Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Who would you rather have as president

Gal - Hillary
 4 (16%)
Gal - Barack
 1 (4%)
Guy - Barack
 5 (20%)
Guy - Hillary
 1 (4%)
Guy - Either
 1 (4%)
Gal - Either
 0 (0%)
Neither/View
 13 (52%)

Total Members Voted: 25

Author Topic: Election 2008  (Read 9349 times)

Julie Fern

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • great grandpa mccain = warmonger
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #100 on: December 19, 2006, 10:01:36 AM »
putz.
if want "change," stop following republicans off cliff.

->Soon

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 20300
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #101 on: February 02, 2007, 10:46:18 AM »
Demise of GOP just took turn for the worse
Scarborough: Bush willing to take his party over a cliff to prove his point
COMMENTARY
By Joe Scarborough
Host, ‘Scarborough Country’
MSNBC
Updated: 9:17 a.m. ET Feb 2, 2007

The slow demise of the national Republican Party just took a turn for the worse. Hard to believe that the GOP’s prospects could actually become more bleak after two years of unrelenting bad news, but it has.

Republican senators are now turning their rhetorical guns away from Democrats and toward one another. A few conservative Republican senators, whose votes usually cheer me up during bleak political times, are actually accusing Virginia’s senior senator, John Warner, of providing comfort to terrorists.

The White House even got involved in the name calling when Tony Snow suggested Warner’s actions could embolden the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

The message from the Bush administration seems to be this: “Thanks for carrying our water on this miserable war for four years. Now we’re going accuse you of helping  terrorists.”

How pathetic.

Didn’t male private part Cheney just cite Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment about Republicans not attacking one another?

My how things have changed in a few days.

It’s one more reason I have grown increasingly distraught over the GOP’s direction in recent months. The president is prepared to take his administration and his party over the cliff to prove that he right about Iraq—even if most of his generals and the majority of Americans disagree.

The question now is how long will Republicans stand by this war that has cost over 3,000 lives? Is it worth the $1 trillion dollars that will be added to our national debt? Is it worth undercutting our ability to strike at Iran and North Korea? I would say “yes” to all three questions if there were the slightest chance victory was around the corner. But it is not. If you don’t believe me, ask any general to tell you about the Bush surge. They will roll their eyes.

Even if you agree with me that this war was worth fighting as long as we believed Saddam Hussein had WMD’s aimed at America, at some point you have to face the facts: the Bush administration was wrong about those weapons, wrong about the nuclear program, wrong about their refusal to quell rioting early, wrong about Bremer’s gutting of the Iraqi army and police force, wrong about refusing to kill or capture al Sadr in 2003, wrong to tell the generals not speak of the coming insurgency, wrong to stubbornly refuse to give generals the troops they needed to win this war, wrong to make the “Mission Accomplished” declaration, wrong for the VP to claim that the insurgency was in its death throes and wrong to push a surge plan that the president’s top generals opposed.

The list could continue for pages but I will be generous to the White House and leave it at that.

At some point, GOP senators and congressmen need to understand that this war is no longer a battle between Republican war heroes and Democratic 60s hippie freaks. The lines have now been blurred by Bush’s bungling war strategy. Now we find ourselves in a fight between war heroes and war heroes. Former secretaries of Navy and former Vietnam POWs. Conservative Republicans and protectors of the president.

That may not be so bad for George W. Bush in the short run, but it is a disaster for Republicans in 2008 and beyond.

Conservatives had better wake up before all the gains made by Ronald Reagan and the 1994 Revolution are lost. The clock is ticking.

Catch 'Scarborough Country' each weeknight at 9 p.m. ET
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16942296/from/RS.5/


 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Do you really believe in free speech, or just in speech you agree with?

->Soon

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 20300
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #102 on: February 19, 2007, 01:30:04 PM »
let the pandering ............................. .  BEGIN!

McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned
Presidential hopeful reaching out to GOP conservatives


SPARTANBURG, S.C. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to improve his standing with the party’s conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,” the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.”
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

The landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade gave women the right to choose an abortion to terminate a pregnancy. The Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the decision, with the presence of an increasing number of more conservative justices on the court raising the possibility that abortion rights would be limited.

