Who are you going to vote for?

I came up Romney also, but I was leaning toward him anyway. My mother and sister-in-law both were shocked that they didn't come up Hillary, 1 was Biden and the other Rudy.

Who in hell is Dennis Kucinich?
Apparently he's my best match, followed by Edwards & Clinton.

Fred Thompson is at the bottom of my list. He can kiss my ass.

I wasn't sure about some of the questions. Anyway my candidate was one I never heard of until now. General Chuck Yeager supports the same guy. I guess that could change depending on how I viewed some of the questions. Hillary as I expected didn't do so well. However she still managed to get 3 in agreement. I must have gotten 3 wrong answers somewhere.

My results are as follows:

1. Kucinich
2. Dodd
3. Gravel
4. Clinton
5. Obama

I've been planning to vote for Kucinich in the primaries for quite some time now. However, I'm nearly certain that Hillary will win the nomination, and I intend to vote for her in the presidential election.

Somehow, I ended up with Kucinich as my top match, with Romney as number two. Who is Mike Gravel? Whoever he is, he's number 3. Of course, whether I could be motivated to vote is another story as I am a blue exile in a red state. How the hell is it the Republicans ended up being Red, when everywhere else, the left is red?

Lopaw: You can call me Fred, if you'll let ME kiss your ass! [wink]

I'm beginning to think that the Kucinich For President committee is sponsoring that quiz website.

On the issue of Kucinich's wife for First Lady, I vote affirmative.

Chandler: Thanks for the tip on Elizabeth Kucinich. She's quite attractive. Looking at some of the images of the happy couple on the web, like this one -> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/38265…, I had to smile. With the height difference and age difference and with the way she looks with the long hair, good looks, etc., I was thinking that it looked like he was OTCing with a dancer.

Here are my top 5:

Ron Paul

John McCain

Sam Brownback

Tom Tancredo

Rudy Guiliani

My opposition to capital punishment and to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage put me out of the running with a lot of Republicans I otherwise agree with--although I oppose a FEDERAL Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage for reasons of Federalism, not necessarily for reasons concerning social policy.

When I went back and changed my responses to favor capital punishment and to favor an anti- gay marriage amendment (the more "orthodox" Republican positions), I got:

McCain

Hunter

Thompson

Paul

Tancredo.

I must really be conservative, because Obama, my junior Senator, didn't even come up on my results.

DandyDan: There's a minor conspiracy theory that says that, in dividing the US into "red" and "blue", the media made the Republicans red to mirror the custom in military battle exercises that the opponent is always "red", and the people staging the exercise are the "blue" force. Thus, the media picked red for the Republicans/conservatives, because to the media, those are the enemy.

I question this theory, however, on the basis that, if the media truly are so liberal, why would they follow military usages as a pattern for their own analysis?

Ron Paul is my choice according to the site.

I won't be voting----must be something like 15 years, but who knows . . . better to let others have all the fun.

Results showed Romney. Looking hard at Giuliani.

At this point I have no idea who I'm going to vote for, but I hope I get a chance to vote for someone who isn't currently on the list. I think the present crop is just about the weakest group we've ever had run for the office.

My prediction, which I made here about 2 years ago, is that Hillary will win because I think she's the most skilled politician of the group, just like her husband was. I also think she'll be extremely devisive, that domestic terrorism will re-emerge during her presidency, and that the R's will make big gains during her presidency.

Wow - I had no idea so many PLs were interested in the political scene. I shudda known better cuz when I stop to think about it, I realize a lot of intelligent and caring people regularly post to this board. ANYWAY Fred Thompson is a joke. He wouldn't even be a contender if it weren't for "Law and Order" What does that say about the American Electorate? I am personally for Mitt Romney, but I doubt that he can overcome the prejudices against his Mormonism, which is a darned shame. I think Mitt Romney would be a fine president. But I predict the Republicans will end up nominating Rudy Giulani, who will then go down in vitriolic, glorious, and boisterous defeat at the hands of Ms Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton but I disagree with FONDL that she will be divisive. Her hardcore opponents consist mostly of extreme right-wing males with too much testosterone for their own good.

Well, it's not really very scientific, so few questions and limited responses, and it assumes that you automatically support the candidate who you agree with on the most issues, which is not true, but, in order from top to bottom.

John McCain
Duncan Hunter
Fred Thompson
Jim Gilmore
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Rudy Giuliani
Sam Brownback
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Joe Biden
Bill Richardson
Barack Obama
Jonh Edwards
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel

Shocking I know, every Republican rated higher than every Democrat for me. Odd however because I'm supporting Rudy (I've already cut two checks for his campaign) and while I'd consider voting for John McCain it'd only be if he were the nominee in the general election. Even then I'd think twice if Leiberman were running. It is true on one other point, if I were to vote for one of the Democrats it's probably be Joe Biden.

What would be _really_ interesting is if members of this board would go to Beliefnet.com and take the "Belief-O-Matic" test of congruity with various world religions and denominations thereof. Same concept as the above, except concerning God (or "Non-God", depending on how you answer the questions), rather than the future President.

