Thompson's gone, now what?

[The Rabbi]

So what is a Reagan Republican like myself going to do in this election? The choices range from poor to nauseating. I will gnaw off my right hand rather than vote for either Giuliani or Romney. With a .375 Ruger pointed at my head I might vote for McCain, at least if the Dems run either Hillary or Obama. But it isn't something I would tell my grandchildren about. I am not going to give the Paulistas any satisfaction by voting for their guy.
Is this really the best the GOP can come up with?
Where are the leaders of the '96 victory?
I see plenty of promising people down the road. I think I might like Haley Barbour. Or Bobby Jindal.
Can we draft someone at the convention?

[bkelm18]

I find it humorous that anybody who plans on voting for Paul is instantly branded a nutjob.

[Junglist]

i would probably vote for paul if he ever got the nomination although that is not going to happen.

[David Waldrip]

Yes, this is the best the Repub's can do.

Each person that I talk to says the same thing in that the person could vote for candidate A or B, but they absolutely will not vote for candidate C. Same identical phrase, just the names change.

The point is that there is a percentage of Republican voters that will stay home on election day, no matter who the candidate is.

It will be a wild campaign, coming right down to who can get out the vote.

[Builder Bob]

Rabbi, I agree that the conservative republican party is now in a pickle for choosing a candidate. It is a shame that what we have left is the best there is to offer out there.

Builder Bob

[ACMM]

There is only ONE candidate left in the race that supports the second amendment, period.

[Marswolf]

Yeah, I'm not doing early voting because I don't know anyone I'd want to vote for that is running. Maybe by Super Tuesday, I'll figure something out.

[Bigiron]

Totally agree with Rabbi. Repubs are in trouble. Really hate that Fred waited so long to enter the race, and now is out. Will not vote for any of the liberals. Haley Barbour would prolly be good. Jindal shows promise, time will tell. If what is running is the best our country has to offer, then we are in deep doo-doo.

[The Rabbi]

There is only ONE candidate left in the race that supports the second amendment, period.

Yes, I assume you mean the guy from TX. Unfortunately I cannot support someone with a foreign policy view I find eccentric, unrealistic, and, based on my family's history, downright offensive.
And if he had a sensible foreign policy he would probably be a shoo-in.

[Cannon Fodder]

I have one thing to say, we're ****ed. :(

[ACMM]

Yes, I assume you mean the guy from TX. Unfortunately I cannot support someone with a foreign policy view I find eccentric, unrealistic, and, based on my family's history, downright offensive.
And if he had a sensible foreign policy he would probably be a shoo-in.

Yep, he's the only one that supports the 2A.

He's the only one left that's not a fascist/socialist.

Ronald Reagan liked him OK, RP ran Reagan's TX campaign.
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." Ronald Reagan
So don't say he's weak on defense.

You don't have to agree with his foreign policy, but it's the policy of the founders of this country. We were not founded on the idea of building empire or using our military for private interests. In addition we can't afford it, we have two choices, a vote for Iraq or a vote for the U.S. If we stay in Iraq our economy will collapse. Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and the father of Reaganomics, says we're on the brink of total economic collapse because Bush has bankrupted us with over printing of dollars, over borrowing from the Chinese and overspending on other government entitlement BS.

I think if you find RP offensive you're projecting the views of some of his supporters on him as opposed to his actual views. However, there are lots of people with all kinds of different views that support a guy that supports their right to be wrong about stuff.

[The Rabbi]

You don't have to agree with his foreign policy, but it's the policy of the founders of this country. We were not founded on the idea of building empire or using our military for private interests. In addition we can't afford it, we have two choices, a vote for Iraq or a vote for the U.S. If we stay in Iraq our economy will collapse. Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and the father of Reaganomics, says we're on the brink of total economic collapse because Bush has bankrupted us with over printing of dollars, over borrowing from the Chinese and overspending on other government entitlement BS.


Yup, about what I expect from RP. Overblown rhetoric combined with myopia with an admixture of logical fallacy.
You have to wonder about a candidate who garners so much support from the lunatic fringe of the American right. I'm certainly not marching in any parade with those guys.

[ACMM]

You have to wonder how anyone that purports to believe in rugged individualism re:Reagan, thinks we're currently on the right track.

[mousegunner]

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I voted for Ron Paul already in TN, because he does support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution. I know that he won't win the GOP nomination.

It is time to vote for a third party in the general election. If you vote for a Republican as the lesser of two evils, then the GOP will continue to slide left. It's time for America to let the GOP know that it has gone too far. The Democrats will take the Presidency, and the GOP will realize it must get back to basics or disappear into oblivion.

[bkelm18]

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I voted for Ron Paul already in TN, because he does support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution. I know that he won't win the GOP nomination.

It is time to vote for a third party in the general election. If you vote for a Republican as the lesser of two evils, then the GOP will continue to slide left. It's time for America to let the GOP know that it has gone too far. The Democrats will take the Presidency, and the GOP will realize it must get back to basics or disappear into oblivion.

