dem with a military record.
A Democrat with a military record and a degree of rationality would suit me just fine. :D

Unless you want some sort of Imperial crusade, I can’t see how a military background would be anywhere near a rational reason for supporting a candidate. In fact, it sounds completely emotion driven.

Besides, he won’t run. That would get in the way of Jeb, and McCain is now the Bush family's bitch.
When someone has a good military record you know lots more about what he ( or she, for that matter ) is capable of. They have self-dicsipline, can control their emotions, has leadership skills, etc.

Jeb won't be running, IMHO, and McCain isn't anyone's "bitch."

Unless you want some sort of Imperial crusade, I can’t see how a military background would be anywhere near a rational reason for supporting a candidate. In fact, it sounds completely emotion driven.

Besides, he won’t run. That would get in the way of Jeb, and McCain is now the Bush family's bitch.

One very real reason for the President to have military experience - he's the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. mililtary. If he doesn't know how it works, he won't have any idea of what is required of him, what he can and cannot do vis-a-vis the military. It would not work well if he were learning this on the fly.

Unless you want some sort of Imperial crusade, I can’t see how a military background would be anywhere near a rational reason for supporting a candidate. In fact, it sounds completely emotion driven.


well wouldn't you rather have someone that understands the sacrifices of combat in office than one who doesnt?

well wouldn't you rather have someone that understands the sacrifices of combat in office than one who doesnt?
Shhh! You'll confuse him! :D

Jesse Ventura. :)

No, Carl Weathers. Then the "cast of Predator trifecta" will be complete.

well wouldn't you rather have someone that understands the sacrifices of combat in office than one who doesnt?
Sacrifices of combat? You mean the sacrifice of murdering your fellow man as long as they’re brown or yellow?
One very real reason for the President to have military experience - he's the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. mililtary. If he doesn't know how it works, he won't have any idea of what is required of him, what he can and cannot do vis-a-vis the military. It would not work well if he were learning this on the fly.
A civilian is perfectly capable of learning about the military. Also, I don’t want a leader who’s willing to resort to it so readily.
When someone has a good military record you know lots more about what he ( or she, for that matter ) is capable of. They have self-dicsipline, can control their emotions, has leadership skills, etc.
Someone in the military isn’t better than someone who wasn’t, and have you been watching the news? Soldiers are very susceptible to their emotions. Need I mention the gratuities deaths that occurred in Iraq?
Pardon me if I don’t want the leader of my country to be a mercenary.

George Allen. Please, for the love of God, don't let it be John McCain. I'd prefer a liberal with a D at the end of her name over a liberal with an R at the end of his name.

Hehe. You know as well as I do that America is no longer a country of dissent, especially in the political system. When was the last time anyone resigned under protest in the upper echelons of US politics?

(And by upper echelons I don't mean small-fry intelligence advisors.)
I wish you were wrong.

Sadly, you are not.

Jeb Bush. The Dude runs florida like clockwork, and I dig the guy.

Don't even say Judas Mccain.
OH HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

I...I...can't stop the laughter! It comes unbidden and ubridled like so many starving crazed weasels from deep within the very core of my being!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Oh, LORD, it hurts!

OH HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

I...I...can't stop the laughter! It comes unbidden and ubridled like so many starving crazed weasels from deep within the very core of my being!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Oh, LORD, it hurts!

I think he's trolling.

I hope he's trolling. :eek:

Ok I'm not going to read this entire thread cos its so long. Why are people so against Hillary Clinton? I am not American so I'm just wondering. Did those who are so against her dislike Bill too? Are ye republicans and if ye are Democrats same questions!

Ok I'm not going to read this entire thread cos its so long. Why are people so against Hillary Clinton? I am not American so I'm just wondering. Did those who are so against her dislike Bill too? Are ye republicans and if ye are Democrats same questions!

No, actually I liked Bill. He was a solidly competent president and I wouldn't mind having him in office again. I don't like Hillary because she is a shameless panderer and a cold, repulsive harpy who has absolutely no charisma. There is simply nothing likeable about her.

Condoleezza Rice

http://i2.tinypic.com/208b4v8.jpg It's been a while since we've had an actor for president. Why not give Clint a shot?

http://i2.tinypic.com/208b4v8.jpg It's been a while since we've had an actor for president. Why not give Clint a shot?
Lol! That image would put the bajesus into terrorists!

During the last primaries General Wes Clark got quite a lot of TV coverage here in the UK. I've googled him and not come up with much, and I've only seen his name mentioned once or twice here. What are his chances? What are his policies? Enlighten me!

http://i2.tinypic.com/208b4v8.jpg It's been a while since we've had an actor for president. Why not give Clint a shot?



id vote for him but only if he carries the magnum....