Been there, done that. Apparently I'm an orthodox Jew (100%). Other similar quizes have nailed me as a Sikh, Baha'i, and mainline Protestant (which I am in practice). I am NOT giving up ribs or bacon, or shellfish, I don't care what anyone says.

Well, with a name like Abraham Normalovitch, didn't you think you'd be Jewish? :P

The funny thing is that according to orthodox Jewish law I am a Jew. My direct matrilineal ancestor, 5 generations back, was a Jew. I'm not a very good Jew (see pork products, christian worship, etc above), but a Jew nonetheless.

I took the test and I'm supposedly a spiritual dabbler. Seemed like a lot of bunk to me.

AN, I took the test and came out remarkably similar to you. My top pick was John McCain, and my bottom 3 were Hillary, Obama, and Dodd (he was last.)

I didn't think much of the test either because it left out a couple of questions which I deem to be most important. But if I had to choose today I'd probably go with McCain because I think he's the least devisive candidate out there and that's what we need. But his chances of getting the nomination are neer zero, he's been around too long and doesn't excite anyone including me. So as usual we're likely to get a choice between an ultra-liberal and an ultra-conservative. Which is really sad because I think most people would prefer a moderate.

Where do I take the religion test? Should be interesting - my ancestors were a mix of Protestant religions including a lot of Mennonites and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm sorta anti-organized-religion new-age spiritual but attend the Catholic church regularly, which is as organized as a religion can get. The test will probably explode when I take it.

I was a bit surprised at my results... McCain.

I didn't pay attention to the rest as there has never been second place voting on any ballot I've ever used.

FONDL,

Perhaps we do not agree on the term "moderate", but I would hate to see one in the White House. To me, a "moderate" is someone that has no position. Just wait and see which way the wind blows. I want someone that tells me up front (usually by deeds) they are conservative or liberal. I would prefer the "ultra" label in front of either, before ever seeing "moderate".

Thing is, the one person I would vote for, in a heartbeat, was not listed as they are yet to be an announced candidate.

When I took the "Belief-O-Matic" test, I came out as an "Orthodox Quaker." I had no idea that there was such a thing as an "orthodox" Quaker, because I didn't know that there was any alternative (apparently there are also "liberal" Quakers, who are more like religious libertarians..sort of like Unitarians).

Anyway...pass the oatmeal. "There is nothing better for Thee than me."

FONDL: Here's the "Belief-O-Matic" URL:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_….

Thanks Chitown. I scored 100% Buddhism. My lowest score (23%) was Roman Catholic, which is where I usually attend church. Very interesting and I'm not surprised at all.

Clubber, my definition of "moderate" is indeed very different from yours. To me a moderate is someone who isn't tied to any particualr ideology but takes a more pragmatic approach - if it works let's keep doing it, if it doesn't work, let's try something else. Moderates take positions on issues but those positions are based primarily on pragmatism, he supports ome liberal positions, some conservative postitions, and some that are neither. He also is willing to consider a middle position on issues like abortion that are usually defined in black and white terms. In other words, he's willing and able to think for himself.

Back to OP.... My top 3 were: Richardson, Tancredo, and Edwards.

None of these are frontrunners- what a lot of voters will end up doing will be, choosing the lesser of the evils. If I get too bored with stripclubbing, I may tweak my answers a bit to a point of view that I don't agree 100% with, but find palatable (or not too unpalatable), and see what comes up.

FONDL,


WE will have to agree to disagree.

First, I never mentioned "particualr ideology", rather, perhaps, one that has no ideology. Conservatives and liberals, both have a "pragmatic approach", in their view. The difference is the practical way to solve the problem. Most all of us are not "completely" conservative or liberal, and take a position on issues one by one.

To me, it seems you are saying, that one that is will to settle for "a middle position" (compromise), rather than defend and advance their values and beliefs would be a moderate. What we should do is convince those that do not agree, via history, logic, whatever, that our position is the better route to take.

Clubber, a middle position doesn't imply compromise, represent one's values and beliefs just as much as an extreme view does for some. For example, I happen to believe that abortion should be legal in some special cases but should not be allowed as a routine means of birth control, particularly in the later months. And I happen to believe that gay unions are fine but shouldn't have the same legal standing as male-female marriages do. Those are both middle positions and represent my beliefs and values every bit as much as do the extreme positions on those issues, which are often represented as being the only possible choices. I also think that most people have middle positions on these and many other controversial issues.

The ideology that I object to, and both conservatives and liberals are guilty, is the act of taking a politically-correct position on any issue without any thought, based solely on what your particular group leaders tell you is the right position. People who refuse to do that and who make up their own minds on each issue are what I consider to be moderates. And they appear to be shrinking in number, which I think is sad because it is polarizing and dividing our society in a very dangerous way. I'll vote for the person who I believe to be least partisan, who I think has the best chance of reducing the divisions between us. That person will best represent my fundamental beliefs that we need to try to overcome the efforts of those who would divide us for personal gain.

FONDL,

As I stated, we will have to agree to disagree. However, at least our "clubbing" outlook seems to coincide, which is the reason we both come here.

