Hayfield 0 #1 April 15, 2006 "Remember the First Commandment: Don't Fuck Up!" -Crusty Old Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 April 15, 2006 Third party, please!! Hopefully the Libs won't try to run Nader, again...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hayfield 0 #3 April 15, 2006 I'd like to see the next POTUS not be a Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Cheney, etc. How about a new last name for a change?"Remember the First Commandment: Don't Fuck Up!" -Crusty Old Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #5 April 15, 2006 QuoteI'd like to see the next POTUS not be a Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Cheney, etc. How about a new last name for a change? Rice is a new last name. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 April 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'd like to see the next POTUS not be a Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Cheney, etc. How about a new last name for a change? Rice is a new last name. Seeing all the "Aunt Jemima" and "house n_____" comments when she was appointed to the Cabinet in the first place, I don't see this EVER happening. A shame, really, because I think she could make a very good President, if given a fair chance.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #7 April 15, 2006 QuoteA shame, really, because I think she could make a very good President, if given a fair chance. I agree. Too bad we'll never find out if she could've won. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #8 April 15, 2006 I'd like to see Badnarik run again. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Hillary or Jeb. Actually, I know I couldn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #9 April 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteA shame, really, because I think she could make a very good President, if given a fair chance. I agree. Too bad we'll never find out if she could've won. Are you serious? She's a Bush clone; are you going to tell me 4 or 8 more years of Bush is a good thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #10 April 15, 2006 QuoteI'd like to see Badnarik run again. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Hillary or Jeb. Actually, I know I couldn't. Libertarians are generally disgruntled Repubs. They are supposed to stand for small government and maintain individual rights. I think we need more taxes that go to social reform, welfare, education, medical aid, etc.... We are so far behind the world and a Libertarian would try to all but eliminate social programs. To me, Libertarians live in this fantasy world where the church is going to wave a majic wand and heal everyone. I have yet to see real answers to social issues from the Libertarians, but I am not an expert on them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #11 April 15, 2006 I'll go on record right now. Not a chance in the world that -either- will be the actual candidates.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #12 April 15, 2006 The problem with allowing the government to fund social programs and medicine is that the government tends to do things poorly and inefficiently. Libertarians advocate a dollar for dollar tax credit for donations to certain classes of charitable organizations, because the charities are already in the community, are aware of local needs, and don't have the huge amount of red tape that the government does. Honestly, I don't think it's the job of the government to provide social programs or medical care. That's our own responsibility. The government exists to protect our lives, liberty and property from criminals and outside forces. I don't have a problem with the government making it easier for private organizations to provide certain services, but whenever the government tries to do more than that, it usually messes up royally and wastes huge amounts of money on things that don't work. We've had a welfare system in place for decades now, and it doesn't work. Throwing more money at a system that doesn't work isn't going to make it work. It's just going to waste more money that could be spent actually helping people. I find it interesting how you make a sweeping generalization about libertarians (that we're disgruntled republicans), and then go on to say that you're not an expert on libertarians. I've never, ever been a republican. I was a registered democrat for the majority of time I've been able to vote. Democrats often claim that libertarians don't care about the poor, and that's not the case at all. Libertarians aren't heartless and saying that the government shouldn't help people, just that the government shouldn't do it directly, because it doesn't do a very good job and there are other organizations in a much better position to actually accomplish something. Read the libertarian platform. You might find yourself pleasantly surprised. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 April 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'd like to see Badnarik run again. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Hillary or Jeb. Actually, I know I couldn't. Libertarians are generally disgruntled Repubs. They are supposed to stand for small government and maintain individual rights. I think we need more taxes that go to social reform, welfare, education, medical aid, etc.... We are so far behind the world and a Libertarian would try to all but eliminate social programs. To me, Libertarians live in this fantasy world where the church is going to wave a majic wand and heal everyone. I have yet to see real answers to social issues from the Libertarians, but I am not an expert on them. I think you are entirely misinformed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #14 April 15, 2006 Nightngale's post was very good. I've always thought the libertarian party has some interesting ideas, but they fail to make a case against some reasonable objections that people might have. And there is also the fact that any political idea or tendency, no matter how good, can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. Historically, the most successful governments have been an amalgam of different, & often opposing, political tendencies. I'm interested in libetarianism but some things I read from say, the Rand institute, just don't sound right to me. edited to add: Quote I have yet to see real answers to social issues from the Libertarians, but I am not an expert on them. Lucky has a good point. Libertarians really need to get out there and make a case for themselves, addressing the issue of how to replace certain government services with alternatives. - another problem with Libertarians is that they generally just don't like politicians very much, so they're not really up on getting out there and, well, polticking for their own position. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #15 April 15, 2006 QuoteI'll go on record right now. Not a chance in the world that -either- will be the actual candidates. Really? You don't think Sen. Clinton is going to run in '08? Assuming she is re-elected in '06 (likely), it's her only chance, after that, she'll be too old and hopefully, NY will have woken up and be ready to vote her out in 2112. Anyway, why don't you think she'll make a run for it?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #16 April 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'll go on record right now. Not a chance in the world that -either- will be the actual candidates. Really? You don't think Sen. Clinton is going to run in '08? Assuming she is re-elected in '06 (likely), it's her only chance, after that, she'll be too old and hopefully, NY will have woken up and be ready to vote her out in 2112. Anyway, why don't you think she'll make a run for it? I don't think he said she wouldn't run, just that she won't be the nominee. I agree. She may be flavor of the month much like Howard Dean was but won't carry it all the way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #17 April 15, 2006 What the fuck gives Either the delusion that they're qualificed? The ONLY GOPers I'd vote for would be Giuliani(sp?) or McCain, and the only Dem I'd vote for...damn, have no idea...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #18 April 15, 2006 I almost choked on my breakfast when I read the title. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #19 April 15, 2006 Quoteand the only Dem I'd vote for...damn, have no idea... You wouldn't vote for a democrat? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #20 April 15, 2006 QuoteAre you serious? She's a Bush clone; are you going to tell me 4 or 8 more years of Bush is a good thing? She's got a brain, and she's extremely articulate -- how can she be a clone? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #21 April 15, 2006 QuoteSeeing all the "Aunt Jemima" and "house n_____" comments when she was appointed to the Cabinet in the first place, I don't see this EVER happening. You were saying? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #22 April 15, 2006 QuoteShe may be flavor of the month much like Howard Dean was but won't carry it all the way. I think that's exactly what's going to happen...remember Dean was leading by a long ways for a while during the primaries, then look what happened. She'll be the same way, although maybe not AS alienated as Dean became...that guys a fucking nutjob...and allowed to be very influential in the Dem party...why do they do this to themselves? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 April 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteAre you serious? She's a Bush clone; are you going to tell me 4 or 8 more years of Bush is a good thing? She's got a brain, and she's extremely articulate -- how can she be a clone? She's shown very little other than she's a Bush yes man, and without someone to kowtow to, what would she do? Doesn't meet the experience bar for the office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 April 15, 2006 Just can't win... find someone with experience? "He's a political hack - too interested in the power game" Find someone without umpteen years in Congress? "They don't have the experience". At the end of this term, Ms. Rice will have 8 years of experience - coincidently, the same amount of experience Mrs. Clinton will have.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #25 April 15, 2006 QuoteAt the end of this term, Ms. Rice will have 8 years of experience - coincidently, the same amount of experience Mrs. Clinton will have. And coincidently 8 years more than Bush had. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