As much as it pains me to acknowledge the dems are going to win, they will, and I do agree with you that it's time to vote 3rd Party.

[Rightwinger]

Lets create the 4th party!

TAKE 8 !

Lets take the next 8 years off from government change!
No new government. NONE, take 8!
Get the mission done in Iraq and bring em home, all budgetary commitments currently tagged for Iraq but no longer needed at the end of the mission (when ever that is) are rolled into debt pay off!

Take 8 years off, no elections (cost savings), no new taxes (you know where your at for 8 years), no change!

Take 8, and give me a break!

[DavidD]

With quotes like:
So what is a Reagan Republican like myself going to do in this election? The choices range from poor to nauseating. I will gnaw off my right hand rather than vote for either Giuliani or Romney. With a .375 Ruger pointed at my head I might vote for McCain, at least if the Dems run either Hillary or Obama. But it isn't something I would tell my grandchildren about......Is this really the best the GOP can come up with?Where are the leaders of the '96 victory?Can we draft someone at the convention?
AND
I know that he (Ron Paul) won't win the GOP nomination.


AND

As much as it pains me to acknowledge the dems are going to win, they will, and I do agree with you that it's time to vote 3rd Party.

Which I totally agree with all three 100%, would it not be an unsually strategic move for republicans to abstain from voting in the Republican primaries, vote for :sick: Edwards, or possibly :yuck: Obama in the Democratic Primaries all just to keep Hilary out? Not that this would happen, but wouldn't it send a message? Of course when it comes time for the election, vote republican, not that it will really matter. Oh well, just an idea in the realms of fantasy.... :drunk: I better go contact the suicide help hotline now that I have had such thoughts and actually put them in print.

[TargetShooter84]

Wow...from all this talk, I'm beginning to think that the repub party is really in some serious trouble...fudge...now I'll have to find the proper boxes to stash my guns and bury them when the time comes when a democrat takes over and implements a ban on guns b/c I'll tell you one thing...they may ban guns but they sure as heck arent getting my guns!!!

[saintsfanbrian]

Okay, Ron Paul would be a viable candidate if America had more than a 2 party system. Sure, they are out there and they run in almost every election but they are not a real factor.

Reagan would not like at all what the "Republican" party is becoming. After all, he spoke about how a party CANNOT be ALL things to ALL people. That the party had to have clearly defined ideas and needed to stick to those.

Now, as for the next election, I don't know who I will vote for, but I know either way it is going to be bad for the country. We cannot continue on this downward spiral of appeasing every special interest group that comes along at some point in time we have to say enough is enough....stop your complaining and get over yourself. Unfortunately it will probably take another GLOBAL war or another depression to get people to realize that they have to get along before they can go along.

A depression would show the government that the individual DOES have a need to own firearms because there will be people out there trying even harder to take what they need instead of working for it. Granted jobs will be scarce. This is where having skills will come in handy.

Rant Off.

[mousegunner]

Fortunately there is good news: Our Constitution has built in checks and balances: Legislative, Executive, Judicial. The country will survive a Democrat President. True, the Congress is majority Demo, but they may not always agree with the Pres. And the Supreme Court is now at least neutral, and maybe Conservative. So, we may see quite a bit of gridlock after the Nov election. And four years is not really a long time in the life of a nation. So CHEER UP EVERYBODY!

[The Rabbi]

You have to wonder how anyone that purports to believe in rugged individualism re:Reagan, thinks we're currently on the right track.
If I had written we were on the right track you might be right. But I didnt. And we're not.
But all the overblown "we're all gonna die" rhetoric is just that. For those of us old enough to remember the mid to late 1970s, this is nothing. In those days we would have wished we could have it this good. Inflation is still low, unemployment is still historically low, the US remains the sole superpower. No, things are good right now.
But there is plenty of danger out there. Unrestrained gov't spending and regulation is one. A Fed determined to prop up the economy by cutting rates is another. Islamic radicals lining up enemies is another.
The GOP has not produced a candidate who will address these issues in a realistic way. The Democrats don't even aknowledge these are problems. This is the issue.

[Spuds]

This election cycle finds me with a severe case of electile dysfunction.

Voting in the opposition's primary is the only thing that seems to make sense to me. Obama or Edwards, Edwards or Obama . . . . . . even though I know the reasoning behind it, I'm not sure I can poke the button for either of these clowns.

[TargetShooter84]

This election cycle finds me with a severe case of electile dysfunction.

Voting in the opposition's primary is the only thing that seems to make sense to me. Obama or Edwards, Edwards or Obama . . . . . . even though I know the reasoning behind it, I'm not sure I can poke the button for either of these clowns.

Or you can just not vote....save us the headache of democrats polls going higher....

[The Rabbi]

This election cycle finds me with a severe case of electile dysfunction.