No problem clubber. Truth is I don't have much interest in voting anymore because neither party represents my point of view, which is that the federal government has gotten too large and that power should be returned to state and local government. That's not based on idealogy, it's based on my observation that the federal government is the least efficient of all governments and is therefore the least able to solve domestic problems.

If you think of politicians as strippers you understand them much better. It's all about the money. Give them enough and they'll tell you what4ver you want to hear. And pretend to be interested in what you have to say. And the more you give them the more they want. And sooner or later you'll get screwed. It's all about the money, and that's all they care about. It's all pretend. Don't be a PL and fall for their act. It isn't real.

Anyone who runs against Fred Thompson.

Except Hillary Cliton. I just can't stomach the idea of such a hypocrite getting anywhere near the Oval Office. I don't know what I'll do if the Dems nominate H. Clinton and the Reps nominate F Thompson. Move to Holland, I guess. Otherwise, it's essentially whoever makes my stomach turn less. I like Richardson, I LOVE Jim Webb, I can stand Edwards (and he's done more for New Orleans, on the poverty and Katrina fronts, than most other candidates, so that's good), I could maybe handle McCain (he keeps whoring, though), I'll certainly take Gore (re-elect Gore in 08! har har) and I might even suffer Obama. Pat Robertson is right out.

Oh yeah, and that link to a quiz was fun, but it's got a bit of a problem, in that if you "disagree" with a candidate it might be because he's got even STRONGER views than you on a subject, but is still on your side, but he gets a ding instead of a plus for that inaccuracy. For example, on the Iraq question, there were basically 4 options, from total stay, to qualified stay, to qualified departure, to total departure. If I choose 2, and a candidate chooses 1 (a stronger version of my own choice) that candidate is considered equally as unamenable to me as someone who chose 4 (the opposite of my own choice). So I found myself with a line-up of candidates that were scattered Rep and Dem -- my most preferred was a Dem, the next a Rep, the next a Dem, back and forth down the list. That's a weakness of the programming. If all questions were yes-no only; or if they were all VERY wide ranges of choices (from 1 to 20, maybe) with proximity rather than mere agreement-disagreement included, I think it would be more accurate. I was disappointed to see, for example, that I supposedly "disagreed" with Edwards on a couple of key issues that I know I agree with him on. That's just because he or I chose a more or less extreme version of the same response and the survey nixed the connection rather than recognized it.

BG, I felt the same way about the quiz. The one that stuck out for me was abortion; "Abortion: Do you favor or oppose legalized abortion in the United States?" That kind of cuts out the opinions of 60-70% of Americans (including me) who feel it should be legal but that some restrictions are reasonable. Very few people fall into the "every abortion is a murder" or the "13 year olds should be able to get abortions without informing the parents" camps. There were other similar choices, but then that's the nature of these quick quizes. After all if it took 45 minutes and went in depth on every issue nobody would take it. It also assumes that the more issues you agree with a candidate on the more likely you are to support him (or her). Not true. I agree with McCain on everything but campaign finance reform (i.e. government speech rationing) and imigration, but I would never vote for him unless the alternative was a much worse option just because of those issues. In fact in the 2000 primaries I supported Bush largely because his stand on speech rationing was the opposite of McCain's. Of course Bush signed the damn "reform" anyway. Like FONDL said, we're all PL's as far as they're concerned.

As far as Hillary I read a great article on her today.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article…

I loved this; "The Post editorial noted "a perverse kind of good news" in Hillary's free-trade revisionism: "There's little chance that her position reflects any deeply held principle." And there lies the beauty not just of Clinton on free trade but of the Clinton candidacy itself: She has no principles. Her liberalism is redeemed by her ambition; her ideology subordinate to her political needs.

I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her -- precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's -- flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated -- always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e. self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason."

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Hillary : principles :: baseball : _____

a. Ginsu knives
b. forensic etymology
c. Poughkeepsie, New York
d. epidural anaesthesia
e. January

Har har. I really think Ms. Rodham is just a bundle of ambition, but wrapped slightly better than Vitter or Kissinger. Slightly.

Funny you should mention campaign finance laws (aka "speech rationing": that's a loaded way to put it; note that I didn't say "reform" since that in itself presumes the superiority of one side over the other). I think the thing I MOST support McCain on, is the idea of changing campaign finance and air-time regulations from what they currently are. I'd appreciate hearing why you oppose restrictions.

The way I see it, is, that what we see too often right now, is that those who raise big bucks tend to define which issues will be discussed, despite the fact that often a larger number of constituents (voters, citizens) would see much greater benefit from OTHER issues being in the foreground. It just seems to me that our current method of free-for-all on the airwaves and in the pocket-books doesn't serve the aims of democracy as much as the aims of plutocracy. I can see a lot of valid arguments against that position -- from the cravenly materialistic right down to the rather philosophically democratic -- but I'd appreciate hearing yours.

It's fascinating how H. Clinton has managed to become a chameleon. She started out a braying, aggressive midwestern housewife. Now she's a braying, aggressive non-committal midwestern housewife.

