NationStates Jolt Archive

Aug. May Aug. May
Clinton 39% 42% Gore 40% 36%
McCain 47% 46% McCain 47% 48%

Clinton 42% 40% Gore 42% 37%
Giuliani 46% 49% Giuliani 46% 50%

The poll shows how it would go if Hillary or Al Gore were runniing against either McCain or Guiliani. It looks like she has picked up a few points against McCain but lost a few to Guiliani since May. Gore has also picked up against McCain and lost a few to Guiliani.

I do think Hillary will run, but I don't think she will win. For the full story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html

What say you?

According to polls in NY, she would not even win her own state in a Presidential election.

I do not think she will actually run for office though.

I'm hoping John Edwards will run again. Hopefully both Clinton and Kerry will stay home and not screw things for the Democrats.

*breathes sigh of relief*

We didn't fight the Cold War so we could elect a commie once it was over.

The other thing to consider is that the House and Senate will be controlled by Democrats. After two years of their 'do nothing' politics, the country might be ready to go back to more mature leadership, including the election of a real conservative.

The other thing to consider is that the House and Senate will be controlled by Democrats. After two years of their 'do nothing' politics, the country might be ready to go back to more mature leadership, including the election of a real conservative.



Do nothing, you mean like not starting a pointless war? Or not spending so recklessly that our grandchildren's children will be paying it off?

Giuliani is unelectable because he's a liberal Republican. The Christian Right is the only thing that got either of the Bushes elected. That's a base Giuliani could not even hope to energise.

Do nothing, you mean like not starting a pointless war? Or not spending so recklessly that our grandchildren's children will be paying it off?

No I mean things like not protecting our borders, language, and security. Things that neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats have done thus far.

No I mean things like not protecting our borders, language, and security. Things that neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats have done thus far.

Our language needs protection? From what? American English is nothing but the bastard child of every language in the world.

As for borders and security, never happen by either party.

Begoner21;11624741']We didn't fight the Cold War so we could elect a commie once it was over.

A commie? Hillary, as "leftist" as you may think she is, could hardly be even called a socialist.

Giuliani is unelectable because he's a liberal Republican. The Christian Right is the only thing that got either of the Bushes elected. That's a base Giuliani could not even hope to energise.

Actually, the polls show Giuliani actually winning the election if he ran for President.

A commie? Hillary, as "leftist" as you may think she is, could hardly be even called a socialist.

I don't know. Her plan for health insurance was pretty far down the socialist path.

Begoner21;11624741']We didn't fight the Cold War so we could elect a commie once it was over.

Don't worry the communist party never gets a serious amount of votes.

Giuliani is unelectable because he's a liberal Republican. The Christian Right is the only thing that got either of the Bushes elected. That's a base Giuliani could not even hope to energise.

I'd vote for Giuliani in a heartbeat. I figure most people would, though it'd be interesting to see the religious right get their panties in a bunch over that race.

I'm hoping John Edwards will run again. Hopefully both Clinton and Kerry will stay home and not screw things for the Democrats.

I doubt they will stay home and neither will Al or Howard.

I doubt they will stay home and neither will Al or Howard.

Well hopefully some Republican crazies will throw their hat in the presedential race as well to even things out.

Begoner21;11624741']We didn't fight the Cold War so we could elect a commie once it was over.

Not so sure http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html :D

Aug. May Aug. May
Clinton 39% 42% Gore 40% 36%
McCain 47% 46% McCain 47% 48%

Clinton 42% 40% Gore 42% 37%
Giuliani 46% 49% Giuliani 46% 50%

The poll shows how it would go if Hillary or Al Gore were runniing against either McCain or Guiliani. It looks like she has picked up a few points against McCain but lost a few to Guiliani since May. Gore has also picked up against McCain and lost a few to Guiliani.

I do think Hillary will run, but I don't think she will win. For the full story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html

What say you?


the democrats NEVER learn...during vietnam they put up an anti war candidate ...McGovern ...he was slaughtered in the election.

Why ? How could that be ? the whole country was either ragainst the war or extremely disatified with it...sick of it ..wanted it to END..so you would think an ANTI war guy would win by a huge margin....and you would be just as dumb as the dolts that thought McGovern had a shot ..just like now .