Voting in the opposition's primary is the only thing that seems to make sense to me. Obama or Edwards, Edwards or Obama . . . . . . even though I know the reasoning behind it, I'm not sure I can poke the button for either of these clowns.
My problem with that is that one of these clowns is worse than the next. I could actually have voted for Richardson. He was a serious candidate, regardless of his views. But in the current democratic party he didnt have enough left-wing flare to succeed. I could not pick the best of Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Any of them make me break out in cold sweats.

[DavidD]

I could not pick the best of Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Any of them make me break out in cold sweats.

I feel your pain, but can you pick the worst 2 of the 3? :rolleyes:

[The Rabbi]

I feel your pain, but can you pick the worst 2 of the 3? :rolleyes:

Well, the advantage of Obama is that if elected (c'v) he will be the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century. Carter came in proclaiming himself an outsider and discovered the down side of that was that no one owed him anything. So he couldnt get anything done.
Hillary knows how to get stuff done, which is scary given her agenda.
Edwards is just a nightmare. Might as well hand over the keys of corporate america to the trial lawyers and be done with it.

[Marswolf]

Yes, Edwards is basically the poster child for the need for tort reform. I have never understood why this is never brought up.

[dariks]

This election is going to be about choosing the lesser evil. I am not excited about any of the current candidates and some of them (Hillary) actively scare the crap out of me. I'll just have to research and vote for the candidate that I think will do the least damage.

Obama and Hillary are trying to make the election about electing the "First". Either the First Black Man or the First Woman president. Sadly, there are people out there that think those are good reasons to elect someone. They don't stop to think that their policies might be more important.

[db99wj]

What about Huckabee, according to his site, he supports the 2A.



The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be
able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property.
Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. I oppose gun control based on geography.
I consistently opposed banning assault weapons and opposed the Brady Bill.
As Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits.
I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license.No candidate has a stronger, more consistent record on Second Amendment rights than I do. Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.
Other candidates say gun control doesn't affect hunting. Now I'm a very avid hunter, but the Second Amendment isn't really about hunting. It's about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms.
I once saw a bumper sticker that said, "Criminals prefer unarmed victims." Criminals will always find a way to get guns. By disarming our law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals - the uncertainty that they don't know who is helpless and who is armed. Our law enforcement officials can't be everywhere, all the time. Lawfully-armed citizens back them up and prevent robberies, rapes, and the murder of innocents. Right after Katrina, with law enforcement non-existent, many victims were able to protect their lives, their homes, and their precious supplies of food and water only because they were armed.
Other candidates believe gun control should be determined geographically, but Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Your Second Amendment rights don't change when you change your address.
Other candidates filed frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers. When I was Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from exactly those types of suits. I allowed former law enforcement officials to carry concealed handguns and removed restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license, and of course I'm a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.
Other candidates have supported banning assault weapons. When the federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004, I said, "May it rest in peace." It won't be returning in the Huckabee Administration.
Zealously protecting your Second Amendment rights is another way that I will lift all law-abiding Americans up, by consistently championing your right to defend yourself.



I'm still reading up on him, but so far......and Chuck Norris supports him!:p


Here is a FYI section on his stance on many issues, http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home

[creeky]

What they say now and what they do when they get into
office can be very different things. I'm unsure any of them have any
real convictions about anything. (*Keep in mind I'm still jaded.)

[supergus]

I'm absolutely terrified at the thought of Hilary in the W.H. (again) She's gonna do some serious damage to this country. On the bright side though, she won't make it past 4 years. The country will see what the Dems are really capable of and put a republican back in. What worries me about Paul is that I don't believe in my heart that he would take the war to the islamic fascists. He comes across as too much of a pacifist. He'd wait till we're attacked again. And with him as COC we will be!

[Marswolf]

I refuse to vote for another religion nut. Carter was awful and militarily scary. I consistently vote for him as our absolutely worst President. And I worked for him. I also worked to prevent him having a second term. Bush hasn't been much better. A born-again druggie. I guess I should give him some slack for his cocaine fried brain?

Guns are only one of my issues, and Huckleberry is on the wrong side of a lot of issues for me. I just can't support him. Jesus might tell him to do something off-the-wall and he'd do it. I suspect he has a direct line to Jesus.

I have nothing against religious people. I'm more religious now than ever before in my life. But that doesn't mean I have lost all common sense and touch with reality. People need to leave their beliefs at the door of the governmental office they have been elected to. If they can't do that, they are not qualified for the office. You have to represent all of the people, not just those who agree with your views.

I'll vote for Beelzebub first. :rolleyes: Come to think of it that probably is Clinton. :cool:

Maybe I'll just not vote. Right now, I'm seriously considering semi-Beelzebub - McCain. He seems to me to be a principled and sincere, if confused, candidate.

[Marswolf]

What worries me about Paul is that I don't believe in my heart that he would take the war to the islamic fascists.

What would worry me about Paul, if he was at all viable, is that he's a total flake. That doesn't mean I disagree with all of his ideas. I tend to agree with him on a lot off issues. But he's Jimmy Carter on defense.

[molonlabetn]

McCain is probably the best and most likely to succeed conservative option.

Personally... at this point the choice is simply anyone but Hillary.

