Gop 2008?

Originally Posted by remaxrealtor

It's my thought that the issues with a woman president may not lie within our own borders. There are still many countries that see women as inferior. This would weaken our position drastically if it came down to serious negotiation with one of said countries.

It's not the color of the President's skin, nor what's swinging between the President's legs. As soon as that USN carrier group steams into their lines of sea transit and establishes air superiority, 'world leaders' grasp their country's position in the food chain.

Yes, Ms. Rice. No, Ms. Rice. Whatever you say, Ms. Rice.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

This would weaken our position drastically if it came down to serious negotiation with one of said countries.

...that a President Rice would take the same tact in dealing with resistance as the most recent President did whom other nations don't like; go about your business.

I give you George W. Bush, liberator of Afghanistan, liberator of Iraq, engineer of global Democracy.

Bush politely, but firmly, allowed the French, Germans and Russians their proper place in larger matters; the sidelines.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

That being said, I would like to know why can't there be a TRUE middle of the road republican candidate? The Kool-aid drinkers on both sides of the aisle is what causes the apathy at the polls. The real problems of the nation as a whole are put on hold because we need to investigate someones stock dealings, or where the PAC money went.

...this 'middle of the road' person?

McCain?

Kool Aid drinkers, as you put it, have ZERO power over the actions of people who choose not to vote or suffer from apathy. All of us are totally free to vote for who we really want and that will show over time. If the middle of the roaders wanted Mr. Middle of the Road, whomever that is, they should vote for him.

If someone is so insecure as to be frozen at the polls by 'kool aid' drinkers, it is best they don't participate. They need to go figure out what they support first, find a representative and support them.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

However, had Republicans voted for a third-party candidate or just not voted, this is what we'd have ended up with.



Al Gore knows damn good and well that a third or half of Americans don't believe that Saddam was personally responsible for 9-11. I took the same Zogby poll they did and the question was "Do you think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11?" A far cry from being "personally responsible".

I happily voted, not FOR George Bush, but AGAINST this nut. If I feel Hillary is a dangerous lunatic like this guy, I'll vote against her, too - for a Repulican, so it will count. Unless I'm not feeling better about McCain, because I think he's a nut, too.

Al gore is a master of liberalism.
<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/dpete2q/5_pillars.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">


Notice how he manages to work in the 5 pillars of liberalism into his speech.

Originally Posted by ALGORE

I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger.

Hysteria- I would not be suprised if the republicans don't just suspend the constitution and appoint W Supreme Potentate of the USA instead of giving up the White Hourse in 2008!

Originally Posted by ALGORE

It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse .

Daily double: Denial of reality/Projection of guilt IE: there is nothing wrong with public discourse except that nobody listens to you because your own party is a bunch of crybabies and vapid heathens who have marginalized your voice through spewing BS.

Originally Posted by ALGORE

I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.

Thought control EI: since our phylosophy is perfect yet rejected, it is the system that is damaged by the hand of the evil conservatives.

this part was very interesting

Originally Posted by ALGORE

The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.

Name calling. Brown Shirts? Did he just call this administration Nazi's and homo pimps? I think so. What Algore is doing here is trying desperately to bring the liberals star player back into the game. The liberal media has become marginalized. Fox News, Drudge, and the conservative army on radio have dismantled the liberal media from within. They report it but no one but the party faithful believes them anymore. Dan Rather was the deathblow. So now the liberals best ally and strongest tool is sitting on the sideline unable to play because of a horrible case of hemeroids. Algore is using the sixth and oft overlooked pillar of the liberal faith "victimhood". He is trying to make the media look like a victim. Poor poor media, they try to tell you how evil republicans are but W sends death squads of Nazi enforcers out to slap the media down and intimidate them. What the media are victims of is simple, they are victims of the truth. They get caught stretching it or avoiding the truth and they get whacked, they blame the conservative machine.

Like Helen Thomas, Chris Mathews and the hundreds of other liberal media are not plain clothes liberal operatives.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

However, had Republicans voted for a third-party candidate or just not voted, this is what we'd have ended up with.



Al Gore knows damn good and well that a third or half of Americans don't believe that Saddam was personally responsible for 9-11. I took the same Zogby poll they did and the question was "Do you think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11?" A far cry from being "personally responsible".

I happily voted, not FOR George Bush, but AGAINST this nut. If I feel Hillary is a dangerous lunatic like this guy, I'll vote against her, too - for a Repulican, so it will count. Unless I'm not feeling better about McCain, because I think he's a nut, too.

That is the problem with U.S. elections. Politicians are power hungry liars. We vote against the ones we perceive are being worse because neither choice is a good one.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by tikipirate

It's not the color of the President's skin, nor what's swinging between the President's legs. As soon as that USN carrier group steams into their lines of sea transit and establishes air superiority, 'world leaders' grasp their country's position in the food chain.