The people of the US are NOT stupid ..we know that running from Iraq would KILL us ...so even though we think the war is being run by the looney toon brigade ..we do not want to surrender or run from it..we know we are fighting terrorist who want to kill us and the DEMOCRATS do not give us ANY sense of security and are KILLING themselves by eating alive any candidate that shows any support for the war or the fight against terrorism..

bottom line they are going to be slaughtered at the polls ., Again because they never learn and they let themselves get hijacked by the blogers and the keybooooooord brigade that gave them DEAN ..WHAT ASSHOLES.

I sincerely hoped for a good Democratic candidate and this sickens me .

The other thing to consider is that the House and Senate will be controlled by Democrats. After two years of their 'do nothing' politics, the country might be ready to go back to more mature leadership, including the election of a real conservative.

Neither John nor Rudy are consertative. They are more middle of the road. I think most people, including Republicans, are fed up with the so called "real conservatives."

Ah, so the rest of the world will finally be rid of this american equivalent of ghengis khan. Please do a better job next time guys.

Do nothing, you mean like not starting a pointless war? Or not spending so recklessly that our grandchildren's children will be paying it off?

No, they will do something like raise taxes, increase the debt, and bring about an economic downturn with their tax and spend polocies. :mad: Where is the third party when you really need them?

Neither John nor Rudy are consertative. They are more middle of the road. I think most people, including Republicans, are fed up with the so called "real conservatives."


Sure are if I am any example...but WTF ...its a choice between the crazy bastards that the left wing is putting up ???

Thats NO choice..the Dems are KILLING all the moderates !

You think Warner would have a shot with these nuts ????

Why have elections, when we have polls?

No, they will do something like raise taxes, increase the debt, and bring about an economic downturn with their tax and spend polocies. :mad: Where is the third party when you really need them?

Tax and spend or tax cut and spend? Which is perferable?

Actually, the polls show Giuliani actually winning the election if he ran for President.

He could win the general election if he was in it. Problem is he wouldn't win the primary.

Our language needs protection? From what? American English is nothing but the bastard child of every language in the world.

As for borders and security, never happen by either party.

Well, when I lived in Spain there were no WE SPEAK ENGLISH signs in stores and resteraunts, there were no bilingual labels on things, and no press 1 for Spanish, press 2 for English when you called a company. We were in Spain and the Spanish expected (and helped us learn) us to speak Spanish.

Border security...unfortunatly you are right. :mad:

Well hopefully some Republican crazies will throw their hat in the presedential race as well to even things out.

Pat Buchannan and Pat Robertson maybe? :eek:

Well, when I lived in Spain there were no WE SPEAK ENGLISH signs in stores and resteraunts, there were no bilingual labels on things, and no press 1 for Spanish, press 2 for English when you called a company. We were in Spain and the Spanish expected (and helped us learn) us to speak Spanish.

Uhm... From what I understand USA is a bilingual country, just like Belgium, right?

Spain, however is not (with a couple of exceptions like the Basque).

Unless your great-great-grandfather is Chief Runningbull your a fucking immigrant, your ancestors came over, swamped the existing culture and ruined their nation. Ours just needs to stop being so complient, as in no Spanish Language Version Availible bullshit. Just let the people in, and then dont offer them spanish stuff and they will be forced to learn english.

Well, when I lived in Spain there were no WE SPEAK ENGLISH signs in stores and resteraunts, there were no bilingual labels on things, and no press 1 for Spanish, press 2 for English when you called a company. We were in Spain and the Spanish expected (and helped us learn) us to speak Spanish.

... that's because Spain doesn't have millions and millions of people whose first language is English. The US, however, is home to many peoples who call Spanish their first language, and it's just simple courtesy to make things easier for them by allowing them to have some things done in the language they are best at.

As to Clinton, we all know she won't win. I agree with 9/10 of her policies, but I still wouldn't vote for her, because she's simply not likeable. Now Obama in 08... he's got my vote if he runs, and I'd love to see those polls.

