Just for fun, what presidential candidate are you guys interested in.  






Edit:  Fixed title.  -b0b

Ron Paul, baby!

I want the feds out of everything they're not suppose to be in and into everything they are suppose to be.  I don't want a President to raise taxes, go to war unnecessarily, secure the boarders, limit the spending on the fed govt, get away from useless govt agency, abolish the Patriot Act, and I want a person who's record speaks the same as what he/she is saying now.

I find only one candidate who does all that, doesn't pander, sticks by how he wants to run and if people want to support him they come to him.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Give it serious thought.  Basically it comes down to the question of what do you think the role of the fed. govt should be and whether or not you want them to leave you alone.

If you want to be taken care of by the feds...look at someone else.

X

Oh good.  I didn't say anything at first, but I'm a Ron Paul fan myself also.  He's such an amazing man.

I suggest that you watch some of the presidential debates on YouTube to check out the candidate that best suites you.  http://youtube.com/youchoose

If for some reason you aren't home for the vote this January, try applying for an absentee ballot.  The pdf is listed below.  

http://stuweb.ee.mtu.edu/~njattebe/absent.pdf

Good link on the absentee ballot!

Even better to hear from another Paulite....gosh don't you hate that name?

Ron Paul supporter is much better.

X

X wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 11:41pm:

Even better to hear from another Paulite....gosh don't you hate that name?

It's better than "Ronbot" or "Paulistinian."

There are three candidates I would consider voting for in the primaries:

Tom Tancredo:  This is my "miracle" candidate.  If I could handpick the next president, Tancredo would be the man, but he doesn't realistically have any chance of winning the nomination.  Politically and idealogically he's as close to my own beliefs as I could ask for, but he holds a ridiculously tiny percent of the popular vote right now.  Unless something miraculous happens in the next four weeks, there is really no point in voting for him.

Fred Thompson:  Fred is a great guy and he's willing to shoot down his opponents without regard to political correctness (Michael Moore, for instance).  He's really been taking a beating the last few weeks, though.  He waited too long to get into the race and he's been too laid-back since his announcement.  I'd love to see Fred in office, but he will have to pull off an amazing comeback to get back into the running.  Fred had to give up on New Hampshire this week, focusing entirely on Iowa.  That is more than a little bit disconcerting.

Ron Paul:  Although Ron Paul and I don't see eye to eye on everything (for instance, I'd still like to hear what his replacement for the Fed is), he's definitely a strong candidate.  I've been watching him for about a year now and he's really starting to make strides in the "common American" demographic that had eluded him before.  He still needs to work on his perception as a bit of nutjob, though.

If I had to vote today, it'd be a difficult choice between Fred Thompson and Ron Paul.  Both of them are good men with solid track records.  If I absolutely had to choose between the two, Ron Paul would probably nab my vote, but only by a hair.

-b0b
(...hopes all three candidates do well.)

I am probably going to write in Al Gore.  Who else is going to don a super suit and go off to battle the evil global warming menace!

Yeah, not to mention ManBearPig.

-b0b
(...and the Interwebs.)

I think his replacement for the fed is going to be some semblance of the Fair Tax plan.  I've heard him say he likes it and just yesterday, the guy who developed the FT plan, I forget his name, was listing all the candidates who were in support for it and he said Ron Paul liked it but hasn't endorsed it in the House yet.

I think we wouldn't have to worry about the feds if we just stopped building our empire (more money at home) and had something of substance that backed up our money.  I just can't help but to worry though, that the federal reserve is neither federal nor have a reserve.  Someone they wrested control of printing money away from Congress, which the Constitution says are the only one who can print money, and their members are unknown.

They are a private banking corporation who somehow determines whether or not to bail out the American middle class...ya right...or Wall St. ... And you can see which one they go for last month by pumping some 13 billion into Wall St.  Where did this money come from and what backs it?  Well I'll answer that question with one answer.  The thin air.

X

I've been thinking about fair tax a lot lately, and on the outside it seems pretty good.  Do you think that it would encourage people to buy less, that doesn't seem good at all.  I think at least it would encourage us to start using cash more, because it's untraceable, but I don't know.  

A reasonable implementation of the Fair Tax scheme would simply replace the traditional income tax.  It wouldn't matter if you used cash or not because your tax would still come out of your paycheck.  It's just that you'd pay the same percentage as everybody else.

-b0b
(...notes there are other theories, too.)

My second choice would be mike huckabee.  He seems to be a decent man.  Plus he once was a southern baptist preacher.  I don't like the fact that he wants to remain in the war, which is another reason I like Ron Paul.  Imagine being the only republican candidate to want to withdraw from the middle east.  

I use to be a Fred Thomson fan like Bob, but it seems to me that the man is really lazy.  I watched the Youtube/CNN debate and he was a complete moron on it.  He spoke a lot, but really didn't say anything at all.   He's asked a question, and talks about a completly different topic.  The same goes for the debate last night on C-SPAN.

Huckabee?  Are you kidding me?  Have you read anything at all about his tenure as governor of Arkansas?

Just about every person from Arkansas says "things were better with Clinton as governor," and that's coming from some pretty conservative people.

He increased state spending by over 65% in eight years.  He raised taxes on gasoline, refused to eliminate sales tax on groceries and medication, and - get this - instituted a "bed tax" on private nursing home patients.  Does that sound like the kind of man we need leading the United States right now?

His policies on illegal immigration also worry me.  He passed legislation mandating that illegal immigrant be given access to certain government-funded scholarships and grants.  He supports providing citizenship to aliens that have already shown their willingness to disregard American law.

Shall I keep going?

-b0b
(...thinks Huckabee is the new Flipper.)

Well, honestly I haven't had a chance to look at the background of the canidates.  I went to his website and read there, plus a little wikipedia.  That was my plan for this weekend was to read up on the background of these guys.    

Vote for me?

---

Giuliani?  Are you serious?  GTFO!


-b0b
(...assumes this is some sort of joke.)

---

Oh my God!  You killed Big Bird.  You bastard!

I know this is waaay off topic but did anyone just love Snuffleupagus?

I mean he was so laid back and smart...kinda like Eyore from Pooh.

I don't know...that might be just me.

X wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 3:52pm:

I know this is waaay off topic but did anyone just love Snuffleupagus?

I think it's time to step away from the pipe, Captain Sulu.

-b0b
(...BAM!)

---

Well he finally did it as of 1:12-ish AM!

That still means another few time zones and 23-ish hours of a donating day is just icing on the cake baby!

---

Who is that guy?

Ooh, burn!

-b0b
(...snickers.)

Sadness :-(

Go drown in a fire!

X

Ron Paul on the Glenn Beck Show for a full hr talking about every different type of subject and more than just sound bytes.  Take the time and watch if you're undecided:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pz6AKU5lSqc - Part 1

PT.2 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jujk3YOUSpE

PT.3 http://youtube.com/watch?v=f7fRWsqLoGA

PT.4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=pz6AKU5lSqc

PT.5 http://youtube.com/watch?v=pJIQCG1g564

PT.6 http://youtube.com/watch?v=6YUukbFgQcY

PT.7 http://youtube.com/watch?v=SGQJZhiEAXE

X

For those considering Mike Huckabee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pRDxY42BpU

How very Christian of him...WWJBBOW?

What Would Jesus Be Bought Off With?

X

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/271207_crackpot.htm

Check this out...I've never seen anyone since Bush who had so many sentence just plain wrong in the same topic.

If this guy built anymore straw men arguments he'd be the Scarecrow.

X

In all honestly, I'm not partial to any of the candidates on either side.  No one in the Democratic party really has what I would consider a "solid" plan, and most of the Republican party is moderate enough for me to vote for and not feel gross about later on.  