[mc30707]

I think the issue is to vote for the lessor of 2 evils:popcorn:

[The Rabbi]

I'd cut Bush some slack. I suspect in 20 years he will be remembered far more fondly than now.
I agree with your assessment of Carter. Totally ineffective. And he hasnt improved any with age.
Between McCain and Obama, I'd vote McCain. Between Obama and Giuliani or Romney, I'd probably vote for Obama, just because I dont think he will get anything done and we'll be finished with him in 4 years. The time off will give the GOP time to get their act together and push maybe Haley Barbour or Jindal.

[Marswolf]

As I mentioned, I worked for Carter on some international matters. He scared me absolutely to death. I was terrified he might be re-elected. He hasn't gained any wisdom since them. Thank you America for voting Reagan into office.

You know, I'm less pro-someone and more anti-Huckabee every day.

[jackdog]

Let's see, Clinton no way, Obama not( he hates guns) Edwards is probably the lessor of the evil triad. Repubs. Paul Is the only way to go. I think based on his passed voting record he can and will do the job. As for this not being as bad as the seventies, we could have real debate on that issue.

[Marswolf]

I think Thompson has actually been gone for a while.

I'll probably go for [holds nose] McCain.

Please dissuade me. :D

[dariks]

I think Thompson has actually been gone for a while.

I'll probably go for [holds nose] McCain.

Please dissuade me. :D

/me dissuades Marswolf

[Marswolf]

/me dissuades Marswolf

How about suading me?

[molonlabetn]

McCain has a nearly identical voting record as Fred Thompson, and has a similar stance on most issues... he simply markets himself differently. I personally see the two as equally competent leaders, Fred just had a more interesting personality.

I'm all for a McCain / Thompson ticket.

[The Rabbi]

As for this not being as bad as the seventies, we could have real debate on that issue.

ANyone who thinks there is debate possible didnt live through that era. I mean, you had both leisure suits AND Tony Orlando and Dawn. It doesn't get much worse than that.

[TargetShooter84]

McCain has a nearly identical voting record as Fred Thompson, and has a similar stance on most issues... he simply markets himself differently. I personally see the two as equally competent leaders, Fred just had a more interesting personality.

I'm all for a McCain / Thompson ticket.

I agree with this....I do know that McCain has similar beliefs that Thompson did. I'm for McCain...it would be alot better if Thompson was asked to be McCain's VP.

[db99wj]

This is good stuff. Learning a lot.

[triggertime]

I see Ron Paul as another Ross Perot. The people who vote for Paul are going to be responsible for Hillary winning the keys back to White House. The goal in this election
is to prevent Hillary from moving back in, even if you don't like the GOP nominee.
You have to hold your nose and vote for whoever has the ability to beat her, that is,
unless you're a fan of feminist socialism.

[Junglist]

their is a poll on another forum i am a member of that is mostly late 20's liberally minded people involved with music in one form or another this was a poll put up yesterday on who they would vote for if the election was today.
President

Hillary Clinton (Democrat) [ 4 ] [14.29%]
Barack Obama (Democrat) [ 10 ] [35.71%]
John Edwards (Democrat) [ 2 ] [7.14%]
Mitt Romney (Republican) [ 1 ] [3.57%]
Ron Paul (Republican) [ 11 ] [39.29%]
John McCain (Republican) [ 0 ] [0.00%]
Mike Huckabee (Republican) [ 0 ] [0.00%]

[ACMM]

their is a poll on another forum i am a member of that is mostly late 20's liberally minded people involved with music in one form or another this was a poll put up yesterday on who they would vote for if the election was today.

Ron Paul's foreign policy and platform are the same as Ronald Reagan's were and he was wildly popular. RP's the only candidate that doesn't equal the staus quo, so that poll doesn't surprise me at all. :koolaid:

How in the world can people so soon forget the McCain amnesty bill for illegal aliens that almost passed?

[bkelm18]

Really the only Repub choices for me are Paul and McCain. Huck's not getting my vote as I will not vote for someone who wants to "put God back into government", his words not mine. If it comes down to it and I had to vote for a Dem, I'd probably go Obama.

[molonlabetn]

...How in the world can people so soon forget the McCain amnesty bill for illegal aliens that almost passed?

Ain't none of the choices perfect.

[ACMM]

Ain't none of the choices perfect.

True, there are several that haven't sponsored bills that limited free speech though. McCain-Feingold

[Boomhower]

This election is going to be a duzzy.

What they say now and what they do when they get into office can be very different things.
Not it can be......it will be. As I heard it stated today, promise everything to get the office, and who cares what happens once they get in.

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul's foreign policy and platform are the same as Ronald Reagan's were and he was wildly popular.

No. Ronald Reagan never expressed the desire to cut off aid to foreign countries. Ronald Reagan never said that the reason the Soviets were after us was because of our actions. I remember Ronald Reagan. I voted for Ronald Reagan (twice). Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan.

[Junglist]

Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.