Aug. May Aug. May
Clinton 39% 42% Gore 40% 36%
McCain 47% 46% McCain 47% 48%

Clinton 42% 40% Gore 42% 37%
Giuliani 46% 49% Giuliani 46% 50%

The poll shows how it would go if Hillary or Al Gore were runniing against either McCain or Guiliani. It looks like she has picked up a few points against McCain but lost a few to Guiliani since May. Gore has also picked up against McCain and lost a few to Guiliani.

I do think Hillary will run, but I don't think she will win. For the full story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html

What say you?


This poll was taken by Fox. Enough said.

Uhm... From what I understand USA is a bilingual country, just like Belgium, right?

Spain, however is not (with a couple of exceptions like the Basque).

The US has no official language or languages. English is the language spoken by the majority but since there are large numbers of Spanish speaking immigrants services in Spanish are also offered by businesses in order to sell their goods and services to that community.

Tax and spend or tax cut and spend? Which is perferable?

Tax cuts help stimulate the economy and increase tax revenue which reduces the debt. Both Reagan and Bush have proven that tax cuts work. Remember trickel down economics? The Dems said both times it wouldn't work, and both times it did. So, I prefer tax cuts and spend. Now if everyone would get off the collective ass and privatize Social Security things would get a hell of a lot better.

He could win the general election if he was in it. Problem is he wouldn't win the primary.

Actually, that is not true either.

Tax and spend or tax cut and spend? Which is perferable?

That would depend on the taxing and spending policies. Tax cuts to stimulate the national economy alongside discretionary spending is preferable to tax raises and increased spending on social programmes, which have a detrimental effect on the economy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030107.html

Uhm... From what I understand USA is a bilingual country, just like Belgium, right?

No it is not and never has been even though we do not have an official language.

This poll was taken by Fox. Enough said.

Haha. :cool:

This poll was taken by Fox. Enough said.

Go ahead, throw trow the baby out with the bath water. :(

Neither John nor Rudy are consertative. They are more middle of the road. I think most people, including Republicans, are fed up with the so called "real conservatives."

I don't consider that there are any real conservatives in office anymore. Newt Gingrich (possible Presidential candidate) was conservative. Zell Miller was conservative. Ron Paul _is_ conservative. What we have now is a mix of party loyalists (on both sides) and a bunch of wackos like Rick Santorum to even out the majority.

I'm hoping John Edwards will run again. Hopefully both Clinton and Kerry will stay home and not screw things for the Democrats.

Ugh. I despise psychotic populists.

Benedict Arnold CEO's my ass.

Tax cuts help stimulate the economy and increase tax revenue which reduces the debt. Both Reagan and Bush have proven that tax cuts work. Remember trickel down economics? The Dems said both times it wouldn't work, and both times it did. So, I prefer tax cuts and spend. Now if everyone would get off the collective ass and privatize Social Security thinks would get a hell of a lot better.

There's one more step that needs to be taken. That is to abolish the IRS and the income tax.
[plug mode] A national retail sales tax, as proposed in the Fair Tax, HB 25, is the only way the Federal government should raise revenue. They have absolutely no business meddling with my income.
[/plug mode]

The US has no official language or languages. English is the language spoken by the majority but since there are large numbers of Spanish speaking immigrants services in Spanish are also offered by businesses in order to sell their goods and services to that community.

Ok, thanks.

I still find the idea of "protecting" the english language pretty weird. Sure, people mangle it. But according to wiki 82% of americans speak english at home. And people all over the world speak it as a second or third language, so it's not exactly an endangered language.

Besides, theres little point in "protecting" a language. I speak a language at home which only 300.000 people know. There would be little point in hanging on to it if it didn't evolve and we wouldn't invent new words for new things...etc.

I really hope that if Hillary Clinton does run, she fails miserably. There's no way I'm electing somebody who wants to freaking ban video games :mad:

There's one more step that needs to be taken. That is to abolish the IRS and the income tax.
[plug mode] A national retail sales tax, as proposed in the Fair Tax, HB 25, is the only way the Federal government should raise revenue. They have absolutely no business meddling with my income.
[/plug mode]

I agree. http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html

I really hope that if Hillary Clinton does run, she fails miserably. There's no way I'm electing somebody who wants to freaking ban video games :mad:

Hillary wants to ban video games? That's news to me and I'm not pro-hillary.

Ugh. I despise psychotic populists.