I'm going to have to pick Dodd as my man, one slight step above Kucinich. I'm serious, if Fred gets in I'm leaving, we're no longer a free country.

AN, thank you for agreeing with my point about people who hold strong views in the middle. I think the problem with our political system today is that most people are moderates but both parties are in control of the extremists.

BG, the thing I like LEAST about McCain is his support of limits on political speech. I oppose such restrictions because (1) they're unconstitutional and (2) because they would further strengthen the power of the political professionals at the expense of ordinary citizens.

As I said in my original post. This was fun at the office. It has now become more political and I don't usually participate in these debates, I will let it go once. What do you look for in a president? I want a person that can represent us to the world. A leader in foreign policy. Congress can take care of the home issues. I hope. I want some one that can recognize that China exists and is a major player( Richard Nixon). I want some one that can say fuck you Castro (JFK). I want some one that can say radical Islamics are a definite threat to out security and do some thing about it rather than admit failure (LBJ.)The Middle East is our biggest problem. They have been killing people there since the beginning because of different beliefs in Gods that may or may not be real. How can you send Hillary to places were women are treated as property. She would be laughed at behind her back and ours. I have talked to a few strippers that have said that they are not ready for a women president. And I still love Watergate Salad

BG, OK, let's start from first principles.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I guess I missed the penumbra where it's OK to tell private citizens or groups that they can't spend their own money within 60 days of an election to run an ad either for or against a candidate because that constitutes a contribution to a candidate and therefore is regulated, since after all we can't have just anyone participating in politics without the proper supervision of the government, and of course without the proper forms being filled out and filed properly.

Does that about cover it?

Hi AbbieNormal,

You said far better than I could have.

AN, my point exactly. I happen to think that we've already ignored the Constitution too many times. Which is why the federal government has gotten too large. I'm too lazy to look up the exact language, but doesn't the Constitution limit the federal government to certain areas and say that everything else is the responsibility of the states? Great idea - if we had done that we'd be a lot better off.

Shadowcat, how can anything possibly get more political than a poll asking who we would vote for? That's as political as it gets and you started it. Plus I think it's relevant anyway because, as I said earlier, politicians are just like strippers - they tell you lies to get you to give them your money in exchange for feeling good for a short while, that's what it's all about.

I agree with Shadowcat. What he started as a fun thread about a curiosity has predictably been turned into another boring political non-thread. Sounding off on a sex site is like going to a party to sell insurance.

Somebody please wake me when it's 2009.

And then someone equally predictably comes along and tells us all how boring the thread has become. What always puzzles me is why is anyone reading, much less commenting on, a thread that they find boring? I only ever read about half the threads here. The ones that don't interest me I simply ignore. If they don't interest anyone they die, if others are interested they continue without me. What's so hard about that?

Yeah, who could have predicted that asking people to take a survey on politics and share the results coule have led to people discussing politics?

FONDL, you're easily puzzled. I read this strip club website because I'm interested in strip clubs. Some people take advantage of our being here to spout their political beliefs, knowing nobody will care to seriously challenge them on a strip club website. You deal with bores your way, I deal with them my way.

It's interesting to read what other strip clubbers think politically especially when there is seeming cognizant dissonance. Nobody will care to seriously challenge them on a strip club website? That is one hell of a generalization. Sort of like strippers only care about the money. They're all just little cookie cutter clones who march in lock step for their one true god the almighty U.S. dollar.

Anyway, if President Bush was allowed or did serve another term that would be fine imo. And, President Clinton has a nice ring to it. President Obama sounds nice also. Out of the candidates who is going to give us more cleavage? That's an excellent way to choose the leader of the free world. Hey, don't be thinking Mrs. Clinton got the job just cause she's got a pair! Wives and daughters and mistresses of dear leader should count greatly in determing who is going to provide more cleavage.

After cleavage, I think highway safety is the next priority followed by blowing up those religious folks overseas. Oh yeah. How could I forgot the American farmer? After, cleavage then the next priority is making sure each and every American farmer get a huge government check. I mean if we don't pay the farmers to grow food we might starve and that just doesn't sound like something I'd be interested in doing. I believe in super size it when it comes to tasty American treats and foreign treats too. I'm equal opportunity when it comes to tasty treats of the food variety. :)

Chandler, This was a political thread from the start. Unless you assumed "Who are you going to vote for" was about Playmate of the year and never clicked on the link or read anyone's answers you'd be well aware that this thread was going to be about politics. What puzzles me is why you feel that we are somehow impinging on you by discussing, with willing participants, something we find interesting, and why you feel the need to chime in and criticize us for it. Yes, this is a stripclub site, and by my estimate about 95% of all threads are about strippers, strip clubs, and sex. On occasion one gets hijacked by a few of us who like to chat about other topics because we find each others opinions interesting. You don't find a lot of the things FONDL or BG and I talk about interesting. OK, I get it. This thread is no longer of interest to you, but it is to us and we want to continue the discussion. This takes advantage of you how? You and Yoda both seem to be insulted when people post about things you don't think should be on this site or find interesting, and neither of you hesitates to make your displeasure known. I find it not only puzzling, but a bit rude. You are under no obligation to read anything, and with the new ignore feature you can be sure you'll never have to read another political comment again if you wish, so why the complaints?