[ACMM]

Rabbi,
Ronald Reagan's policy on the Middle East was non-intervention; you absolutely cannot argue that with a shred of truth. RR knew if you left them alone they'd fight amongst themselves and they did. Ishmael will fight Isaac, if Isaac is not around Ishmael will fight Ishmael.

I'm pretty sure TEB will win it all no matter who's up against her. RP's the only person that has a chance to pull votes from her specifically because of his anti-war stance.

You started the thread hostile to RP and anyone that supports him, so I didn’t figure you'd change your mind, I'm not asking you to. However the fact that RP is the only conservative in the race and that you're fighting so hard against him is telling.

Compare voting records of ALL of them, you WILL see RP is the only conservative and the only one that supports the Constitution. I can't blame you for feeling compassion for other countries and wanting to help them. However, we cannot afford it anymore. In addition, there are a lot of homeless veterans that in my mind should be taken care of before a single dime is sent to any foreign country.

Hopefully we don't have to agree completely on politics or religion to be friends :)

[The Rabbi]

America has never flinched from its commitment to the State of Israel--a commitment which remains unshakable.2 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/presquote.html#2)
Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts. I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.3 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/presquote.html#3)
Since the foundation of the State of Israel, the United States has stood by her and helped her to pursue security, peace, and economic growth. Our friendship is based on historic moral and strategic ties, as well as our shared dedication to democracy.4 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/presquote.html#4)
For the people of Israel and America are historic partners in the global quest for human dignity and freedom. We will always remain at each other's side.5 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/presquote.html#5)

Quotations from Pres Reagan.
Beirut, funding to oppose the Sandinistas, the invasion of Grenada..the list goes on. Comparing this man to Ron Paul is absurd in the extreme. Reagan never shirked from involving America where its strategic interests were at stake.

[ACMM]

Quotations from Pres Reagan.
Beirut, funding to oppose the Sandinistas, the invasion of Grenada..the list goes on. Comparing this man to Ron Paul is absurd in the extreme. Reagan never shirked from involving America where its strategic interests were at stake.

We give 3 times the amount of aid to Israel's enemies that we do to Israel. If we stopped all foreign aid while we get our affairs in order, I'd think Israel would still be ahead in the game. As a matter of fact we've asked Yoni on the Warrior Talk board about it and he agrees they'd be better off in this instance and he's a Jew living in Israel.

Don't worry, you're going to get your status quo:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/23/louisiana-republican-caucus/
It appears that Ron Paul supporters outnumbered the supporters of any of his opponents. But since this was predicted, the supporters of Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, cooperated to set up a “fusion” slate of unpledged candidates for Delegate. The “fusion” slate, labeled the “Pro-Life/Pro-Family” slate, beat the Ron Paul slate in each of the 7 U.S. House districts.

[The Rabbi]

I'm not particularly hyped on more money for Israel. I am hyped against the idea that we should conduct foreign policy like we were 13 colonies on the butt-side of the world instead of the world's lone superpower with economic and political interests all over the globe.

[ACMM]

We will have to agree to disagree on welfare.

[dariks]

How about suading me?


:blush:

[The Rabbi]

We will have to agree to disagree on welfare.


Since welfare hasn't been mentioned up until your last post I don't know whether we agree or disagree.

[ACMM]

Since welfare hasn't been mentioned up until your last post I don't know whether we agree or disagree.

Foreign aid is welfare.

[The Rabbi]

Foreign aid is welfare.

Funny. I always thought foreign aid was foreign aid. Welfare is what is paid to individuals domestically. Strangely, everyone else (outside of the RonZombies) seems to see it the same way.
But this is what comes from being against gun ownership, like Paul is.

[Marswolf]

OK, I think you folks have convinced me to go vote for McCain.

Huck's a religious nut. Paul is just a nut. Romney is a watered down version of Hilary. Julie is less watered down.

If the ice clears off of the road, I think I'll go vote. But since it is now snowing and early voting goes through next Thursday, I may just wait.

[The Rabbi]

McCain (whom I have said previously ought to be ridden out of town on a rail for McCain-Feingold) earned new respect in my eyes by failing to endorse a boondoggle in FL whereby all taxpayers would be on the hook for disaster insurance in that state. He rightly pointed out we already have FEMA and 26 other gov't agencies engaged in disaster relief and underwriting disaster policies there could get expensive real fast.
All the other GOP candidates thought it was a great idea, btw.

[tnroadrunner]

McCain doesn't want to do anything about the illegals that are here. I'm leaning towards Huck.

[mousegunner]

How can anyone say Ron Paul is against gun ownership?????

The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
by Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/mail/welcome.htm)
by Ron Paul
http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-s-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-s-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-e-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-e-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-p-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-p-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-mp-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-mp-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html#)
The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms – the right to bear arms.
The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.
Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S.
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul2.jpgThe UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
June 27, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[The Rabbi]

Since a lot of so-called foreign aid is actually credits for use in buying weapons and related items from U.S. manufacturers, anyone who opposes foreign aid is actually opposing gun ownership.
See, when you switch definitions you can make anyone say anything you want. So if foreign aid=welfare then logically opposition to foreign aid should equal anti gun. Does that make sense? No, of course not. It's silly. Like most of Libertarianism.