Initially I was all about Hillary Clinton, but she has A LOT to prove  or correct and I haven't seen it yet. Obama doesn't have enough experience,  Edwards pisses me off and I don't fully agree with everything Ron Paul says. Huckabee almost had me at Chuck Norris.



So essentially, what I'm saying is, um.......


......yeah, no.


I have no idea this time who I actually am for.



Caitlin

---

If you're looking for someone who you agree with completely on...you might have to wait until you're old enough to run yourself.

I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says but his message is one I can get on board with.  We need to get out of other countries affairs and we need to drastically limit the size of the federal govt. and have them leave me alone.  I only see that message being touted by one man...Ron Paul.

Everyone else is "stay the course" or "hey you know how you gave us power last election to do something...well we dropped the ball...but it was really your fault so we want you to elect us to what's suppose to be the smallest branch of the federal govt and let us increase the size of it even more!  That's the only way you won't kill yourself".

So in a nut shell...you're going to have to decided pretty soon here Cait, you'll just have to figure out who's the closest fit for you.  Maybe 3rd party?

X

a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote.


like voting for Nader.


really....it's probably worse than NOT voting at all.

That's the type of attitude that is absolutely destroying our country.

The only wasted vote is a vote not cast.  If you're not allowed or willing to vote for anyone you want to in this country than what's the point of holding general elections?  Why not just let the members of Congress decide who's President.

We're told to believe in the left/right paradigm.  Yet what if someone were to run as a democrat claiming to be the next Hitler and someone were to run as a republican claiming to be the next Stalin?  Would you just say..."Well it's the lesser of 2 evils to vote for...".  Meanwhile a person who gets no national coverage embodies a good majority of your beliefs is running and willing not to slaughter 30 million people.

3rd parties have been screwed over for a while now...yet you see Nader get 5% of the total votes in the last election?  What if the other apethitic voters decided to cast their votes for him?  What would happen if he would have won?  Would you then claim that a 3rd party is a wasted vote?  A long time ago...this country was a multipartied system..federalists, wig, republican, etc. It's only in the 20th century you have the big shift for two poles...and look at these supposed polar opposites in practice rather than ideology...where's the difference.

So really you should be saying voting 2nd party is a waste vote...since there is only one party anymore...big government without respect for the people.

X
(Feels sad now)

Cait wrote on Dec 28^th, 2007 at 2:47pm:

a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote.

I call bull.

Voting for a third party is most certainly not a wasted vote.  If you only ever vote for a Republican or a Democrat, there will never ever be another choice.  Like all areas of life, political change has to start somewhere, and it might be with an unelectable candidate like Nader.  If the Libertarians and other third parties get the attention they rightly deserve, it might be enough to force the Democrats and Republicans to start pushing some viable candidates instead of the moderate douchebags that have been dominating the scene for the past two decades.

Parties receive financial support from the .gov based on the percentage of the popular vote their candidates receive in the primary and final elections.  If people completely dismiss third party candidates because of their lack of perceived support, the party risks losing out on federal funding for future campaigns, leading to a vicious and unending cycle.

-b0b
(...thinks Fed.Gov campaign financing is crap, but that's a topic for another thread.)

http://www.scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php

Need another reason to vote for Ron Paul?

He's smart enough not to believe in a theory as stupid as evolution!

X

Okay, okay, okay.


The matter of evolution v. creationism v. the rest of the "how we were made" theories aren't on my top ten concerns, sorry X! (ps I'm sorry if I made you sad on the wasted vote thing!)


I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, or I just didn't say it right--It's not that I won't vote, it's just that I'm frustrated that I'm more aligned with 3rd parties as I get older---and I feel like no one's ever going to vote for them, or vote at all because Americans get so caught up in the 'red state, blue state' thing and don't even check who they're voting for. Half the girls at my school say things like "I'm voting for Obama because he has a universal health care plan."  Yet, only a few of them can tell me what his plan is and why they think it'll work. The others are just regurgitating things they hear on campaign ads and from other friends.  Honestly, I was supporting Hillary until recently, when she did release her sketchtastic "universal" health plan, which didn't strike me as competent. But that's another rant for another never.  I think the same was true for me in the previous two elections, which were held during my 8th grade and 12th grade years (shut up, I know I'm a youngin') and the majority of my schoolmates were Bush supporters, yet no one could back up their reasons why or really form a political thought past what their parents had told them.

My parents were annoyed when I told them the candidates I was most interested in were Ron Paul, Clinton and Biden. If that makes any sense at all, which I know it probably doesn't  ::)

Anyways, I'm on a rant and I need to be packing my bags since I'm flying back to Pittsburgh in about 3 or 4 hours.



Caitlin

I was posting the video for all...not just for you...so I'm not sad at all  :)

I think this country has a silent majority with respect to what you were saying about being frustrated.

You look at how much support Ron Paul has drummed up with people who've never voted before, disenfranchised Dems and Republicans, and people who've never voted before or recently.  Ron Paul is as baby step away from a 3rd party vote (or as I call it a true Republican vote since neo-cons are just as bad a Dems who believe just about the same).  Ron Paul's campaign has started what every other candidate won't admit they want....a true grass roots campaign.

The other candidates would love their own blimp.  The other candidates would love their own supporters to start up a website dedicate to money bomb days.  They'd love to break the record for most money gained even without the nomination.  They'd love to be told by many reporters that when they travel all they see are their signs outnumbered any other 1,000 to 1.  They'd love to have the passion of when their names are mentioned in any news report or any news show that they would receive thousands of emails.

Ron Paul should beholden reporters into a state which they've never seen in 3 generations of politics.  Yet all they can do is attack him.  They attack him because certain people don't label him in the "top tier".  They have to attack him because he wants to give up power and not "take care of all the needs of society with the iron fist of the fed. govt".

Just image what this would mean if Ron Paul was elected.  Everyone would have a chance to be elected.  It would inspire the apathetic and the disenfranchised.  They see a candidate who's not a millionaire, who's not exploiting a national tragedy for the sake of head office seat, and not someone who's record that he's inconsistent with his beliefs and flip flops when the polls tell him to do so.

It's amazing how long Ron Paul has been in office considering.  He's very unpopular with his fellow representative, not all but most.  He votes no on most things brought before him, hence his nickname of Dr. No.  Also, believe it or not, I believe he's the only person to have read the Constitution all the way through and knows that the President isn't the leader of this country, but the leaders are the people of this great nation.  He's never run an attack ad when up for re-election.  While his running mate is slandering and lying about him on the defensive, Ron Paul always remained on the offensive and said "this is what I believe for this reason...if you don't like it...don't elect me".

Ok my rant is over for now...but to sum up my point it's this:

Ron Paul is that person that can act like both a 3rd party candidate and a main party runner...don't be afraid to vote for him in the primaries.

X

obama and huckabee just won Iowa.



and i just vomited up my dinner.


i dislike them both. verah much.