Well, actually blowing up those relgious folks overseas or over here (e.g. Waco) is the third priority or was that the fourth priority? It puzzles me that blowing up people wasn't a survey question nor was highway safety nor the American farmer. What a joke.

I'm for blowing up the American farmer, no wait, what were the options? And be careful about criticizing religious nuts with guns, who do you think founded this country? In all seriousness I think the big question is what to do in the war, and I don't just mean Iraq, that is clearly the major battlefield right now, and if we can stick it out a little longer it will be a crushing defeat for al Qaida. I think overall we are doing a piss poor job in the larger conflict. We should have VOA broadcasting into Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza and Iran, we should be supporting democracy movements and trade and workers unions across the middle east and into Iran, but we aren't. The only propaganda they're getting is how glorious it is to die in the jihad. Funny thing, we want them to die too, you'd think we'd get along better.

A bunch of malcontents who unfortunately didn't care for the love it leave option.

Al Qaida is a joke. American farmers have killed far more than Al Qaida could ever dream of. Betcha didn't think I was aware of that, did ya? Well yeah most of the victims are insects but according to some religious people all life is valuable.

Anyway, the solution to Al Qaida is simple. Bring the Jews over here, those that wouldn't mind coming, and of course compensate them generously. New homes, cars, boats, cash, food stamps, hoes, strippers, whatever it takes to make them feel this is their home sweet home (besides it might be a little cheaper than pumping billions into Israel). Then immediately abandon all military, economic, political, whatever ties to Israel. If Israel can survive wonderful. If not, then it shouldn't be considered much of a loss----I mean the world did survive without Israel for hundreds of years and more likely than not Israel has no future if you're thinking long term.

. . . love it or leave it option . . .

.

BTW, I don't necessarily believe the teachings of the governments' schools, but weren't these malcontents free to practice a variety of wacked out religions? In essence religion wasn't the issue for the malcontents. They just didn't like paying taxes for valuable government services such as the military. Well, when people don't pay taxes more likely than not there will be some blood spilled and people will be killed. Now, usually the blood is almost exclusively of those who refuse to obey the law and decide to live a life of crime. Whoa, in come the French, always causing problems whether it be french fries or french toast and they give money and assistance to these malcontent anti-tax terrorist cowards. I'll have freedom fries and freedom toast thank you very much!!! :)


.

FONDL, AN, you make good cases for NOT implementing restrictions on campaign rhetoric (free speech). I do follow and mostly agree.

As a mild counter-argument, I'd suggest that there's really nothing wrong with amending the US Constitution. One could, for example, support a change that would outlaw all fire arms (to change the subject for the sake of the example, so as not to cloud the original issue) or to mandate Christianity as the state religion. I'm not, therefore, particularly convinced that your position is valid MERELY because it parallels the current version of the Constitution. What I'm asking, is, how would you argue to OPPOSE the other side. What reasoning, not which laws, support your side? What if the other side says, "Hey, we know we're suggesting something so radical we'd have to change the Constitution. We're happy to change the Constitution, because we think the change would be beneficial?"

I think FONDL's mention of the political "operatives" is a good angle to pursue. By limiting speech in any manner, he seems to suggest, you're probably taking more rights away from the common man while failing to take them away from the "slimy professionals" who would be able to continue to find loopholes.

I'm up in the air over this issue. I'm certainly not trying to provoke anger. I just look about me and see, that the campaign finance situation is weirdly screwed up, and I'd like it to be fixed. Maybe we can change financing without changing free speech somehow?

MY BAD...

BG, no, there is nothing wrong with amending the constitution, but they never try that method precisely because they know they don't have the votes to do so. The way our system of laws was set up that meant only a supermajority of both the representatives and states could change basic constitutional principles. In practice we ignore the plain meaning of the text and have congressmen, justices, and presidents who claim that it is not violating the first amendment to prohibit citizen groups from making their opinions known and trying to persuade others within 60 days of an election. It is like saying you have freedom of speech, but only under these specific conditions. It doesn't work that way, you are either free to speak on politics or you aren't. If the government rationed paper, ink, and methods of distribution of newspapers would anyone for a second think the press was still free? All that campaign finance has done is make money harder to raise, thus increasing its value to candidates. I think there is a very easy way to reform campaign finance. No limits on contributions. No cash donations. Full disclosure of all donations. Violation of any of the preceeding and the candidate forfeits the election. If George Soros wants to back Howard Dean to the tune of $100 million, fine, as long as that is disclosed the voters can decide if Dean is a bought lackey or if Soros is a patriot backing the best man for the job. If the NRA wants to put $100 Million into George W.'s campaign let the people decide if that is a good or bad thing.

As for a specific argument let me then refer to the 14th amendment this time; " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The equal protection clause was the one the supreme court used to stop Gore's lawsuits in Florida. How could the state supreme court rule that (I might add in violation of the specific text of state law) some counties had the right to recount only undervotes and add the totals, but overvotes, other ballots, and other counties did not get the same protection. In short if the state goes to great lengths to protect one citizens rights it had better be prepared to go to those same lengths for every citizen. The fact that Florida was tossing out military ballots on technicalities but giving preferential treatment to ballots in certain counties pretty much killed Gore's chances. But I digress.