[ACMM]

Welfare can be domestic, corporate or international.

You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it NOT welfare.

[The Rabbi]

Welfare can be domestic, corporate or international.

You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it NOT welfare.

If you spend $1000 in my shop is that welfare? After all you are giving me money. If you want to call a purchase welfare, then go ahead. But that makes the conversation likely to be short.

[molonlabetn]

The government recieves welfare from me every month in the form of taxes...

I'd rather call taxes 'child-support' insted of welfare though.

[ACMM]

If you spend $1000 in my shop is that welfare? After all you are giving me money. If you want to call a purchase welfare, then go ahead. But that makes the conversation likely to be short.

If I give you $1000 in your shop I will expect something more than friendship so you're apples to oranges here.

I'm glad you're active in politics though, I'm glad when anyone does research to figure out who they want to support as most do not. Hopefully we will get the best candidate no matter which party wins. :)

[The Rabbi]

If I give you $1000 in your shop I will expect something more than friendship so you're apples to oranges here.

I'm glad you're active in politics though, I'm glad when anyone does research to figure out who they want to support as most do not. Hopefully we will get the best candidate no matter which party wins. :)

And when the U.S. gives aid it gets more than friendship. Friendship isn't really an adequate description of international relations, despite political proclamations to the contrary.

[supergus]

"How in the world can people so soon forget the McCain amnesty bill for illegal aliens that almost passed?"

Not only that, but he wants to get rid of catostrophic insurance for people:eek:, AND allow illegals to pay in state tuition.:mad:

[Marswolf]

Well, the NY Times endorsed Hillary and John McCain. I may have to think about my vote some more. :D

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-25-times-endorsement_N.htm?csp=34

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain in the presidential primary race.
In editorials posted Thursday on the newspaper's website, the board argued forcefully on Clinton's behalf, while saying that McCain was the best of a flawed field with which the board had "strong disagreements."

The board said its case for Clinton was based on more than her accomplishments, adding that the senator "sometimes overstates the importance of resume."

"Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience," it said.

The board also spoke favorably of Sen. Barack Obama, calling him "incandescent," but concluded that "we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern."

"Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now."

The board wrote that it disagreed forcefully with the leading Republican candidates on Iraq, the economy and their support of President Bush.

But McCain, the editorial said "is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe."

The editorial also excoriated former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, saying that he "first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign."

"The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square," the board said.

New York is among more than 20 states that will hold primary contests on Feb. 5.

Asked about the editorial Thursday night at a Republican debate in Boca Raton, Fla., Giuliani said the Times attack was "because I probably never did anything The New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City. And if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican.

"I changed welfare. I changed quality of life. I took on homelessness. I did all the things that they thought make you mean, and I believe show true compassion and true love for people," Giuliani said.

"So the reality is that I think there is serious ideological differences. That probably was some of the nicest language they've written about me in the last six months," he added.

[Steelharp]

I know. I can hardly believe myself, but I am taking a serious look at Ron now. I know he sounds goofy sometimes when he speaks, but he seems to stand for more of what I agree with than anybody else. Yeah, that worries me, too, a bit...

[Beretta Racer]

Having met and worked with McCain and Hillary both, I'll take the guy with the balls to spit in the eye of his captors over a carpet munching liar like Hillary.
At least with McCain you pretty much know what to expect. With Hillary, she will say and do anything to get elected. She was at the core of almost every scandal of the Bill Clinton era. Yes, even Monica, referenced above.
EVERY election is the lesser of evils.

[mousegunner]

I like Ron Paul. I voted for him in our TN primary (voted early). However I know he is unelectable. Last night in the GOP debates he repeated that he would discontinue Social Security. This won't wash. His foreign policy won't work either. I like his support for the Bill of Rights. But he won't get the GOP nomination. What he will do after that, who knows? If he runs third party, that will guarantee a Dem in the White House.

At times like these, I'm glad I believe that God is ultimately in charge, and that in the end He will make everything turn out OK. After all, we can't see the future, and who knows what will happen?

[Marswolf]

I'm not big on the idea of throwing my vote away. While I agree with a lot that Ron Paul says, to suggest a lot of things he would like to do is just unrealistic and flaky.

Protest votes are seldom a good idea. Remember what happened in Florida to Al Gore when voters went for Ralph Nader.

I'm going to vote for someone who just might be able to beat a liberal Democrat.

[Beretta Racer]

I'm going to vote for someone who just might be able to beat a liberal Democrat.

I'm not on the McCain bandwagon, but he would probably be the guy to do it.
He is much more likely to pull the conservative Dem vote than Hillary or Obama being able to pull moderate Republican votes.

[saintsfanbrian]

Whether the Dems put up Hillary or Obama doesn't matter, I will vote for the Republican (whoever it may be) in order to keep from that person getting elected.