Quote:

Huckabee Declared Winner of Iowa Republican Presidential Caucuses Thursday, January 03, 2008 Mike Huckabee was declared the winner of the Iowa Republican presidential caucuses Thursday night, less than an hour after voting began. With 25 percent reporting, Huckabee had 35 percent, Mitt Romney had 24 percent and Fred Thompson had 14 percent. John McCain had 12 percent, according to the reporting. The Iowa caucuses sites were reportedly more heavily populated than expected Thursday night as voters traveled to familiar places to throw their support to their choice of presidential candidate. Campaign manager Chip Saltzman reported that Huckabee was delayed 30 minutes trying to access a caucus site in Waterloo. That's rural Iowa, Blackhawk County, about 90 minutes by car from Des Moines. Traffic into the caucus location was "at a standstill," Saltzman said. The Romney campaign, however, said it considered Huckabee's campaign to be "a one-hit wonder," as the former Arkansas governor does not have the organization or money to launch a nationwide campaign. Romney was gracious, however, when conceding Huckabee's victory. "This is obviously a bit like a baseball game," he said. "First inning in, well it’s a 50-inning ballgame. I’m gonna keep on battling all the way and anticipate I get the nomination when it’s all said and done, but you know congratulations for the first round to Mike, and we’ll go on to New Hampshire." First-tier candidates were hoping for break-out numbers to distinguish them in a hotly-contested race. The fate of a few second-tier contestants was hanging in the balance as their fortunes were being measured in the shadow of better-funded and organized opponents. Entrance polling for FOX News also offered an uncertain picture on the Democratic side. As Democrats entered the caucuses, Barack Obama had 34 percent, compared to 27 percent for Hillary Clinton and John Edwards at 21 percent, though that number appeared to be moving up as the night continued. But as 46 percent of the precincts were reported, Obama had 34 percent, and Edwards and Clinton were tied with 32 percent each. Bill Richardson had 2 percent. Registration at one precinct at Iowa State Historical Museum was approaching 40 percent before the cut-off. That would be four times the amount the Democratic precinct chairman was expecting. Chairman Jack Porter of the 64th Democratic precinct in Des Moines told caucus-goers right before the 7 pm deadline for registration to participate that "everyone who wants to register can register," generating strong applause from those in the room. Analysts say turnout at other locations has also been much higher than the previous election, which could bode well for Obama, who has fashioned himself the candidate for change and is attracting new voters. Public schools, libraries, churches and city halls are many of the locations where Iowa decision-makers were headed to cast their vote to choose delegates to attend a series of conventions that will determine the state's representatives to the Democratic and Republican national conventions next summer. The museum, for instance, is home for five of the 1,781 precincts -- three Democratic, including the 64th, and two Republican -- caucusing. People were required to have come through the door before 7 p.m. CST in order to participate so voting could begin promptly. That appeared impossible as the deadline rolled by. Of the 3 million residents in Iowa, 2 million are registered voters, but only about 150,000 Democrats and 80,000 Republicans were expected to show at the caucus sites. But top Obama advisers predict turnout in Democratic caucuses to exceed 200,000. If true, all the campaigns -- Obama, Clinton, Edwards -- say that would spell an Obama victory. Once they arrived, the caucus-goers were to be assigned a location in each of the caucuses sites. For Democrats, after arriving, voters checked off their names and were given a sticker with a numerical designation. The chairman of the precinct was to start his watch at 7 p.m. and give voters 30 minutes to spill into the corners of the room where each candidate has a designated spot for supporters. After 30 minutes, the chairman was to count up the people at each of the spots to make sure there were enough to represent 15 percent of all the eligible caucus-goers in the precinct. If the candidate doesn't meet the 15 percent threshold, his or her supporters are given a second chance to regroup and pick another candidate or convince others to join them. The horse-trading continues for another 30 minutes until only the viable candidates' supporters are standing in their spots. The chairman then uses a formula to determine how many delegates each candidate will win. The formula used is to multiply the number of members in a candidate's corner by the total number of delegates elected at the caucus and divide that by the total number of eligible caucus attendees. (An example: If 150 people show up to a caucus that is to elect four or more delegates, a candidate must get at least 25 people in his or her corner to be viable. If a candidate has 25 caucus-goers in his corner, then following the formula, 25 x 4/150 = .67 percent, rounded up to one, the candidate wins one delegate). The chairman then calls up the convention center to phone in his allocated delegates. The Republicans have a much simpler process. It's a straw poll. Caucus-goers write the name they want and stick it in a box. The names are counted up and the delegates are apportioned by percentages.

I like the Republican method better.

-b0b
(...can't wait to see the final numbers!)

http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/obama-flag.jpg

I just thought I'd show you the man that won the democratic caucus in Iowa last night.  Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

-b0b
(...points out that the national anthem is currently being sung.)

It is a well known fact that black people keep their heart in their crotch.

Maybe it's the Mexican anthem...I mean look at Richardson...you can't tell me he's really American.

POWNED!

http://parocks.com/mccainoniraq.JPG

X

Bahahaha, classic!

-b0b
(...thinks McCain is a douche.)

Does he look like that because he is a fat ass or because of plastic surgery gone wrong?

He's definitely got a chipmunk thing going on.

He's just caching nuts for the coming famine.

-b0b
(...thinks its the only possible explanation.)

He stores them up just in case he's ever a POW again.

X

I wasn't going to say it...   8-)

-b0b
(...should have known Stewie would.)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=as3AYVzWmOI

Funny stop motion lego animation for Ron Paul

Quote:

The Real Positions Kim du Toit January 7, 2008 7:00 AM I watched the so-called “Republican forum” last night on Fox, and let me tell you that and the end of it all, I wouldn’t vote for any of those mealy-mouthed fools. All of them spoke like they had won the nomination, and were appealing to the so-called “center”. What bollocks. In case any of the candidates’ campaign people ever bother to read this, allow me to give you a closing speech that will win you the Republican nomination, and probably the Presidency as well.    My fellow Americans:    I know that after the Iowa polls, everyone was talking about ‘change’ as though this was some kind of magic word which, at a single stroke, will cure us as a nation of all our ills.    Well, let me outline the specific areas where I would like to see this ‘change’ , and let me tell you how I’ll make those changes happen.    1. Low taxes. There seems to be a vague drifting of sentiment towards allowing a tax increase to happen. When I am elected President, I will push for lower, and still lower taxes for the hard-working Americans on whose backs this bloated government rests. I should point out that had any of the Founding Fathers foreseen a tax system which confiscates nearly one third of a man’s hard-earned wages, they might have given up at the start. So let me take that one step further: not only will I push for lower taxes, but I will veto each and every bill which comes my desk which contains even the slightest hint of a tax increase. That is my solemn promise to you.    2. Health care. Everyone, Republicans included, believes that we are entitled to health care in this country. What they really mean is that everyone should be able to afford health care insurance—and we should. Perhaps if the government took less money away from people in the first place, people would be able to pay for health insurance. We all know that a nationalized health care system is doomed to fail, because that’s happening in every country which has created it. It doesn’t matter whether it’s called a National Health Service or a single-payer system, or universal health care; what it really is, is Government giving out medical treatment—and, in case anyone hasn’t been reading the news from overseas, when Government finds out that it can no longer afford to give out medical treatment to everyone who asks for it, Government then turns around and says, “You can have it, but you’ll have to wait in line” or even worse, “You can’t have it at all, because you belong to a group which we have decided is not worthy to get it.” This has happened, I repeat, in every country where socialized medicine is practiced, and it would be an act of supreme folly to imagine that it would turn out any differently in our country. And speaking of people unworthy to get free medical treatment, let me move to my next point.    3. Illegal immigration. I will work to reduce federal funding to any state which offers free health care, or free education, to illegal immigrants and their children. I am sick of people crying about the children of illegal immigrants. Let me make myself perfectly clear about this: if a couple gets arrested for robbing a convenience store to feed their family, we do not let them off a prison sentence because their children will lose their parents. It’s a crying shame that children should have to suffer as a result of their parents’ actions, but it is ultimately their parents who caused their woes, by breaking the law. One last thing: A lot of people have talked about how it would be impossible to deport twelve million illegal immigrants. That’s a red herring, because we don’t have to deport twelve million immigrants. What we can do is deport a million a year—and we can certainly do that— while at the same time shoring up our immigration- and border controls to ensure that having been deported, these criminals find it increasingly more difficult to re-cross the border and break the law again. Once illegal immigrants realize that we are serious about expelling them from this country, their desire to try will again be reduced. This has happened in the past, and I will work to make sure that it happens again.    4. The size of government. The federal government of this country has become too large, too powerful, and too big for its own britches. It has been able to get this way because it collects too much of our money in taxes, and because people have become accustomed to rely on the government to provide for their comfort. Well, as we look around the world today and over the past fifty or so years, the biggest lesson we can learn is that the bigger the government and the more intrusive it is on the business of its citizens, the less successful the country will be, and the more unhappy its citizens. I spoke earlier of my desire to lower our taxes; well, let me spell it out for you.  My goal will be to lower the top income tax rate to 20%—that’s right, twenty percent. There are people who will say that the government cannot survive by taking only one out of every five dollars we earn. Allow me to say two things about that. The first is that every single American knows how to balance what we want, with what we can afford. We would like to buy jewelery, but we know we can’t afford it. Do we therefore buy the diamond necklace anyway, and stop buying groceries for our children? No, we do not: we make do with less—but that’s not the way the federal government works. Perhaps it’s time for the Federal government to start making the same difficult choices that ordinary Americans are forced to make every day—in no small part because the government takes away too much of our money to begin with. The second thing I have to say is that if some government departments find themselves short of money and have to stop working because of no funding, that is one of my goals, too. Which leads me to my fifth point.    5. Constitutional principles. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they were extremely careful to limit the power of the Federal government by saying that the government could only do a few specific activities, and no more. Somehow, those few specific activities have grown to encompass government programs that the Founders would never have imagined, in their wildest and most imprudent dreams. So I will work first to curb and then end those expensive and unsustainable programs, to the fullest power with which the Constitution grants the President. It has been said that one of the reasons that the Constitution was so well written was because the authors had the glowering presence of George Washington looking over their shoulders. Let me tell you, I feel that same presence today—and every President should feel that same presence, and govern accordingly.    6. National security. I spoke earlier of government departments running out of money to function, and of things the Federal government may or may not do. Let me remind everyone of one thing: one of the primary functions of the federal government, not only specified but directed by the Constitution, is to provide for the security of our nation. So do not think that I will allow our Armed Forces to be denied the proper funding to function. Far from it. Our opponents talk about our overwhelming military strength in the world as though it is a bad thing. When they say that, what they are saying is that we, the American people, cannot be trusted to manage that responsibility. Allow me to differ. When a tsunami strikes Southeast Asia, the most welcome sight is not a United Nations fact-finding mission, it is a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter. When one tribe is busy slaughtering another in some forgotten part of the world, the tribesmen would prefer to see American soldiers, rather than Bob Geldof. We are not a totalitarian country; we are not Hitler or Stalin, trying to conquer the world. We are Americans, trying to ensure that this fragile flame of freedom does not flicker and go out. And let me remind everyone that our enemies, especially the Islamic terrorists and the governments which support them, are blowing as hard as they can. My promise to you is that they will never succeed, even slightly, under my watch. We are going to listen to their phone calls and read their emails as they plan to blow up our cities or kill our soldiers; we are going to interrupt their flow of funding, no matter what the source may be. And we are going to pursue them to the ends of the Earth and kill them for the murderers and tyrants that they are, just as we have pursued and punished Nazi killers, and still do to this day.    In closing, let me say this to you all: our Founding Fathers were rightfully afraid of tyrannical governments, both those from outside our borders and those which may spring from our own population. This is why they limited the power of government, and provided for Americans to change matters when they wanted to, whether through the soap box, the mail box, the ballot box, and, in the final extreme and with extreme reluctance, the cartridge box, just as those few brave souls did at Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts.    Well, I speak to you now as a candidate for change—the best change, the change which our Constitution demands, and a change back to our Constitution’s original intent: less government in your lives and affairs; lower taxes; the freedom to bear arms, and all the other freedoms as enumerated in our Bill of Rights, which is still the greatest social and political document ever written.    I will work tirelessly towards that end, because if I do not, I will have betrayed the trust which our Founding Fathers and you, the American people, will have bestowed upon me.    Thank you, and good night.

I don't think I've ever read an article that made me want to jump up and shout so badly!

-b0b
(...hell yeah!)

Bahaha, Hillary blanked in the first New Hampshire primary!


Quote:

Democratic Primary: (10 voters) * Barack Obama - 7 * John Edwards - 2 * Bill Richardson - 1 Republican Primary: (7 voters) * John McCain - 4 * Mitt Romney - 2 * Rudy Giuliani - 1

Hillary got zero votes!  MELTDOWN!

Of course, neither did Thompson or Paul...

-b0b
(...McCain?  WTF?)

That poll is inaccurate...Paul got 3 votes in the first cities counted at midnight.

Those results were from the very first polling place to respond, Dixville Notch.  The results you're likely referring to came from Hart's Location and broke down like this:


Quote:

HARTS LOCATION Republicans John McCain: 6 Mike Hukabee: 5 Ron Paul: 4 Mitt Romney: 1 Democrats Barack Obama: 9 Hillary Clinton: 3 John Edwards: 1

-b0b
(...so there!)

Ah yes...you are correct...I was trying to find the link of where I saw those results.

X

um, Hillary and McCain just won NH



Caitlin
(...scratches her head)

Question:

Let's say that none of the Republicans leave and each take some respective delegates.  Would it be possible for no one to win the 1,000+ needed to get the nomination...and if that happened...what would happen?

X

X wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 2:20am:

Would it be possible for no one to win the 1,000+ needed to get the nomination...and if that happened...what would happen?

My head asplode.

-b0b
(...supernova.)

wait....what?


If that would happen, if no one would get the 1000+, I think....Nader. He's always willing to mess things up for the democrats.


I am actually really surprised that he didn't run....again.

Cait

OK, what the hell is going on, hillary and mccain?

I am surprised they didn't do a write in for bush.

...packs his bags and goes to canada.

The vote for Hillary isn't incredibly surprising (it is New Hampshire after all), but the vote for McCain?  What the heck are they smoking?

-b0b
(...wow!)

Do these people know what they are talking about?  They consider him moderate?

This is the guy who said he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

He's the guy who said it's better that Iraqis are dying rather than Americans.

He's the guy that say no pork barrel spending but as the picture I posted above...that's wrong too.

He's about as conservative as Rudy and Mitt combined.

X

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKjhNa6PGLk

I am just so sick of the MSM...they way they try and control our elections just makes my stomach turn.  However, Ron Paul held his own in this debate posted.

X

REMEMBER TO VOTE TOMORROW!!!

You can find your polling location at the Michigan Secretary of State voter information webpage, at http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1633_8716_11583---,00.html.

If you can't decide, then vote for Ron Paul that's the undecided box as well.  If you do...I'll even throw in a free cookie shipping and handling fees apply

X

You dorks, there is no need to vote until march 4th!


...that is if you are planning on voting in ohio.


On another note, my voting location in the apartment clubhouse here.  Is voting really worth the 1/8 mile drive?

X wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 3:22pm:

If you do...I'll even throw in a free cookie shipping and handling fees apply

Oooh, that's a felony!  I'm calling the Man!

-b0b
(...runs around screaming while flailing his arms.)

Quote:

I'm calling the Man!

You rang?

No he said "the Man" not GAY Man

X

Quote:

With 100 percent of the voting in, Romney earned 39 percent of the vote over McCain with 30 percent. Mike Huckabee had 16 percent while Ron Paul polled at 6 percent. Fred Thompson had 4 percent and Rudy Giuliani was at 3 percent.

Well, that sucks.  Neither of my preferred candidates (Thompson and Paul) scored very well in Michigan.  Considering we're a liberal state, that isn't too surprising.  I really thought McCain would end up carrying the state, though.

I was really surprised at the voter turnout in Three Rivers.  I didn't think the primary would draw many voters, but there was a fairly decent line when I went to vote at 6:30 last night.

Oh well, I did what I could.

-b0b
(...is disappointed.)

Michigan sucks.  Get out while you still can!

Actually we're a very weird state politically speaking.  If you look, it's really only Detroit that carries the crazy liberal genes.  MI is mostly made up of conservative and independent people.  That's why it makes no sense to elect and re-elect Grandholm, Stabbenow, and Levin yet we have good rights on CCW and a lot of protection against police intrusion.