Benedict Arnold CEO's my ass.

I think that Edwards would have a much better chance getting elected then those other idiots who want to be president. Make a better prez as well.

The poll shows how it would go if Hillary or Al Gore were runniing against either McCain or Guiliani. It looks like she has picked up a few points against McCain but lost a few to Guiliani since May. Gore has also picked up against McCain and lost a few to Guiliani.

I do think Hillary will run, but I don't think she will win. For the full story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html

What say you?

I don't think she'll she'll make it out of the primaries. She's not as liberal as the right-wing makes her out to be, and the primary voters know that better than anyone. All she's got going for her right now is money and name recognition, and you can ask Joe Lieberman what that gets you. He was in the same position as Hillary in 2002, and by 2004, the best he could scrape up was a 5th place finish in New Hampshire that he spun as a three-way tie for third and a slogan that's become a symbol for ineptitude (Joementum).

Thank God...

Just one more reason to not nominate the witch in the primary. The dems can do better than that populist cretin.

What we need is an economic moderate who beleives in balancing the budget (and not the fantasy of "Tax-cut and spend" economics, like the ones that worked so well for Hoover. How many of you can differentiate between short-term results, and real long-term effects?) and protecting social services. But more than that we need someone who isn't tied into the Republican hate machine where nationalism, religious extremism, and the remnants of the racist movement ruminate together to create a bunch of self-important statists.

Feingold is my first choice, but the name recognition just isn't there.

Where's a (Bill) Clinton when you need him?

Hillary wants to ban video games? That's news to me and I'm not pro-hillary.
You remember how crazy she went over that little "Hot Coffee" controversy involving GTA: San Andreas? She (and Lieberman, iirc) were on the verge of banning all video games then

Begoner21;11624741']We didn't fight the Cold War so we could elect a commie once it was over.
I don't remember "fighting" the Cold War in the first place. And if you think Hillary's a commie, you've got a seriously fucked up view of communism.

I don't remember "fighting" the Cold War in the first place. And if you think Hillary's a commie, you've got a seriously fucked up view of communism.

I guess Vietnam was just an illusion on my part then -- it obviously wasn't a war and no fighting took place. We simply had tea and crumpets and discussed our ideological problems like civilized people. And Hillary does seem extremely fond of screwing the rich and giving to the poor -- that's communism if there ever was.

Begoner21;11625087']I guess Vietnam was just an illusion on my part then -- it obviously wasn't a war and no fighting took place. We simply had tea and crumpets and discussed our ideological problems like civilized people. And Hillary does seem extremely fond of screwing the rich and giving to the poor -- that's communism if there ever was.

Vietnam was a colossal fuckup, but it wasn't the Cold War, no matter how badly Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon sold it as such. And only in Bizzarro world would corporate friendly Hillary Clinton be a commie.

Begoner21;11625087']I guess Vietnam was just an illusion on my part then -- it obviously wasn't a war and no fighting took place. We simply had tea and crumpets and discussed our ideological problems like civilized people. And Hillary does seem extremely fond of screwing the rich and giving to the poor -- that's communism if there ever was.

Vietnam _did_ happen, you recall correctly. So did the Cuban missile crisis, the Korean war, Grenada, the Berlin Airlift, Gary Powers, Mutual Assured Destruction, the perpetual arms race, and more than a few other things that made the Cold War something more than the nice, neat, war on the editorial pages that the Nazz seems to allude to.

...Where's a (Bill) Clinton when you need him?

With Monica? :D Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

There's one more step that needs to be taken. That is to abolish the IRS and the income tax.
[plug mode] A national retail sales tax, as proposed in the Fair Tax, HB 25, is the only way the Federal government should raise revenue. They have absolutely no business meddling with my income.
[/plug mode]

Sales tax burdens fall more on the poor then on the rich. Are you suggesting we punish the poor for being poor?

No, we shouldn't.

We do need income tax, but we do not need graduated income tax.

I don't remember "fighting" the Cold War in the first place. And if you think Hillary's a commie, you've got a seriously fucked up view of communism.