If and only if this country actually pulls its collective head from its collective rear end will I consider voting 3rd party on a national level. Locally is an entirely different issue.

[Marswolf]

Well, the deed is done.

We have absolutely the worst voting setup. You identify yourself and they figure out a secret number to mark on your sign in sheet. Then they print out an 8-1/2 x 11 sheet that you sign. You then take that sheet to another table about 3 feet away. They then print another small sheet that has your number to get the voting machine to work.

Then you go spin a dial and touch enter four times to get the machine to allow you to vote. Many spins and enter presses later, you get a summary sheet with about half the info you need to see if you actually voted the way you wanted.. Then you press vote. The guy ahead of me was half way out of the door before they grabbed him and told him how to press the red vote button.

It's ridiculously complicated. I'm sure some people give up and just leave.

[Liberty Seeker]

i would probably vote for paul if he ever got the nomination although that is not going to happen.

And the problem is with attitudes like this he won't. Im glad to see he has started coming in second in places, maybe people will lose this attitude.

[Mike.357]

Mars i am with you on the ridiculousness of the voting procedure here in TN.

I posted previously how I could not vote due to computer troubles. Now what if these computer troubles happen on election day. People can't just stand around for an hour to wait, especially when they have jobs to get to, kids to pick up. Some workplaces might be lenient but I guarentee you that many would not be. I am going to go Monday and try again.

Until I moved here and they began using these ridiculous contraptions I had always voted (Ohio, Illinois and Florida) using the punchcard. Remember the hanging chads? Yes that type of ballot. It was much simpler and I think more reliable.

I do not trust this computer voting system we have. Who wrote the software? Who oversees that it actually records votes as they were cast? I do not put it past anyone that shenanigans are involved and the actual vote is scewed or maybe screwed is a better word.

I will probably vote for Paul or Obama, not sure yet. I am not sure as I do not know if they will let me have a republican ballot or not.

[Marswolf]

I posted previously how I could not vote due to computer troubles. Now what if these computer troubles happen on election day. People can't just stand around for an hour to wait, especially when they have jobs to get to, kids to pick up. Some workplaces might be lenient but I guarentee you that many would not be.
...
I will probably vote for Paul or Obama, not sure yet. I am not sure as I do not know if they will let me have a republican ballot or not.

Mike, you just tell them which primary you want to vote in when you go in. You can change at each election.

Here's a pretty good summary of how things work from the Mountain City paper.

http://www.thetomahawk.com/Detail.php?Cat=HOMEPAGE&ID=57255

Tennessee’s Presidential Primary coming up in February

By Marlana Ward

The Tennessee presidential primary will be held on February 5, 2008. Tennessee voters have the option of participating in early voting which begins on January 16.

Tennessee uses the open primary system. Under this system, a voter may participate in either party’s primary vote. This means Tennessee voters are not officially registered with a party and need to make no changes to their registration to vote in their desired party’s primary. Voters may only vote in one party’s primary.

This year’s Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot consists of one page. Voters will select only one candidate from those listed. The Convention of the Tennessee Democratic Party selects the party’s delegates.

The Republican Presidential Preference Primary ballot includes seven pages. The first page has the list of presidential candidates of which voters may select one. Statewide delegate candidates are found on pages two through five. Voters may choose up to 12 delegate candidates. The last two pages of the republican primary ballot have names of the First Congressional District delegates and the voter can select up to three.

Sample ballots are available so voters may become familiar with the ballot before they enter the voting booth. Voters are encouraged to become familiar with the ballot to avoid delays. The sample ballots are available in the newspaper and at the local election commission office. The Johnson County Election Commission Office is located at 158 Election Avenue behind the Johnson County Rescue Squad building.

Help is available to any voter who requests it. The person a voter chooses to assist them may be anyone except a candidate. The election commission will have voting deputies on hand to help any voter who needs assistance.

Voters are also reminded they can vote for whatever part of the ballot they choose but must view every page before the machine will allow the vote to be cast.

Early voting will be held at the Election Commission Office and will begin on Wednesday, January 16 and continue through Thursday, January 31. Voting hours will be as follows: 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday; 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Tuesday through Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Saturday.

Early voting has been popular in the past in Johnson County. There will be three machines available at the election commission office. Voting early is normally quicker than voting at the traditional polls. Address changes are easier to execute at the election commission. Occasionally, an address correction requires a voter to change voting locations. Voters may vote at the election commission regardless of their address.

All registered voters are eligible to participate in early voting. Any voter more than 65 or disabled may request a ballot be provided to them and returned by mail.

Anyone with questions regarding early voting or the ballot may contact the Election Commission by calling 727-8592.

Here is a Republican sample ballot for Sullivan County.

http://www.scecweb.org/pdf/Rep_news.pdf

[Mike.357]

you just tell them which primary you want to vote in when you go in. You can change at each election.



Last time around in '04, I went to vote and asked for a Republican ballot and was denied that. I was told I was registered as a Democrat and it was vote Democrat or issues only. I was told I had to change my registration.