Not as weird as CA...but close.

X

Quote:

it's really only Detroit that carries the crazy liberal genes.

And look how great that city is doing.

Detroit and Lansing paint the rest of the state bright blue in national politics.  Luckily, most of the liberals in Detroit stay home when it comes to state politics.

-b0b
(...thank God!)

Most of the U.P. voted for McCain :(

All three of you?

-b0b
(...zing!)

Eskimos are people to jim!

You obviously went to tech based on your grammar skills.

BURN!

Bahaha, it's true!

-b0b
(...rofflecakes.)

Pfft, I aintz got times to worry bout no grammerz.


Ladder logic is more fun, and pays better!

Quote:

Richardson raising money to retire debt By BARRY MASSEY, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 22, 7:15 PM ET SANTA FE - Gov. Bill Richardson is gone from the Democratic presidential race, but he's still raising money: to retire a campaign debt. ADVERTISEMENT His campaign e-mailed supporters Tuesday with an appeal for money. "Will you please make one final contribution to my campaign so we can officially 'zero out' that debt," said the governor's request. Richardson has said he raised about $22 million for his campaign. Amanda Cooper, who was Richardson's deputy campaign manager, said no debt figure would be released until the campaign filed a report with the Federal Election Commission at the end of the month. The report will disclose contributions and expenditures during the final three months of 2007, and reflect the campaign's finances through the end of the year. Because Richardson's fundraising is for the presidency, his latest appeal does not violate a state ban on campaign fundraising during the legislative session. State law prohibits lobbyists from giving money to the governor and gubernatorial candidates from Jan. 1 through the 20th day after adjournment of the Legislature. State law also prohibits the governor from soliciting contributions during that time. Federal law governs fundraising for the presidency, according to state Attorney General Gary King's office.

If this isn't a great example of what Democrats want to do with everyone.  Spend more than you have and leave it to the average jane and joe to make up the difference.

This is called irony right here.

X

I would do the same thing I did when Mich Tech sent me the letter asking for more money.  I would laugh and say, "sucks to be you."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTxY8DU16v8&feature=related



yaaaay, politics.


Caitlin
(...yeahhhh)

That was the saddest video ever...

AHHH I AGREE WITH SHAUN HANNITY!!!!!

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/04/hannity-to-pro-obama-luntz-focus-group-name-one-of-his-accomplishments/

AHHH!!!! I THINK HE ASKED A GREAT QUESTION!!!!!

EDIT - Here's also a great clip of Bizzoro McCain - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPyKpcivQYQ&eurl=http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/04/4166/

X
(Runs to the other side of the room...taking the long way around the world)

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/29/20080211obamachehoustonsv4.jpg

Check out this lovely screen grab of an interview at Obama's Houston headquarters.  It's nice to know that Obama is flying a Cuban flag with Che frickin' Guevara on it.

-b0b
(...bastard.)

Che has become the McDonalds' arch of our generation.  People wear and fly the stuff with him on it and have no clue what he stood for other than rebellion.

X

Yeah, I can't help but to cringe every time I see some skater punk wearing a t-shirt with a picture of that communist idiot.  I bet most of them don't even know his name, let alone what kind of atrocities he committed during the Cuban revolution.

Great job on that revolution, by the way.  Where's Cuba now, Che?

-b0b
(...grumbles.)

Quote:

www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1386596 Cliff Kincaid A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body. A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.” The legislation itself requires the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000). The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion—or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.” In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.” Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Obama’s bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate. The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama’s mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example. The so-called “Lugar-Obama initiative” was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that “CTR funds have eased the Russian military’s budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization.” He recommended that Congress “eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union.” However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program. Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia. More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of “falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals…” It’s not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that “We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity.” Bush’s former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who “sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan…” Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

Obama's priority is to give more of our money away to the UN with no strings attached?  At least when we dole out money to other nations individually, we have some level of expectation of return on our investment.

This guy is off his rocker.

-b0b
(...bets Hillary will try to one-up him.)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2008-02/35586345.jpg

Quote:

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man Gary Hubbell February 9, 2008 There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain. Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians. There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard. His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard. The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding. He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives. The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him. The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter. His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American. He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch. Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.” He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner. He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English. Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement. He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves. There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush. He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Wow, I couldn't have said it any better if I wrote it myself.  Bravo!

-b0b
(...claps.)

I'm not surprised Obama is in league with the UN...after all...his wife is a member of Council of Foreign Relations which also has as its members Cheney, both Clintons, and 80% of the staff of the last two administrations.


Quote:

Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban Think Progress Thursday February 14, 2008 Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) establishing one interrogation standard across the government. The bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding. Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51-45. Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding:    Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon. (Article continues below) The New York Times Times notes that “the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it ‘would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.’” After Bush vetoes the bill, McCain will again be confronted with a vote to either stand with President Bush or stand against torture. He indicated with his vote today where he will come down on that issue. John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it.

Ya know...a lot of people I talk to who support McCain think he's going to be a better President than Bush because he knows the "horrors of war" and might not be so quick to get involved.  Also he was a POW and supposedly knows the horrors of war.  Then we see things like him supporting torture, or calling for us to stay in Iraq for 100 years, or bombing Iran.  This guy sounds nothing like a change and it's going to be funny seeing Obama kick his tail.

X

That sounds like a bunch of partisan bull.  Did McCain vote "no" because of the waterboarding addendum, or did he vote no because the rest of the bill was crap?

I hate McCain and sincerely hope he isn't the republican nominee, but I see this same kind of thing all the time.  A senator or representative votes for or against a bill, and some small segment of it is used to demonize them.  It's not fair.

-b0b
(...would love to hear McCain's explanation before the torches come out.)

Quote:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_el_pr/obama_4;_ylt=Aqi46GmePGXvtvwP_bLmECAE1vAI By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press MILWAUKEE - Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms. Obama said he spoke to Northern Illinois University's president Friday morning by phone and offered whatever help his Senate office could provide in the investigation and improving campus security. The Democratic presidential candidate spoke about the Illinois shooting to reporters while campaigning in neighboring Wisconsin. The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights. "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference. He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind. Five people, including the shooter, were killed during Thursday's ambush inside a lecture hall. Authorities said the two guns used were purchased legally less then a week ago. "Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities," Obama said. "That is our duty as Americans." Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns. At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution," Obama said.

Damn, John Kerry, which way is it?

The right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, yet it is okay to completely ban handguns even in private homes?  Am I the only one that see an error in logic here?

-b0b
(...it's Flipper 2.0!)

Quote:

At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns

Yes...because almost all social scientists who study the DC gun ban shows that it has been a complete failure.  I really don't understand the thinking.  Ban guns.  Law a bidding people follow the rules...criminals don't.  Normal people are without guns...criminals don't care about the laws and get them anyways.

X

Quote:

Hillary Clinton shot a duck once In an amazing coincidence just days before another crucial Democratic primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton, campaigning in Wisconsin -- where thousands build their annual vacations around deer-hunting season -- has let it slip that she went hunting once. "I know you don't believe it," she told an enthusiastic audience at Kenosha's Brat Stop over the weekend, "but it's actually true. My father taught me to shoot 100 years ago." According to The Times' Nicholas Riccardi, who was there, she then launched into an explanation of how school shootings can be stopped without infringing on gun owners' rights. She declined to elaborate on her hunting career later except to say that she had nailed a duck. But then today, on the eve of voting in the Badger State, the New York senator recalled more details about going hunting once in Arkansas with male colleagues and standing in chilly water early one morning. "They said, 'We won't shoot. You shoot,' " Clinton told reporters. "They wanted to embarrass me. So, OK, the pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck. And I was as surprised as they were." Not to mention how the unarmed duck felt.