You probably don't remember fighting it because you are to young. (Korea, Cuba, Africa, Viet Nam)

Vietnam _did_ happen, you recall correctly. So did the Cuban missile crisis, the Korean war, Grenada, the Berlin Airlift, Gary Powers, Mutual Assured Destruction, the perpetual arms race, and more than a few other things that made the Cold War something more than the nice, neat, war on the editorial pages that the Nazz seems to allude to.

My point, Myrmidonisia, is that the Cold War--the conflict between the nuclear states of the US and the USSR--was never "fought." Had it been fought, it would have ceased to have been a cold war, and would have become a hot one. Yes, there were proxy wars--Vietnam wasn't one of them, as that was more a case of western powers trying to continue their hegemony over a colony that had decided it was going to self-determine no matter the cost in human life--but the Cold War itself was decidedly frigid.

My point, Myrmidonisia, is that the Cold War--the conflict between the nuclear states of the US and the USSR--was never "fought." Had it been fought, it would have ceased to have been a cold war, and would have become a hot one. Yes, there were proxy wars--Vietnam wasn't one of them, as that was more a case of western powers trying to continue their hegemony over a colony that had decided it was going to self-determine no matter the cost in human life--but the Cold War itself was decidedly frigid.

Maybe not fought in the hot sense, but plenty of people were killed, captured, or never seen again.

The US spent 5 trillion on the nuclear weapons alone.

The USSR went broke.

Sales tax burdens fall more on the poor then on the rich. Are you suggesting we punish the poor for being poor?

No, we shouldn't.

We do need income tax, but we do not need graduated income tax.

PLEASE READ the plan. This plan does not burden the poor, everyone gets a refund from the government so those at or below the poverty level pay NO tax.

I don't remember "fighting" the Cold War in the first place. And if you think Hillary's a commie, you've got a seriously fucked up view of communism.

Wasn't her health plan pretty darn communist? Maybe not truly communist, but certainly socialistic and authoritarian.

Sales tax burdens fall more on the poor then on the rich. Are you suggesting we punish the poor for being poor?

snip.

The fair tax remedies that by giving a refund to the poor. I've looked into it a little and I don't have any serious objections to it.

If Hillary is the democratic choice in '08, there will be a republican president for another 4-8 years. I just hope the Republicans nominate a moderate so it won't be that bad.

PLEASE READ the plan. This plan does not burden the poor, everyone gets a refund from the government so those at or below the poverty level pay NO tax.

So Juan Jose who's below the poverty level has to wait five months for the money he needs for food next week. Right. Exactly how doesn't this burden the poor?

And moreover it increases the amount of money wasted on administrative pay. Does the government need even more bureaucracy too?

Wasn't her health plan pretty darn communist? Maybe not truly communist, but certainly socialistic and authoritarian.

Not even remotely. It was spun that way by insurance companies, but in the end, it was still more private than the systems in Britain, France or Canada, for example. But the boogeymen jumped out and screamed "socialized medicine" early and often and carried the day.

And the funny thing is, we're going to wind up with a plan like that, sooner or later, because the system we have right now is broken for too many people and too many businesses for it to continue. And we may wind up with one that's more socialistic than the one she proposed.

... Yes, there were proxy wars--Vietnam wasn't one of them,

Well, for not being a proxy war, the communist North that was trying to take over the non-communist South was supplied by the communist USSR and communist China.

--but the Cold War itself was decidedly frigid.

If you think that, it's OK with me but I disagree with your assesment.

So Juan Jose who's below the poverty level has to wait five months for the money he needs for food next week.

No, that's not how it works. Again, read the plan. Here I'll even post the links again for you. The second link explains it very well.

I agree. http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html

Good, I don't want Hillary at the throne anyway. Perhaps this will discourage her from even trying to run (please God). Anybody but Hillary or Bush in 2008 :p

So Juan Jose who's below the poverty level has to wait five months for the money he needs for food next week.

No, he does not have to wait at all. Just in case you don't want to click the link, try reading this;

"Americans take home their whole paychecks.
Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

No federal sales tax up to the poverty level means progressivity like today's tax system.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

Good, I don't want Hillary at the throne anyway. Perhaps this will discourage her from even trying to run (please God). Anybody but Hillary or Bush in 2008 :p

No, it won't discourage her from running and I don't think Jebb Bush will run in 08. :eek:

Let's hope one of these candidates actually becomes the president.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's give a third party a shot next time. Doug Stanhope is trying to get the Libertarian party nomination to run for president and Christopher Walken, according to a website I visited, seems to be running as well. I'd much rather see one of them as president than Jeb or Hillary.