Social conservatives are a critical voting bloc in the GOP presidential primaries.

McCain’s campaign also announced early Sunday that he had been endorsed by former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, who had been considering his own bid for the White House, and former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, who failed in his bid for the Republican nomination in 1996.

Keating told the crowd that McCain is the “only candidate who is a true-blue, Ronald Reagan conservative.”

McCain later attended an evening rally promoting an abstinence program. He told the crowd of more than 1,000 teens and parents that young people have pressures far different from the ones he faced while growing up. “Sometimes I’ve made the wrong choice,” McCain said.

He also talked about his experience as a prisoner of war during Vietnam, and described some of the torture he suffered. His captors “wanted to make us do things that we otherwise wouldn’t do,” including confessing to war crimes, McCain said.

He and fellow prisoners were beat up for practicing their religion, but they continued to do it. “Sometimes it is very difficult to do the right thing,” he said.

McCain has strong name recognition and the largest network of supporters in South Carolina. That backing comes in part from his staunch support for the Iraq war, something on which he focused a day earlier in Iowa. But it’s the same state that dealt a crushing blow to his presidential aspirations in 2000.

McCain is trying to build support among conservatives after a recent rebuke from Christian leader James Dobson, who said he wouldn’t back McCain’s presidential bid. Conservatives question McCain’s opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He opposes same-sex marriage, but says it should be regulated by the states.
Do you really believe in free speech, or just in speech you agree with?

Commie Panda

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
  • Don't worry, I'm not really a commie...or a panda
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #103 on: February 19, 2007, 03:45:37 PM »
lol, I like how the filter changed it to "male private part Cheney"

JTcc

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
  • Such sweet sorrow
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #104 on: February 19, 2007, 04:11:20 PM »
The trend of states' moving their primaries up on the calendar will have a negative effect on the level of discourse that takes place during this election.  At first glance, the early primaries seem to enrich the debate by elongating the time period during which candidates may develop their positions, but how much substantive development really takes place during a GENERAL campaign?  The actual effect will be the locking in of nominees too early, which will exacerbate the ills of the two-party system.     
Wolverine '10

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #105 on: February 19, 2007, 08:05:12 PM »
any reasonable democratic nominess totally crush any republican.

hahahahahahaha.

ADL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #106 on: February 23, 2007, 02:52:50 PM »
i know that a lot of people are on this Barack Obama kick & i for one would LOVE to see a black person be elected as president BUT...are we just fooling ourselves here???

i was in SC for 5 days.  my sister & 2 of her friends ventured out to this new club called "V" in Florence.  when we reached the club we were stopped just before the entrance by 2 white males who advised us that the club was a "members only" club that required a $240 pymt for the yr w/a $20 deposit & a 24hr waiting period.

silly me, i'm from NY so i actually thought that this was possible & asked why the HE double hockey sticks would anyone go for that.  my sis (who's lived in SC for 16 yrs now) & her friends (who were born & raised there) let me know that it's just the clubs way of saying is a WHITES ONLY club.  UNEFFING BELIVEABLE!!!!  I'm thinking this can't possibly be true.  we're in 2007, segregation doesn't exist, right?  but after hearing about the numerous clubs that have the same "members only" policy from all 3 of them & ending up a a "black club" that was pretty much dilapidated & way on the other side of town, i realized, there are still places in this country that choose to separate people.

i guess i'm a true NY'er b/c all i could think is...if you're a club owner, shouldn't your 1st concern be MAKING MONEY???? who cares whether the crowd is "mixed" - as they call it down in Florence, SC or not???

it was a VERY RUDE AWAKENING!!! 

so it leads me to pose this question?  if there are still places that are "members only" places, how is it even possible to believe that a black person or even a female for that matter will be elected president in 2008.