Rumor has it she's a pretty good shot in the Washington parks, too.

Article here.

Duck hunter?  Who gives a damn?  Is she in favor of patriots arming themselves with "assault weapons" to oppose tyranny were it ever to be inflicted upon them?  That's what the second amendment is all about.

-b0b
(...hopes she decides to hunt her tonsils with a shotgun.)

Quote:

Police concerned about order to stop screening By JACK DOUGLAS Jr. DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena. The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security. Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on. "Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd." The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment. Doors opened to the public at 10 a.m., and for the first hour security officers scanned each person who came in and checked their belongings in a process that kept movement of the long lines at a crawl. Then, about 11 a.m., an order came down to allow the people in without being checked. Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection. They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event. "How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.

Conspiracy theory?  I've got your conspiracy theory right here!


If a gunman attempted to shoot a presidential candidate, we would all be screwed.  My bet is on a "disgruntled white male" just so they can play the race card.

I find it ironic that it was in Dallas, Texas.  Nothing bad ever happens to presidential types there, right?

-b0b
(...oh, wait!)

Cause you want to be scared:

http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/07/hillary-clinton-faces-vertical.jpg

Thanks, Stewie.  That's exactly what I needed to see at 8:00am on Monday morning.

-b0b
(...not.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/gmtmaster/wackjob.jpg



Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble WASHINGTON - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted. ADVERTISEMENT "All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs. The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said. "We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said. Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign. The Michigan governor, top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, and Florida's state party chair all are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from the previous insistence from officials in both states that the primaries they held in January should determine how their delegates are allocated. Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules. The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates — including Clinton and rival Barack Obama — agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process. But no one predicted the race would still be very close at this point in the year. "The rules were set a year and a half ago," Dean said. "Florida and Michigan voted for them, then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. Well, when you are in a contest you do need to abide by the rules. Everybody has to play by the rules out of respect for both campaigns and the other 48 states."

All of this Democrat in-fighting makes me happy in my pants.  I hope Hillary and Obama really get into a knock-down, drag-out bout.  We haven't had this much entertainment from the DNC since 1960!

-b0b
(...should invest in popcorn.)

Okay, he's not a presidential candidate, but there is a good likelihood he would've been in 2012.


Quote:

Spitzer resigns Comments 0 | Recommend 0 March 12, 2008 - 10:43AM NEW YORK (AP) - New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has resigned. The first-term Democrat says he will leave office on Monday, clearing the way for Lieutenant Governor David Paterson to take over. Spitzer said he's "deeply sorry" that he didn't live up to what was expected of him and that he "sincerely" apologizes to every New Yorker. He told reporters, "I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people's work." The governor spoke for about a minute, his wife Silda at his side, during the Manhattan news conference. The scandal that led to Spitzer's downfall erupted Monday amid allegations that he was involved in a prostitution ring. Sources close to the investigation say Spitzer spent tens of thousands of dollars with the call-girl service. Political rivals have been demanding he resign or face impeachment. Patterson is set to become the first African American governor of New York. Unlike Spitzer, known for his abrasive style, Patterson has been praised as a conciliator by politicians from both political parties.

It'll be interesting to see whether or not this has any implications on the Democrats in the 2008 elections.  Most likely, it'll be shoved under the rug rather quickly.

-b0b
(...suck it, Spitzer!)

Quote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VKLH0O0&show_article=1 Clinton Says She Erred on Bosnia Story GREENSBURG, Pa. (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she made a mistake in claiming that she came under hostile fire when landing in Bosnia as first lady 12 years ago. In several recent interviews, the New York senator had described a harrowing scene in Bosnia in which she and her daughter, Chelsea, had to run for cover as soon as they landed for a visit in 1996. But video footage of the day showed a peaceful reception in which Clinton greeted a young child on the tarmac. Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania on Tuesday: "So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

Yeah, I know how that is.   On my way to work this morning, I came under heavy mortar attack.

No, wait, I was just daydreaming.  I'm only human, you know.


Quote:

"It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

How many things is she going to go on the record and lie about?   ;D


-b0b
(...rolls his eyes.)

Here's an update on the story in the last post, kindly added by an AR15.com member:


Quote:

I dunno she might be telling the truth.  Look at these pictures I doctored analyzed. Picture one,  A picture of a "human" that happens to be Hillary boarding Air Force One.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5296/hillarydd4.jpg


Quote:

Hmm,  there seems to be something out of place in that tree line....Lets blow it up larger to see what it is.  Hmmm,  Nothing..Just a bush holding a rifle...Wait a minute!!

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7296/snipernc8.jpg


Quote:

OMFG! A SNIPER!

I couldn't resist.  This was just too funny not to post!

-b0b
(...if nothing else, McCain can yell "Watch out, Bosnian SNIPER" at the debates.)

There's a story out, and I'm too lazy to find it, where the offspring of the Clinton's was at a college and asked about the sniper incident.  Chelsea stood up for her mother's version of what happened and said that since her mother was on record with it, basically, she was going to stand by what her mother said.

This shows you the depravity of the Clintons.   If Hillary said the Earth was a triangle, the sky was orange, and birds flew backwards underwater...her family would support the lie.

I think this family belongs on Springer or Dr. Phil than in the White House again.

X

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/121420/881/486/484625

Proof that Hillary was telling the truth!

X

Quote:

MSNBC Saturday, April 05, 2008 3:46 PM From NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann and Adam Aigner-Treworgy NBC and National Journal have learned that former presidential candidate Fred Thompson is visiting GOP nominee John McCain at McCain's Arizona cabin in Sedona this weekend. No word of what's been discussed, although a source with knowledge of the visit says that the purpose may be more of a relaxing weekend getaway than a business meeting. (The two men have been longtime personal friends, even during their overlapping presidential bids.) Thompson endorsed McCain after ending his own run for the GOP nomination.

I smell a conspiracy brewing!

-b0b
(...FDT '08?)

Damn bob.  Two men can't go off to some cabin in arizona holding hands and singing coom-by-ya (how the hell do you spell that?  wait, not a real word, doesn't matter...I win before bob even posts, woot!) without you thinking they are in some gay conspiracy!

It's spelled Kumbaya, although Kum Ba Yah is also acceptable.

Sadly enough, it's a Gullah abomination of "Come By Here."

-b0b
(...even spelling it right is wrong.)

Hmm, learn something new everyda...aww wait, lost it.

I just came across a terrifying article about Michelle Obama (Barak's wife).  Check out this comment:


Quote:

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/bredae/shooting/MYpie-2.jpg

Dear Michelle,

You're already taking the biggest slice of my pie, and you're not getting anymore just so you can give it to people that are too damn lazy to bake their own.  Blow me.

Kindest regards,
-b0b

In case this sounds familiar, let me remind you of a Hillary Clinton quote from a couple years ago:


Quote:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

In a fascist society, there's only one pie and the state owns it and decides how much each person gets.

In a communist society, there's only one pie, everyone supposedly owns it, and everyone supposedly gets an equal share of it, but some get a more equal share of it than others.

In a capitalist society, the world is one great big bakery, and everyone is responsible for making and baking his or her own pie, deciding for him/herself how many pies to bake, how big to make them, what flavors to bake, and what to do with them after baking them!

-b0b
(...prefers the capitalistic society, thank you very much.)

And don't forget that there are a bunch of people who love other people without pie and are willing to help them get their own and how to also make their own.

"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever".

Too bad we don't go back to that old axiom.

X

I prefer, "build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night; set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life."

You guys have to see by now that work is hard...and annoying!  In fact I have to wake up early in the morning when I don't want to just to show up to work on time!

This world would be so much better with the government just handing out money so no one would every have to go to work ever again.  What's the worst that could happen??  We could drive the country into a ginormous debt?...Bwahaha...Oh wait.

Ford made a profit this quarter, so it can't be all bad.