Let's hope one of these candidates actually becomes the president.

Which candidates? Al, Hillary, John or Rudy?

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's give a third party a shot next time. Doug Stanhope is trying to get the Libertarian party nomination to run for president and Christopher Walken, according to a website I visited, seems to be running as well. I'd much rather see one of them as president than Jeb or Hillary.


Sadly the Christopher Walken site was a joke :(
I'd love to see a third party candidate get in but the two parties make it nearly impossible.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's give a third party a shot next time. Doug Stanhope is trying to get the Libertarian party nomination to run for president and Christopher Walken, according to a website I visited, seems to be running as well. I'd much rather see one of them as president than Jeb or Hillary.

LINKS PLEASE Go third party go. I'd appreciat the links to Stanhope and Walken if you have them.

Which candidates? Al, Hillary, John or Rudy?

The first two. :)

Sadly the Christopher Walken site was a joke :(
I'd love to see a third party candidate get in but the two parties make it nearly impossible.

Well at least Doug is serious.

Sadly the Christopher Walken site was a joke :(
I'd love to see a third party candidate get in but the two parties make it nearly impossible.

We need to quit thinking like that and start pushing for or get behind a third party or independant. Remember Jesse Ventura? It can be done but the people have to make it happen.

We need to quit thinking like that and start pushing for or get behind a third party or independant. Remember Jesse Ventura? It can be done but the people have to make it happen.


Jessie Ventura didnt try for the presidency... to get a third party registered in every state is next to impossible when the Dems and Reps block you at every turn.

Heres the fake Walken for President site: http://www.walken2008.com/

Speculating over an election before the propaganda machines have been started up is pointless.

At least 80% of people on this forum will change their opinions once the parties start plastering the media with their candadates' views. Probably 95% of the population as a whole will change their minds and support whoever gets nominated whole-heartedly by the time of the election. At this point noone has started spending money yet, but once the lines are drawn and the propaganda war begins, you will be surprised by how much support even the most despicable of politicians will recieve. Look at the way current political issues are framed. A majority of political issues have absolutely no effect on the majority of Americans, and many Americans are willing to take absurd stances on issues. This is all a result of how the media frames debate and has nothing to do with the actual problems people face.

When people's opinions are shaped by others it is no longer the people who have the power but those who have power over the people's opinions.

Not even remotely. It was spun that way by insurance companies, but in the end, it was still more private than the systems in Britain, France or Canada, for example. But the boogeymen jumped out and screamed "socialized medicine" early and often and carried the day.

And the funny thing is, we're going to wind up with a plan like that, sooner or later, because the system we have right now is broken for too many people and too many businesses for it to continue. And we may wind up with one that's more socialistic than the one she proposed.

I would call the nationalization of 15% of our gross national product socialistic. I might also call it facsist. One of those surely fits.

...At least 80% of people on this forum will change their opinions once the parties start plastering the media with their candadates' views....

Unfortunately, if the 08 elections go like the primaries for the 06 elections have gone, no candidate will “express their views.” All they did during this primary is to attack the other candidate and tell what a rotten, sorry, despicable, SOB their opponent was. I have no illusions that the 06 general elections or any of the 08 elections will be any better.

I would call the nationalization of 15% of our gross national product socialistic. I might also call it facsist. One of those surely fits.

Calling it nationalization is a misnomer, as well--private industry was still going to have a hell of a lot of control in Clinton's plan, which is why I found it a good first step, but only a first step.

The eventual result will probably be socialistic--but for me, that's a feature, not a bug.

Giuliani is unelectable because he's a liberal Republican. The Christian Right is the only thing that got either of the Bushes elected. That's a base Giuliani could not even hope to energise.

Are you suggesting that the Christian Right would not vote at all if Guilliani were the candidate or that they would vote for the Democrat's candidate?

What say you?I say that the only poll that matters is the one I vote in in 2008 :p

Are you suggesting that the Christian Right would not vote at all if Guilliani were the candidate or that they would vote for the Democrat's candidate?