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/tlummus/ae1eec51.jpg

*wish i could photoshop this*

Rudy Giuliani. Hell, I might even be eventually happy with a Democrat at this point if he would balance the stupid f*cking budget. I mean really balance the budget, not just defer payments to next years' budget llike Slick Willy did to "balance" his.

It would be nice if someone from either side of the aisle would step forward with a real plan and the will to carry it out instead of postions that merely consist of talking points and attacks on the other party.

Russ Feingold.

Rudy Giuliani. Hell, I might even be eventually happy with a Democrat at this point if he would balance the stupid f*cking budget. I mean really balance the budget, not just defer payments to next years' budget llike Slick Willy did to "balance" his.

It would be nice if someone from either side of the aisle would step forward with a real plan and the will to carry it out instead of postions that merely consist of talking points and attacks on the other party.

Balancing the budget should be the number one priority of any President. And it should happen in the first year.

I think Condi would be an entertaining President. It would be fun to see the President wear sexy boots.

I think Condi would be an entertaining President. It would be fun to see the President wear sexy boots.

*thwap*

For her intellect perhaps?

theres always hillary....

http://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg

*thwap*

For her intellect perhaps?

Not my President. I'm allowed to have frivolous preferences.

My pick for President...Bobby Jindal!!!

The most incompetent mayor in the US?

I couldn't agree more!!! Clarence Ray Nagin, Jr. SUCKS!!! And yes, I can say that, because I live in this crap-ass state (35 miles west of N'awlins, to be exact!!!). The only one worse then Nagin is Kathleen Babineaux Blanco; governor of this fine state!!!:rolleyes: :gundge: :mp5:

Tom Cruise. :p









I can't believe no-one's said him yet, even as a joke. But in all seriousness, I just want an Independent. :headbang:

I would support the following:

1. NOT an ETHICAL-LIBERAL!!!

2. NOT a FISCAL-CONSERVATIVE!!!

Yep, I agree!!! I'd like to see a candidate from the Libertarian Party, the US Marijuana Party, or the Pot Party get elected to the presidency in 2008!

A couple of other interesting looking third parties are:


We The People
The Revolution

I don't care who it is as long as it is NOT a Republican. PERIOD.

I have had enough of their horsecrap, I'll switch brands.

Evan Bayh.

I don't care who it is as long as it is NOT a Republican. PERIOD.

I have had enough of their horsecrap, I'll switch brands.

the only problem with that is that a third party wont win, and the democratic party wont get off their asses. I have always wondered how it was possible that they could not find someone to beat Bush in the 04 election, it truly blows my mind, that out of everyone they find (trumpets blare) John Kerry....did they ever listen to him talk?

And now who are the front runners Hillary Clinton (wont win because everybody hates her) and that is all the public is hearing about. I gotta say even with the piss poor job the GOP has done, I would be willing to bet they stay in power come 08/09

Evan Bayh.

I'm from Indiana and I couldn't disagree with you more, though he might well be the most viable candidate the Democrats could put up for the next election..

I wasn't familiar with Russ Feingold so I looked up his website; here's the link:

http://feingold.senate.gov/

President: Chuck Norris
Vice: Bob Sagget

Ross Perot.

Ross Perot.

I would have totally voted for him if I was old enough.

Ross Perot.

He shouldn't have dropped out half-way through the '92 campaign. He would have won if he hadn't- then we wouldn't have to hear of Bush's I and II, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bob Dole, Al Gore, and the like.

If I could have my choice, I'd say my friend's cat or dog. They seem intelligent enough for D.C.

Speaking of which... :p

Why can't D.C. have a Nativity set?

Why can't D.C. have a Nativity set?

It can. On private property. Like other business that should be left soley to citizens without government interference.

It can. On private property. Like other business that should be left soley to citizens without government interference.

It's not a serious question... it's a joke... now, I'll ask again

"Why can't D.C. have a Nativity Set?"

President: Chuck Norris
Vice: Bob Sagget
agreed 100%, no one would mess with the US

as for Ross Perot, I've always wanted a president that other world leaders would walk by and pat on the head

Accually I vote for myself

Any Libertarian will do! We should at least try a third party candidate, if for no other reason, just to make the two power parties realize they're not God! Having said that, and not having much faith that this will ever actually happen, I vote...Rudy Giuliani!

after Bush leaves in '09.

Who says he'll leave... by choice?

Any Libertarian will do! We should at least try a third party candidate, if for no other reason, just to make the two power parties realize they're not God! Having said that, and not having much faith that this will ever actually happen, I vote...Rudy Giuliani!
I pretty much agree with everything he just said.