Lets go to 21 days before an election. If I'm the owner or editor of the New York Times I can print any editorial I want specifically endorsing any candidate or cause. If I don't happen to own a newspaper I can't buy an ad to do the exact same thing. If I'm a political candidate I can buy add time to convince people that the new freeway through where the Jones farm is is a ballot initiative you should approve. If I'm Mr. Jones I can't pass out flyers saying that is a bad idea without creating a campaign, filing with the FEC, filing out paperwork, etc. So the ability to speak out on an issue in the last days before a campaign are reserved for the candidates, the established media, and people or groups with government approval via the FEC. That alone should raise the red flag, you have to have government approval to be able to run ads about issues.

AN, I don't begrudge there being off-topic political threads labeled as such, and this one can certainly serve as that. I was mainly correcting FONDL's erroneous assertion to the original poster that he had started this thread as a poll, when of course he had started it as something removed from that. The reminder of why political hijackings are so resented on a site like this comes at no extra charge.

Lots of good stuff. "All that campaign finance has done is make money harder to raise, thus increasing its value to candidates. I think there is a very easy way to reform campaign finance. No limits on contributions. No cash donations. Full disclosure of all donations. Violation of any of the preceeding and the candidate forfeits the election. If George Soros wants to back Howard Dean to the tune of $100 million, fine, as long as that is disclosed the voters can decide if Dean is a bought lackey or if Soros is a patriot backing the best man for the job. If the NRA wants to put $100 Million into George W.'s campaign let the people decide if that is a good or bad thing."

I think we're pretty much on the same page there. (Soros scares me, by the way. Way too ... umm ... CONNECTED. Government-by-committee type. Eek.) I would like to see less campaigning in general. Nuke the primary system, nuke the thing about first Tuesday in November, rearrange the electoral college (we got telecommunications now! you can get from LA to Chicago in half a day!), set up proportional representation. Boy the things I'd do if I were King for a Day ...

I want TUSCL's housemom to run for office!!

Damn! You do not want another Bill Clinton. Do you?

"But it's not just the ultrarich who are abandoning Republicans. CNN's exit poll last fall showed that voters in the East making between $150,000 and $200,000 favored Democratic candidates by a 63-37 majority. Since 2004, the percentage of professionals identifying themselves as Republicans fell from 44 percent to 37 percent, according to a September Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The same survey found 59 percent of Republican voters agreed with the statement that free trade has been a negative for the country."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/43346/page/2

Is it true? Does it make any difference? Don't the voters understand the Democrats want to SURRENDER to the terrorists? Even if they did surrender it seems like the policy would be declare victory and run ala President Reagan in Lebanon. Everyone once in a blue moon I'll read a story bemoaning President Reagan's decision to "cut and run." How the terrorists could have been defeated in Lebanon if only President Reagan hadn't taken the convenient and cowardly way out. Fortunately, the heroic government has an opportunity to correct that mistake by defeating the terrorists in Iraq. Golly gee whittaker. It is like if you NUKED Columbia the drug lords would be defeated. Oh, you might have to NUKE Mexico as well, but that ain't any great loss and it solves the problem of illegal immigration! Killin two dem dogs with a couple pop pops definitely a bargain for freedom loving people all over the world. Next we can all sit around a faux camp fire and drink Coca Cola while swaying to the music and holding hands. :)

.

One policy of President Bush's that is ingenious is fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here. It is a win/win for the terrorists and Americans. Think for a moment.

Why would a terrorist need to make the long and risky journey to America when President Bush has so thoughtfully given them a plentiful number of Americans in convenient locations? No need for Omar or Rasheed or Muhammed to travel to far off lands. They can can conduct their godly duties in the holy lands and hang with friends and family. Even better if successful they get more than a few dozen virgins as a reward and are freed from being jealous of our FREEDOMS. (Remember how right before the holy warriors boarded the planes they hung out at a strip club so they could get a small taste of the freedom that was awaiting them? Oh, that story was a fraud. Oh, well. :) )

OK, sounds good so far but what do our soldiers win out of this? Besides increased monetary rewards and adventure? Simple they get to fight for our freedoms that didn't need to be surrendered to our war on terror. Remember the reason the terrorists hate us according to President Bush is because they're jealous of our freedoms. A damn good reason of making strip clubs illegal as Governor Bush promised the people of Florida. The Bushes sure know how to fight terrorists!

Selfish people would rather watch tits and ass than appease the terrorists! Sorry, that's fight the terrorists! Talk about a lethal blow to the whole terrorist movement. They're all in a hissey fit over our freedoms? Just elminate the freedoms! President Bush does know how to win the war on terror through a dual pronged strategy of giving the terrorists more convenient targets and eliminating freedoms. It is so simple the war has basically already been won and it is just time to distribute the medals in a few short months. :)

I was watching Rumsfeld on TV some years back and he was complaining that we spend more money than the terrorists. OK, he wants to spend less money than the terrorists? That's a good start. :)

No, he couldn't be that sensible. Naw, somehow he needs to force the terrorists to spend more of their money. Maybe help them set up their own IRS? :) Naw, that would probable be a little too cruel and unusual. OTOH, they aren't protected by the Consitution are they? Silly, is anyone? The legal profession.

