|
|
| Who would you caucus for? |
| John Edwards |
|
22% |
[ 2 ] |
| tommy thompson |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Bill Richardson |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Mitt Romney |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Rudy Giuliani |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| John McCain |
|
33% |
[ 3 ] |
| Mike Huckabee |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Hillary Clinton |
|
11% |
[ 1 ] |
| Barack Obama |
|
33% |
[ 3 ] |
| Ron Paul |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
I'm watching MSNBC to see the Iowa cacus results as they come. Right now the leaders are clinton obama huckabee and romney. all discussion is open as long as a valid point or question/ answer is made, I don't want to here "because I said so!" Lets celebrate democracy and talk politics!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:12 pm
I would like to add as an American citizen a quote (speech) from one of my favorite movies. "The American President".
"For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character. For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution? If you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago. America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free". I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character. And wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism and you tell them, she's to blame for their lot in life, and you go on television and you call her a whore. Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interests of public school teachers, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, 'cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league. [pauses] I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer, and I lost the other 'cause I was so busy keeping my job I forgot to do my job. Well, that ends right now. Tomorrow morning, the White House is sending a bill to Congress for its consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a 20 percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns. We've got serious problems, and we need serious people, and if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This is a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up. My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I *am* the President."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:24 pm
Edwards gave an awsome speech, a little long winded, but excellent.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:33 am
yes, yes he did. Which Is why I am the one vote in the aabove poll for Edwards
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:46 am
I like Obama.. he represents something fresh and new. I'd like to give him a chance and see what he's got. the only things I'm worried about are the possibility of him getting corrupted should he win, and the possibility of him getting assassinated.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:43 pm
I have noticed that all over the news, they speak of Clinton and Obama, Clinton and Obama, Clinton and Obama.
despite this, Edwards beat Clinton in the Iowa Caucus. You know what this tells me? Despite the candidates the media would like to endorse, Edwards is still up there. I am rooting for him because he seems like he would be the least corrupted. And he seems to be more for the common people, not the wealthy........
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:53 am
Well based on political record and voting choices I would say that the most likely to be corrupted is Hillary. However I don't think she would be corrupted easily. Edwards is focusing on economic issues which for this country is highly important. The American dollar just became lower than the Canadian Loon for the first time in a very long time. Economy should be a major issue in this upcoming election. Hillary is running on experiance and a universal health plan. The experiance is the potential for corruption. She won't say that vote to start the war was a mistake, and this lack of addmittion on the democratic side is hurting her campaign. However her medical plan does make sense and still allows for an open market for insurance companys it also drives up competition between these companies and the basic care the government would offer. I actually Hillary's plan makes sense. Even though her first plan failed, if she were to get this one through it could help America have a better health system. Barack Obama is in all esscence the new kid. He has an outstanding record in his own state where he listens to his people and tries to give them the basics of what they want. It's an ideal kind of government where he was serving them even though he was in a position of power. People want to see that kind of government, in honesty I would to, but here's the catch. The Senate has to work with the President. If Obama has not made enough conections in his short time in office (same for Edwards) He could end up like a Carter administration. President Carter was loved by the people but hated by his congress on both sides. As a result laws were not passed efficently during that era. That really is his only handicap the lack of experiance which directly relates to the lack of connections. Honestly I'd like Edwards to win Hillary to become the secretary of health and human services. And Obama to run after a couple more years in the senate. That's my ideal situation.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:56 am