Elephant Lee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4786
  • Maybe ju an' me are amigos!
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #107 on: February 23, 2007, 02:54:43 PM »
Unfortunately, there's still a niche market for that sort of thing.
This was my country
This frightful and this angry land

"I guess she was a hooker, that makes sense, those shorts didn't really look all that comfortable." -Dash

->Soon

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 20300
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #108 on: February 23, 2007, 03:31:00 PM »
i know that a lot of people are on this Barack Obama kick & i for one would LOVE to see a black person be elected as president BUT...are we just fooling ourselves here???

i was in SC for 5 days.  my sister & 2 of her friends ventured out to this new club called "V" in Florence.  when we reached the club we were stopped just before the entrance by 2 white males who advised us that the club was a "members only" club that required a $240 pymt for the yr w/a $20 deposit & a 24hr waiting period.

silly me, i'm from NY so i actually thought that this was possible & asked why the HE double hockey sticks would anyone go for that.  my sis (who's lived in SC for 16 yrs now) & her friends (who were born & raised there) let me know that it's just the clubs way of saying is a WHITES ONLY club.  UNEFFING BELIVEABLE!!!!  I'm thinking this can't possibly be true.  we're in 2007, segregation doesn't exist, right?  but after hearing about the numerous clubs that have the same "members only" policy from all 3 of them & ending up a a "black club" that was pretty much dilapidated & way on the other side of town, i realized, there are still places in this country that choose to separate people.

i guess i'm a true NY'er b/c all i could think is...if you're a club owner, shouldn't your 1st concern be MAKING MONEY???? who cares whether the crowd is "mixed" - as they call it down in Florence, SC or not???

it was a VERY RUDE AWAKENING!!! 

so it leads me to pose this question?  if there are still places that are "members only" places, how is it even possible to believe that a black person or even a female for that matter will be elected president in 2008.

well, i have heard of such clubs.  i think its a way to get around liquor laws.  doesnt mean this one was one of them, but they do exist.


and i personally dont think the US is ready for a minority pres yet.  still too many backwards people.

sheesh, 1/3 of all Americans believe the bible is the direct unaltered word of god!
Do you really believe in free speech, or just in speech you agree with?

ADL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #109 on: February 23, 2007, 03:39:10 PM »
i know that a lot of people are on this Barack Obama kick & i for one would LOVE to see a black person be elected as president BUT...are we just fooling ourselves here???

i was in SC for 5 days.  my sister & 2 of her friends ventured out to this new club called "V" in Florence.  when we reached the club we were stopped just before the entrance by 2 white males who advised us that the club was a "members only" club that required a $240 pymt for the yr w/a $20 deposit & a 24hr waiting period.

silly me, i'm from NY so i actually thought that this was possible & asked why the HE double hockey sticks would anyone go for that.  my sis (who's lived in SC for 16 yrs now) & her friends (who were born & raised there) let me know that it's just the clubs way of saying is a WHITES ONLY club.  UNEFFING BELIVEABLE!!!!  I'm thinking this can't possibly be true.  we're in 2007, segregation doesn't exist, right?  but after hearing about the numerous clubs that have the same "members only" policy from all 3 of them & ending up a a "black club" that was pretty much dilapidated & way on the other side of town, i realized, there are still places in this country that choose to separate people.

i guess i'm a true NY'er b/c all i could think is...if you're a club owner, shouldn't your 1st concern be MAKING MONEY???? who cares whether the crowd is "mixed" - as they call it down in Florence, SC or not???

it was a VERY RUDE AWAKENING!!! 

so it leads me to pose this question?  if there are still places that are "members only" places, how is it even possible to believe that a black person or even a female for that matter will be elected president in 2008.

well, i have heard of such clubs.  i think its a way to get around liquor laws.  doesnt mean this one was one of them, but they do exist.


and i personally dont think the US is ready for a minority pres yet.  still too many backwards people.

sheesh, 1/3 of all Americans believe the bible is the direct unaltered word of god!

really?  how so?
i honestly thought it was a ridiculous policy.  i didn't think it had anything to do w/all of us being black women until like i said, the 3 of them starting explaining how this was a way of excluding certain people & that it's happened @ other places where one nite they were allowed in & the following week, it was a restricted club.

i think you're right, the country's not ready.  so what's w/all of the Obama hype?  are white people afraid of being labeled racist if they believe the same?  b/c they're not.