Both of which are illegal acts except in time of war.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

That is the problem with U.S. elections. Politicians are power hungry liars. We vote against the ones we perceive are being worse because neither choice is a good one.

Think about what it takes to go into national politics.

You must be willing to abandon your family because you're on the road all the time.

You must be willing to compromise your principles to appeal to a wider variety of humans.

You must be willing to endure all sorts of ridiculous attacks on your character and motivations, and have dozens of websites with names such as "yousuckandyoureanazi.com" maligning you.

You must be willing to have your children called ugly (Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter), drunken (the Bush girls) and gay (Ron Reagan) in the world media.

Very few people are interested in that sort of thing. So we get the ones that are running for President.

[kom526]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...this 'middle of the road' person?

McCain?

Kool Aid drinkers, as you put it, have ZERO power over the actions of people who choose not to vote or suffer from apathy. All of us are totally free to vote for who we really want and that will show over time. If the middle of the roaders wanted Mr. Middle of the Road, whomever that is, they should vote for him.

If someone is so insecure as to be frozen at the polls by 'kool aid' drinkers, it is best they don't participate. They need to go figure out what they support first, find a representative and support them.

I really do not know who would be a middle of the road type person. I am sure that this person does exist, but their own party may deem them unelectable due to having a moderate stance. Right now I would vote for Rudy even though I do not know fully his position on gun control. I agree with his stance on some of the "hot button" issues, but as someone else posted he is not conservative enough for the GOP to nominate. Neither of the two major political parties would dare nominate someone who was not a poster child of that party's principles.

The (elected) kool aid drinkers who just sling mud instead of solutions does cause apathy, not insecurity. My advice to them would be to just shut your piehole and do the job that you were elected to do.

I think you're over-generalizing kom. Let's look at the major, defining, positions of Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats:

Pro-Abortion
Pro-Gun Control
Anti-Military
Pro-Environment
Anti-Business/Pro-Union
Pro-Gay Marriages/Gay Rights
Pro-Status Quo for Entitlements
Pro-Universal Healthcare (defined as healthcare for those who can't/won't pay for it now, and paid for by those who are paying for it now)
Anti-Religion
Anti-Censorship
Anti-Agressive Punishment
Pro-Status Quo on Education

Republicans:

Anti-Abortion
Pro-Gun Ownership
Pro-Military
Pro-Environment, but not as much as Democrats
Pro-Business/Anti-Union
Anti-Gay Marriages/Pro-Gay Rights
Pro-Change for Entitlements
Anti-Universal Healthcare as defined
Pro-Religion
Pro-Censorship
Pro-Agressive Punishment
Against the status quo for education

Now think of a "middle of the road" person. Do you want someone who thinks abortion is okay sometimes, but not others? How about the guy who wants some people to have some guns some times, but not other guns or at other times? How about someone who thinks capital punishment should only be metered out on a case-by-case basis, or maybe Gay marriages looked at the same way?

In America today, there aren't many middle-of-the-road issues, there are a lot of pro and anti issues, so a candidate who tries to walk the middle usually fails. The Democrats think that Bill Clinton won because he portrayed himself as being in the middle, which is a false conclusion. He won because a popular third-part candidate took 19% of the vote from the Republican challenger. If Perot hadn't been there, Bush Sr. would have had his second term and Clinton would be begging for another term as Governor of Arkansas.

So, if middle-of-the-road doesn't work is it better to lean to the left or to the right? Most people project their beliefs on others, and those 20% on the hardcore left or right, and those who lean that way from the center, often honestly believe that everyone shares their views. I think if you look at each of those issues honestly, you'll see that most Americans lean towards the Republican view of things, either a little or a lot, which is why more Republicans win when they run to the right than Democrats who win running to the Left. The Democrats have picked up a lot of undesireables into their organization, and that's what's killing them right now.

[FromTexas]

Republicans:

Anti-Abortion
Pro-Gun Ownership
Pro-Military
Pro-Environment, but not as much as Democrats
Pro-Business/Anti-Union
Anti-Gay Marriages/Pro-Gay Rights
Pro-Change for Entitlements
Anti-Universal Healthcare as defined
Pro-Religion
Pro-Censorship
Pro-Agressive Punishment
Against the status quo for education

What about..
Doesn't believe in abortion but thinks its a states right to choose and Roe v Wade was decided wrong because it should have left it a states right
Pro-Gun Ownership
Pro-Military
Pro-Environment, but not as much as Democrats
Pro-Business/Anti-Union
Doesn't believe in Gay marriage but thinks its a states right to choose/Pro-Gay Rights
All the rest the same...

I think that is more a true conservative. Just MHO.