azrael the reaper I have noticed that all over the news, they speak of Clinton and Obama, Clinton and Obama, Clinton and Obama. despite this, Edwards beat Clinton in the Iowa Caucus. You know what this tells me? Despite the candidates the media would like to endorse, Edwards is still up there. I am rooting for him because he seems like he would be the least corrupted. And he seems to be more for the common people, not the wealthy........ yeah, he'd be my second choice. I dont like Clinton. every debate I've seen her in, she seemed to dance around the questions instead of giving a direct answer. she's very good at double-speak and makes me instinctively not trust her.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:44 pm
Tsubaru-san Well based on political record and voting choices I would say that the most likely to be corrupted is Hillary. However I don't think she would be corrupted easily. Edwards is focusing on economic issues which for this country is highly important. The American dollar just became lower than the Canadian Loon for the first time in a very long time. Economy should be a major issue in this upcoming election. Hillary is running on experiance and a universal health plan. The experiance is the potential for corruption. She won't say that vote to start the war was a mistake, and this lack of addmittion on the democratic side is hurting her campaign. However her medical plan does make sense and still allows for an open market for insurance companys it also drives up competition between these companies and the basic care the government would offer. I actually Hillary's plan makes sense. Even though her first plan failed, if she were to get this one through it could help America have a better health system. Barack Obama is in all esscence the new kid. He has an outstanding record in his own state where he listens to his people and tries to give them the basics of what they want. It's an ideal kind of government where he was serving them even though he was in a position of power. People want to see that kind of government, in honesty I would to, but here's the catch. The Senate has to work with the President. If Obama has not made enough conections in his short time in office (same for Edwards) He could end up like a Carter administration. President Carter was loved by the people but hated by his congress on both sides. As a result laws were not passed efficently during that era. That really is his only handicap the lack of experiance which directly relates to the lack of connections. Honestly I'd like Edwards to win Hillary to become the secretary of health and human services. And Obama to run after a couple more years in the senate. That's my ideal situation. yes, i like that idea.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:49 am
down with Hillary ninja ninja ninja ninja ninja
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:01 pm
leahcim22 down with Hillary ninja ninja ninja ninja ninja I dunno if I'm just biased, but I watched part of the debate last night in NH (I think it was NH) and she seemed to try to dominate the conversation. at one point it was Edwards question and towards the end of his answer she just put her 2 cents in out of no where, and just kept mentioning her 35 years experience over and over. it gave me the impression that she was almost desperate. annoyed the hell outta me.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:43 pm
Well, personally, I don't care about here years of experience. if you dont like how things are being done, then people with experience are the last people you want to bring in. If they are experienced, then obviously they have been in there, part of the very things you want changed. I would much rather have someone who has FRESH ideas, not someone who is a part of the old ones.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:27 pm
I say that politicians should stop looking at whats wrong with the united states or the war and look at what is right with it. They tell us how they plan to fix it or make the U.S. better. Great so what. We all want that. Tell me what you can do for me. My future. Tell me what your going to do. Not change threw your own beliefs. Yes there are things wrong we all know it. No madder what something is wrong do to peoples perspective. Years don't mean squat when it comes down to how much you have learned and how well you comprehended it ((Hillary little to none)). Wisdom putting knowledge into practice. We need new things new ideas. We need change to eradicate the old and form a better and brighter new. Not try to clean up the garbage from the past. Whats done is done get over it. I would vote for a person who is ready for the new.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:02 pm
just outta curiosity, what do you guys think about Huckabee's idea to disband the IRS? talking about new ideas, from the outset this actually looks like a good one, even tho I dont normally take much positive interest in anything republican candidates have to say. the other things he stands for are typical of right wing thought and I'm in disagreement with them for the most part.. but imagine it.. taking home your *full* pay check (minus health benefits and 401K of course). taxes based on what you buy as opposed to how much you make... sounds pretty interesting to me.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:20 pm
Calypsophia just outta curiosity, what do you guys think about Huckabee's idea to disband the IRS? talking about new ideas, from the outset this actually looks like a good one, even tho I dont normally take much positive interest in anything republican candidates have to say. the other things he stands for are typical of right wing thought and I'm in disagreement with them for the most part.. but imagine it.. taking home your *full* pay check (minus health benefits and 401K of course). taxes based on what you buy as opposed to how much you make... sounds pretty interesting to me. yes, i love that idea. No reason to be taxed just for working........ but other than that, i dont agree with republicans too much either........
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|