-b0b
(...was surprised.)

I think the only reason that happened was because they sold off volvo and landrover to some saudi car company.

...which was good, volvo was a HUGE money sink.

Yeah, but with a name like vul Volvo, how could you ever expect to sell a car?

-b0b
(...is feeling crass today.)

They expected to sell them just like toyota sells cars.  Riding the good rep they had back in the late 80's.  Funny, with enough money Car & Driver will print whatever the hell you want.

Quote:

From CNN to the New York Times, the media hyped Barack Obama's Portland, Oregon rally on Sunday, some comparing him to a rock star. Unmentioned in national reporting was the fact that Obama was preceded by a rare, 45-minute free concert by actual rock stars The Decemberists. The Portland-based band has drawn rave reviews from Rolling Stone magazine, which gave their 2005 album Picaresque four and a half stars (out of five), and another four and a half stars for 2007's The Crane Wife. How many of the people showed up to hear Obama, and how many to hear the band? Here's how the local paper The Oregonian, which estimated the crowd at 72,000, reported the rally: "Obama was the biggest star at Sunday's gathering -- though a popular Portland band, The Decemberists, provided the warmup act. With blue skies and temperatures in the 80s, many in the crowd said Waterfront Park was simply the place to be." CNN headlined its 10 p.m. segment on May 18 with "Barack Obama: Achieving Rock Star Status in Oregon." The New York Times, which ran a color photo of the crowd, estimated the throng at 75,000, noting that it was "the largest crowd of his campaign so far." There was no mention of The Decemberists, and the Times described the weather as "an unseasonably hot day." Indie rock Web sites were abuzz with news of the impending concert, which was also announced on the Obama campaign's Web site. Here's the report from the Indie rock Web site Pitchfork: By land and by sea, they came to see the great man speak. An estimated 75,000 in all turned out to see presidential hopeful Barack Obama at Portland's Waterfront Park yesterday afternoon-- a record crowd for Obama's own campaign, according to The New York Times, and a record crowd for Oregon political events, according to The Oregonian. Just look at them all! And hey, they got to see a pretty sweet opening act too. Calling themselves the Decemberists and led by lovably literate Steve Novick endorser Colin Meloy, this feisty fivepiece charmed the gathered for a good 45 minutes before Senator Obama took the stump. They even closed out with a sing-along entitled "Sons & Daughters", which had the masses joining the band to declare "Here all the bombs fade away..." Something tells me this Decemberists band is going places. Just like Senator Obama. Here's how Pitchfork primed the pump for the concert/rally: Indie rock's #1 candidate crush Barack Obama is sittin' quite a bit prettier than he was a few weeks ago when the Arcade Fire and Bruce Springsteen went to bat for him, but the dashing junior Senator hasn't quite clinched the Democratic party nomination yet. Next up on the primary agenda are Oregon and Kentucky, whose voters hit the polls Tuesday, May 20. Should Obama win a heaping majority of the delegates up for grabs that day, he'll be within inches of securing the hotly-contested nom. And look who's arrived to give Obama the extra push he needs to get on the ballot in November. Why, it's none other than those kings and queens of the month after, the Decemberists! There's nothing wrong with a candidate using celebrity power to draw a crowd, but the media have a responsibility to report their presence. By ignoring the free concert, the Times and other outlets made it appear that 75,000 people were drawn only by Sen. Obama's considerable charisma.

Wow, it's awfully nice of the mass media to mention the fact that Obama's "campaign rally" followed a free concert.

-b0b
(...busted!)

Just in case Obama or Hillary start talking about socialized healthcare again, here is an article that perfectly surmises the state of Canada's health system.



Quote:

She lay 5 days on stretcher in ER Toronto Sun Fri, May 23, 2008 By KEVIN CONNOR Mark Degasperis was furious his mother spent five days on a stretcher at Toronto Western Hospital waiting for a room with 25 patients ahead of her -- until the Toronto Sun made a call and she was suddenly moved to a room yesterday. "They were giving us the same old song and dance why she was in the emergency department with only a sheet draped around her. I couldn't even call her because she didn't have a phone," Degasperis of Georgetown said. Heather Degasperis, 60, has a dangerous bacterial condition and was sent by her doctor to Toronto Western because it has the experts for her condition. "She is not well and wasn't able to sleep and she wasn't getting any better. She needed peace and quiet to sleep. "This is a terrible environment. I suggested taking her to another hospital, but we were told there are long waits across the region and the doctors we need are here. So there was nothing we could do," Degasperis said yesterday. "I'm angry we pay such high taxes and the more money we throw at the health care system the worse it gets. People shouldn't be lined up on stretchers in the emergency department. If you are sick you should get a room." Because of patient confidentiality laws, the hospital isn't able to comment on patients, so it is unclear if Degasperis's mother jumped the line because the Sun made a call. Dr. Bob Bell, president and CEO of the University Health Network, which includes Toronto Western, said the problem of overcrowding has nothing to do with the emergency department. "The problem is the flow of patients in the hospital. What we need is an alternative level of care for folks who are not ready to go home but don't need acute care," Bell said. "We are trying desperately to improve the experience folks have, but we need more capacity in the community."

Obviously, it's not working.  At all.  Ever.

-b0b
(...wonders if Canada will ever admit defeat?)

Quote:

Paul suspends presidential campaign; forms new organization politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/12/paul-suspends-presidential-campaign-forms-new-organization/ WASHINGTON (CNN) – Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced Thursday he is suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination to focus his time on building an organization to help recruit and elect “limited government Republicans.” “We want to elect constitutionalists, limited government Republicans across the country at the state and federal level,” said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. The congressman will speak about his political plans at the Texas Republican State Convention being held in Houston. Late Thursday afternoon, Paul launched a Web site for his new organization where he explained the decision to suspend his presidential campaign and form “Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty.” “With the primary season now over, the presidential campaign is at an end,” Paul said in the letter. “But the larger campaign for freedom is just getting started.” Arizona Sen. John McCain locked up the GOP nomination back in March, but unlike his fellow Republicans running for president, Paul never abandoned his White House bid. Paul’s decision to leave the race is an acknowledgment he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination. But even in loss, Paul is one of a handful of candidates who walked away from this presidential contest a winner. His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq. The Internet helped to tie together his group of supporters who joined the “Ron Paul Revolution.” “The work of the Campaign for Liberty will take many forms,” Paul wrote in the letter posted on his Web site. “We will educate our fellow Americans in freedom, sound money, non-interventionism, and free markets. We’ll have our own commentaries and videos on the news of the day. I’ll work with friends I respect to design materials for homeschoolers." He added, “Politically, we’ll expand the great work of our precinct leader program. We’ll make our presence felt at every level of government, where just a few people with our level of enthusiasm can make a world of difference. We’ll keep an eye on Congress and lobby against legislation that threatens us. We’ll identify and support political candidates who champion our great ideas against the empty suits the party establishments offer the public.” Paul will not endorse McCain, unless the Arizona senator “wants to change some of his positions,” Benton said. But Benton added that this effort in no way is intended to hurt McCain in November.

Well, I guess I have to try to get excited about John McCain now.

-b0b
(...thinks McCain sucks.)

I definitely think Paul is taking the right approach here.  Even when he had no chance to be the nominee, he still fought to get his message out and be another voice between the two that sound almost the same.  I think now he's doing what's best as well.  He's really the only candidate to still be not in the red after ending his run and he's going to put that money, that was donated to him by people who believe in his message, to the best use of how they would want that money to be used.  It's not going into some war chest or being donated to a charity.  It's going to be used for the political reasons towards why the people gave him their money.  I'm telling ya, Ron Paul seems like the only sane and consistent person in that lions den we call Washington.

X

http://i31.tinypic.com/jim00l.jpg

SPARTAAAAAA!

-b0b
(...day one of the White House internship tryouts continues!)