Legal profession hampered by the Constitution? No, the Constitution didn't really stop Gonzalez. As far as I can tell, the Constitution does apply to liberals in America, because they keep on yelling about it and announcing how proud they are to uphold it (whether or not they actually demonstrate any knowledge of what the fuck it says in the first place). And it applies to most public school administrators because they think it says they get more money if they're black, so they holler about unconstitutionality a lot too. And it usually applies to criminals who want to get more guns, though sometimes we're fixing that problem and giving them less Constitution day by day.

The Constitution doesn't even mention lawyer or attorney. It's been turned into a gravy train by and for lawyers.

I didn't know there was right to bear arms secured by the Constitution. And, perhaps I need to take a closer look at it, but free speech rights weren't protected either as I recall. I know their isn't a right to a jury of ones peers. And, there isn't a right to a jury trial in civil cases either. Double jeopardy? Gone. No standing army? Well with endless war promoted by the government that ain't really applicable. It is a fairly "flexible" document that I believe was ignored or selectively enforced right from the get go.

And, as good as it was in many respects in planted the seeds for a very bloody war. And, I'm not even talking about the slave issue; the division of power between the States and the Federal Government.

Hi Book Guy,

Do you remember the Pledge of Allegiance case? The father sued on behalf of his daughter and the case spent years in the courts. The state had its team of lawyers and the lawyer-judges batted the issue around. The father appearing pro-se did have a law degree and may have even been licensed to practice law. So you have all these lawyers who you would think might know a little something about law, but know it never occured to them that the father didn't have standing to sue on behalf of his daughter. The great legal minds of the Supreme Court, more likely their law clerks, had to cook up that excuse to avoid deciding the case. Not that the case had any real importance. The government wants you to pledge allegiance to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches then you pledge allegiance to peanut butter and jelly sandwishes. It's real simple.

Most of government is just about force and fraud. Who was that said if men were angels we wouldn't need government as if the the government was better than ordinary men. It might be if you created real separation of powers and checks by ordinary citizens . . . imo it is just a bunch of ca ca. :)

People are deserting the Republican Party because they didn't do what they said they were going to do. For years they claimed to stand for less spending and a smaller federal government (remember all the talk about disbanding the Department of Education?) They've made no effert to do either one of those things, instead they've alienated half their members with all the bullshit about religion. But not to worry, a few years of Hillary and they'll be looking pretty appealing again.

Hi FONDL,

Well you don't shrink the government by throwing money and resources to protect Israel let alone risk plunging the world into war over a strip of land that should truly have NO value to Americans. Protecting the Jewish people is one thing getting into a real estate squabble is quite another. Plenty of room here in the U.S. for those Jews who value peace and their lives over some strip of "holy land." They think God gave it to them? Fine, then its God's problem. America should actually start thinking about its citizens first for a change and not get involved in idiotic religious disputes. The Republicans look like just a bunch of hoodlums and closet sex cases.

Anyway compassionate conservative as I understood it meant more government in every aspect of people's lives. So it shouldn't have come as a surprise. If more government is the desire of both parties, then that is fine. I would like to see gay marriage approved of by both state and federal governments. Perhaps even affirmative action for gays and lesbians. I would also like to see the government pay for abortions as well as medical care for everyone. Taxes? Way too low and enforcement not aggressive enough. Alcohol banned and other drugs legalized, but regulated and heavily taxed. Inflation? Not enough because the government needs to create more money to give to the poor. Mandatory million dollar no-fault insurance for gun owners per gun. Almost forgot again. Nothing more important than giving government millions to family farms.

But, if none of those good things happen that will be fine. So any Democrat or Republican is wonderful. Remember WE STAND UNITED!!!





PS --- I was Republican who wouldn't have ever thought of voting for Democrats. I believed in less government even for progams that I thought were basically good and less taxes and a stable dollar. After Bush, I don't care what the Democrats do they'll never look appealing to me. :)

So bring on Hillary or whoever.



Democratic victory is fine and so is a Republican victory. Endless wars that is fine or peace nut city is fine also.

I think what I, personally, really want to do with my life is found a country. Start from scratch. Create a 21st-C-ready constitution. Stuff about electronic voting for referendums on a wide range of subjects; mandatory minimum level of education for the right to vote at all; minimum funding levels of specific enterprises as a percentage of gross national governmental revenue; of course some deal about racial and gender tolerance I guess; and then a lot of criminal punishments for stupidity. Like, if you didn't get a receipt but you want to go on Judge Wapner and get your money back anyway, Judge Wapner gets to whack you on the head for not getting a damn receipt.