Their vote would split. Half of them would vote constitutionalist, the other half would vote Republican.

Are you suggesting that the Christian Right would not vote at all if Guilliani were the candidate or that they would vote for the Democrat's candidate?

I think that if by some miracle Giuliani got through the primaries as the candidate, most of the religious right would suck it up and vote for him, because they would see the "godless Democrat" as a worse choice. But enough of them might rebel and go third party--the Natural Law or Constitution (make me laugh) Parties seem to be natural homes for them--to swing the election to the Democrat.

Yes, the USA does need at least two more parties. Having a superpower with a paranoid schizophrenic foreign policy is bad enough without having to frame debates in terms of a false dichotomy.

Begoner21;11624741']We didn't fight the Cold War so we could elect a commie once it was over.

No, we fought it because we needed too. We Americans can elect whomever we damn well please, including communists, if that's our choice.

It's certainly not my personal choice, though.

bump?

that is great news - she is just too divisive for me

*snip*

Hillary Clinton supported the war in Iraq. Try again.

Aug. May Aug. May
Clinton 39% 42% Gore 40% 36%
McCain 47% 46% McCain 47% 48%

Clinton 42% 40% Gore 42% 37%
Giuliani 46% 49% Giuliani 46% 50%

The poll shows how it would go if Hillary or Al Gore were runniing against either McCain or Guiliani. It looks like she has picked up a few points against McCain but lost a few to Guiliani since May. Gore has also picked up against McCain and lost a few to Guiliani.

I do think Hillary will run, but I don't think she will win. For the full story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html

What say you?

There is a problem with that poll: a water buffalo has more chance of getting into the primaries than McCain.

There is a problem with that poll: a water buffalo has more chance of getting into the primaries than McCain.
McCain's certainly been sucking up to the fundies lately, though, trying to establish his bona fides with them. He's giving a speech at Bob Jones University and been chummy with Falwell and the rest of the pseudo-christian douchebags.

Aug. May Aug. May
Clinton 39% 42% Gore 40% 36%
McCain 47% 46% McCain 47% 48%

Clinton 42% 40% Gore 42% 37%
Giuliani 46% 49% Giuliani 46% 50%

The poll shows how it would go if Hillary or Al Gore were runniing against either McCain or Guiliani. It looks like she has picked up a few points against McCain but lost a few to Guiliani since May. Gore has also picked up against McCain and lost a few to Guiliani.

I do think Hillary will run, but I don't think she will win. For the full story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html

What say you?
Your thread title is totally biased upon one poll by one news (if you want to call Fox news) station. There are tons of polls out there and of course polls change over time. Here is some interesting scenarios that refute your thread title, depending on who the candidates are, other than those already mentioned:

White House 2008: General Election (http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc)

I am sure that a lot will happen between now and the 08 Primaries???

I like Wesley Clark and Mark Warner. Longshots?

McCain's certainly been sucking up to the fundies lately, though, trying to establish his bona fides with them. He's giving a speech at Bob Jones University and been chummy with Falwell and the rest of the pseudo-christian douchebags.

He can be chummy with Jesus flipping Christ. He won't get in the primaries.

Your thread title is totally biased upon one poll by one news (if you want to call Fox news) station. There are tons of polls out there and of course polls change over time. Here is some interesting scenarios that refute your thread title, depending on who the candidates are, other than those already mentioned:

White House 2008: General Election (http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc)

I am sure that a lot will happen between now and the 08 Primaries???

Funny the poll on the link you provided supports the poll on FOX. :rolleyes:

In short:
republicans suck. (won't read replies)

Funny the poll on the link you provided supports the poll on FOX. :rolleyes:

Funny, both these polls are from fox, the republican propaganda machine, and some how the republicans all come out on top. Coincidence? I think not.

Funny, both these polls are from fox, the republican propaganda machine, and some how the republicans all come out on top. Coincidence? I think not.

No, both polls are not from FOX. Did you follow the link? This is the link provided by CH and it contains the results of several polls including one from FOX. Even the Time Poll puts McCain ahead of Clinton. :rolleyes:

Good, cuz i don't wan't any country to have a tax on videogames.