Quick!  Someone tell that chick on the left the 80s are over!

X

Quote:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set.  We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." -Barack Obama July 2, 2008

Fascism is alive and well in the Obama campaign.  Apparently he wants to create his own Sturm Abteilung.


-b0b
(...thinks this is how Obama will get around that pesky Posse Comitatus.)

Oh Obama doesn't have to skirt around Posse Comitatus since Bush has already put that power out of commission and waiting on the next fascist.  You look at how little time he has left and you look at how much harder he is pushing to get all these powers granted to the executive branch.  If this doesn't prove that Bush is a shill puppet of high powers that be...then this entire world is mad and he's the only sane person left.

BTW Barack, if you'd stop paying lip service to the 2nd Amendment and actually read it you'll know that those powers are already in place "a well regulated militia of the people".  Maybe if you and your "kind" would stop putting untold limits on that right you'd have a "strong...civilian national security force"!

The 2nd Amendment is MY Homeland Security!

X
(/spits)

I've got to say, I think McCain definitely picked the better Vice Presidential candidate.  Obama chose a worn-out political hack that nobody really cares about, and McCain chose a conservative, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-drilling hotty.  He may have renewed my faith in his campaign ever-so-slightly.

http://imgsrv.kcbs.com/image/kcbs/UserFiles/Image/Bidenwave_cfu.jpg

http://askpang.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sabine5.jpg

Honestly, this is a frickin' brilliant political move.  The acceptance speech she gave was absolutely incredible.  Go listen to it on YouTube if you've got the time!

-b0b
(...niiiice.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

I read the wiki on her and she covers a lot of ground in terms of experiencing the life of most average families and the lives of very unique situations.  She has a down syndrome son, a son getting ready to deploy to Iraq.  Mother of 5, her husband is a commercial fisherman and snomobile enthusiast.

I think this running mate was a great choice.

Here ya go bob.  Sarah Palin with black rifle...

---

Quote:

Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush · Biden says criminal violations will be pursued · Democrats have issued subpoenas to Bush aides · 3 staffers have been held in contempt of Congress    * Elana Schor in Washington    * guardian.co.uk,    * Wednesday September 03 2008 19:32 BST    * Article history Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden said yesterday that he and running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November. Biden's comments, first reported by ABC news, attracted little notice on a day dominated by the drama surrounding his Republican counterpart, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. But his statements represent the Democrats' strongest vow so far this year to investigate alleged misdeeds committed during the Bush years. "If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC. "[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law." Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies". "[I]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News. "You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve." Congressional Democrats have issued a flurry of subpoenas this year to senior Bush administration aides as part of a broad inquiry into the authorisation of torturous interrogation tactics used at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. Three veterans of the Bush White House have been held in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to subpoenas: former counsel Harriet Miers, former political adviser Karl Rove, and current chief of staff Josh Bolten. The contempt battle is currently before a federal court.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Do them Dems really think that promising the same thing they did in '04 will get them elected in '08.  Pelosi has failed at this same mantra.  She was going to go after Bush but she said that impeachment was off the table.  She said the Dems would get us out of Iraq, she voted to refinance the troops.  She claimed to have a simple and effective plan to lower gas prices, all she does is blame Bush.

Now I'm the first to admit Bush has taken a lot more power than he should have; but even he has his limitations.  P'Diddy wants the President to lower gas prices too, so does everyone else.  Let's see, drill in Alaska - nope you might hurt the thriving caribou who don't even live in the area were they plan on drilling.  Drill in the ocean - nope you might have an accident even though the Chinese hold land offshore the Florida Keys.  Build more nuclear power plants so we don't have to use oil to power our other sources of power - nope nuclear power plants explode all the time, even though they are really the most safe and almost over regulated businesses around.

Dems, you so crazy.  Think of something different to lie to us about.  Or at least wait longer to reuse an old lie.

X
(Trixs are for kids)

Doesn't Obama (et al) realize this is not going to help his campaign?  Seriously, the only people that would applaud Biden's announcement are radical lefties, and they are already voting for him anyway.  WTF is Biden thinking?


-b0b
(...that assumes, of course, that he is capable of thinking.)

Now that Ron Paul is no longer a "threat" to people FOX News has him on...and he is amazing.  This is one of the best interviews I've seen him in in a while because they let him talk instead of attacking him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuFeWXSx3W8

That really was a fantastic interview.  Unfortunately, Ron Paul really did get his butt handed to him this year, and I think any hope of him ever being President is a lost cause.  That's an unfortunate reality.

Hopefully, we'll get a real candidate to run in 2012 and have a chance to get a true conservative in office.


-b0b
(...can only hope.)

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3185/r3654586364bl9.jpg

Bahaha, great pic from Drudge Report!


-b0b
(...if you look closely enough, you can see the BS dribbling from his mouth!)

wtf Nader is running again?


I really don't like any of the candidates (and I've skimmed all their pages, etc).


Cait
(...disappears occassionally.)



http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-lehman-brothers-beep-youre-fired.jpg

Cait, you should drive up here in a couple weeks and LAN it up with us.  If your friend Nassau is still at Kalamazoo College, you could visit her, too.

-b0b
(...will be at K College with Mere next weekend.)

I know this will make Stewie's day...


Quote:

Black belt patriot Norris tells We the People Fest to improve U.S. Posted by Laura Johnson/Plain Dealer Reporter September 29, 2008 08:39AM KENT -- If Chuck Norris were granted one wish, he would walk through Congress with Ron Paul and watch as Paul, the Republican representative from Texas, pointed out corrupt politicians. One by one, Norris would grab each crooked congressman and choke him unconscious. "I keep sticking them in a pile, piling them up," said the martial arts star, who, at 68, looks as young and buff as in his "Walker, Texas Ranger" glory days. "The ones that are honest, they stay." This is black belt patriotism, the kind of roundhouse-kick, to-the-point political philosophy Norris explains in his new book of the same title. He's a big fan of Paul, and also former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. He endorses Sen. John McCain for president, since he figures McCain will bring Paul into the administration. But Norris wasn't at Kent State University Sunday to stump for the Republican ticket -- or even to recite his favorites from the pantheon of Internet-phenomenon "Chuck Norris Facts." (Though he is partial to the one that goes, "They wanted to put Chuck Norris on Mount Rushmore, but the granite wasn't tough enough for his beard.") Rather, as part of We the People Fest, Norris preached integrity and honesty, urged college students to persevere past obstacles and pressed them to improve the United States. The three-day, first-ever festival, which included voter registration, political speakers, panel discussions, film screenings, a concert and a debate-watching party, aimed to underscore the importance of voting and to foster discussion, said co-organizer Christina Grozik, a KSU grad who heads the Ohio Film Office. While pitching her own movie, "And the Winner Is ..." in Los Angeles last summer, everyone kept asking Grozik, "What's going on in Ohio? How's it going to play out in this election?" So she decided to plan a nonpartisan, multimedia, election-themed festival here. U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Cleveland Councilwoman Fannie Lewis, both of whom died recently, supported the event, Grozik said. It drew thousands, from undecided college kids to conservative retired couples. Matt Riddle, 44, of Tallmadge, came wearing a Chuck Norris T-shirt that said, "Chuck Norris doesn't need a weapon. He is one." "I really like the idea of choking out all the corrupt politicians," said Riddle, a musician who studies tai kwon do. "If he were to run for president himself and use that as his platform, I think he'd win. No matter what your politics, we're all against corruption." Next in line to buy Norris' book, KSU student Lee Helton, 18, agreed. But instead of choking out the corruption -- "a roundhouse kick would be better."

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd49/airborne373/chuck_norris.jpg

-b0b
(...thinks Chuck should run for President.)

HOLY CRAP THE MAN IS 65?!?!?!

I wonder if I take up martial arts and grow a beard I can turn back time like Superman did.

X