FONDL,

The one Republican most responsible for their rise in 1994, Newt, was trampled, even by Republicans. He was the one that truly held conservative principles. democrats have the "protect their own" down to a science. Republicans do not, and in many cases, should not! When Newt left the main stage, truly conservative principles (IE: eliminating the Department of Education) left with him. One of his biggest strengths is his knowledge of history and how to learn from it. Should he run, he would get my vote without a doubt.

So much red meat... where to start.

jablake, It has been illegal since 1943 to force a child to Pledge Allegiance. The most recent case was not about forcing children to make the pledge, or about teachers leading the pledge. The plaintiff contended that the phrase "under God" being uttered by other students who voluntarily took the pledge in the public schools was illegal. Kind of flies in the face of the part of the first amendment clause which states that government shall not only not create a religion, but shall not interfere with the free practice of same.

As far as "throwing money at Israel" Egypt gets $2 billion per year compared to Israel's $3 billion per year, and Israel actually lets people vote, including Arabs and Moslems. In contrast just about all the Jews and Christians have been driven out of Egypt (and just about every other middle eastern nation) and the state controlled media regularly run anti-US and anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda. So is the scandal that we defend Israel with 1.8 billion worth of military aid and 1.2 billion worth of economic aid to a nation that has consistently been our ally and consistently refrained from defending its interests to aid us and who has always responded to calls for negotiations, or that we toss 2 billion worth of aid into a nation that actively works against our interests.

Aside from those points I find most of your pronouncements rather confusing.

BG, careful, pride is the Devil's favorite sin. What has been the main reason communists, socialists, various "progressives" and general malcontents have caused so much mischief going back to the French revolution? Because they thought if they just tore down everything all those poor unenlightened ossified minds of the oppressors clung to without reason they could start from scratch and create the perfect society. We've seen how that works out.

As far as all the wire tapping, etc. I think it should be remembered that in the most literal sense people who are against this DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. It is illegal to wiretap for prosecution in a criminal case without a warrant. It has NEVER been illegal to wiretap foreigners, embassies agents, foreign communications for INTELLIGENCE purposes. It has been the policy of every president, including Clinton, that they had the unrestrained authority to monitor any and all communications outside the US, and from outside the US to inside the US for intelligence purposes. This highlights the cognitive disconnect that many people are unable to even conceive of anything in the world that is not a legal case. Clue in. When JFK sent U2 spy-planes over Cuba to prove that there were Russian missiles there, he violated Cuban airspace and he didn't ask for a warrant so he could bring a legal case against the Russians.

Clubber, I agree that Newt is not only not the boogeyman he was portrayed as by the left, but a serious person that should have a voice in public policy debates, but I also think he was not an effective leader. He basically considered his job done when he brought an issue to the floor for a vote. He never really worked much beyond that to advance an agenda. As a mitigating factor, he was political poison and was perhaps not the best spokesman because he spoke in paragraphs and the press reported in soundbytes, but I still feel a little let down by him.

Hi AbbieNormal,

Gee I wonder why Egypt is getting $2 Billion a year? Could it have anything to do with Israel?

The point of the pledge of allegiance case was the grounds the Supreme Court used to avoid deciding the issue. Dad has no standing where his child is concerned--No surprise there, sounds like typical America. Furthermore as I stated if the government wants you to say pledge of allegiance to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches you do it. AND, no it doesn't make a bit of difference if there is some stupid or smart Supreme Court precedence stating that you can or can't do X, Y, or Z. Whether the statutory law or case law is for or against you makes very little difference. It is whatever the judge wants.

I had some Supreme Court law where an administrative judge was held to the requirement of written findings of fact and conclusions of law under the due process clause. As an aside the court stated a trial judge would be held to even higher standards of due process. You believe that? Is that the law that will be enforced? Or is there some reason a trial judge shouldn't be held to that standard of due process?

Anyway, you believe in this corrupt system that is fine and dandy. I wouldn't trust them with anything over a $1--no even a $1 is too much to trust them with.

jablake, maybe it's just me, but I find the bulk of your posts virtually incomprehensible.

Hi AbbieNormal,

No, it is all me. It is the way I write and think. :)

See you bring up something about the pledge not being required since 1943 and my thought is so what? The issue is years of litigation and Supreme Court suddenly discovers Dad has no standing. I believe even if the Constitution and the highest court specially said that you had a right not to pledge allegiance that that would be meaningless. The protections don't work. Precedent is ignored. The Constitution is ignored.


You bring up the garbage about $2 Billion a year for Egypt. And, this situation was for the benefit of ?????????????? I will give you a million guesses. Was one of the guesses Israel?

Whatever. Perhaps you think the benefit of the $2 Billion a year for Egypt was for U.S. college students. Who knows. Israel is no benefit to the United States it is the exact opposite--it is a financial as well as a security drain.

AbbieNormal,

The way congress seems to "work" these days, that was Newt's job, get hte legislation started, then the committee chair takes over, the majority leader, the majority whip, the majority #1 vote getter, the majority HMFIC of getting votes, etc, all go to work to get it passed. A pitiful way to accomplish anything meaningful. I agree Newt was not an effective speaker as a snippet man but excellent as a true speaker.