I do not recall registering for any specific party but 6 years ago when I first came here I considered myself a Democrat and would have chose that option when registering to vote.

Has something changed in voting procedure since '04?

[Marswolf]

As far as I can recall, you could choose your primary when you went in to vote for as long as I have been voting.

There was a time years ago when one of the parties did not have a primary but the other did.

[TargetShooter84]

Its starting to look bad for the republicans since Obama gained double votes than Billary...its going to be a tough race

[ACMM]

My wife's been predicting for a long long time it would be Obama and McCain, but I've been trying to ignore her as best I can.

[J Smith]

I am sick about all this.
Its going to be a vote for the lesser of 2 evils again.I too do not believe Hillery or Obama bin bomba lama or whatever his name is will not make it past 3 months if elected.
With this said I want to make it clear that I am not against either of them because they happen to be black or female,I would vote for Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell in the blink of an eye.

[Mike.357]

I too do not believe Hillery or Obama bin bomba lama or whatever his name is will make it past 3 months if elected.


What is that supposed to mean?

[J Smith]

Well let me make it clear that I have no wish to harm or see them harmed myself.I have no doubt that there will be some nut case try to take them out.
Obama's wife has said that she is worried about it.

[price g]

Where is Ross when you need him?

[The Rabbi]

I didnt know whether to start a new thread or continue this one. People have talked about a Dem in the White House banning guns etc. I dont think this will happen.
But consider this: one of the most "popular" measures is the so-called "gun show loophole". It would be relatively easy (relative to other measures)to get that passed. It would require all transactions be done through an FFL. At the same time it would take only a presidential directive to put every FFL out of business, maybe leaving one in each market. That would effectively restrict gun transfers even without legislation. And with Hillary, you are dealing with someone who has the desire to punish her enemies, namely the NRA. Scary stuff.

[saintsfanbrian]

If Obama got elected and IF some one were to "take them out" the only thing they would succeed in doing is creating extreme racism in this country. If you think it is bad now, just let some one kill the first black president. The violence that you have seen to date would be nothing. Every white person would be targeted by the faction that would be intent on doing harm.

I can imagine that the city I live in would be one of the worst affected (especially in this state) since the Martin Luther King, Jr. thing is still a hot topic here.

If Hillary were assassinated there would likely be harsh repercussions. No man would be able to sleep with both eyes closed.

[molonlabetn]

...If Hillary were assassinated there would likely be harsh repercussions. No man would be able to sleep with both eyes closed.

Bill probably could...

[saintsfanbrian]

Game set and match Molon.

[jackdog]

Molon I can't stop laughing

[SUNTZU]

http://www.tngunowners.com/photos//data/506/hillary_clinton.jpg

[dralarms]

Bill probably could...

Probally first time in years. But have you noticed he keeps em shut during the day time, guess he got tired of looking at that hag.

[TargetShooter84]

Probally first time in years. But have you noticed he keeps em shut during the day time, guess he got tired of looking at that hag.


Thats why Bill keeps hugging those young ladies while campaigning for his wife....we see it all the time now....

[Xman]

Let me ask a question. An earlier post said there will be alot of republicans staying at home on election day. Should we not vote for whoever the Rep. candidate is? Isn't it better for gun owners to have a republican in the white house, even if they are bad, instead of having a tree huggin, gun bannin, hippie freak democrap? <--- Oops.

[Xman]

The views and opinions of " Xman" are not necessarily the view and opinions of TGO and it's affiliates.

[darkstar]

Where is Ross when you need him?


Ross is busy letting his company outsource every job he can to Mexico and India.

[towerclimber37]

Let me ask a question. An earlier post said there will be alot of republicans staying at home on election day. Should we not vote for whoever the Rep. candidate is? Isn't it better for gun owners to have a republican in the white house, even if they are bad, instead of having a tree huggin, gun bannin, hippie freak democrap? <--- Oops.

the problem is that most of the rhinos that are running ARE gun banning, tree hugging, hippie freak democraps.
*sigh*

[Marswolf]

It occurs to me that electing a Republican may drag in a few more of that party with him.

Would you really rather have Obama and some more Democrat Congress Critters to help vote in his anti-gun plans?

I'll hold my nose and vote for the Republican.

[Urse]

It occurs to me that electing a Republican may drag in a few more of that party with him.

Would you really rather have Obama and some more Democrat Congress Critters to help vote in his anti-gun plans?

I'll hold my nose and vote for the Republican.

Oddly enough I agree with Mars.

[bulletproof]

How can you not vote for a Republican considering the Democrat will either be Obama or Clinton? Sorry, it just seems that simple to me although the Republicans running don't exactly get me all warm and cozy and excited.

[saintsfanbrian]

My wife and I were discussing this at lunch today. We just wish the party that we are affiliated would grow a pair and actually put up some one with some conviction instead of some one that is a "winner" because they pander to every group.

As Reagan said... A party cannot be all things to all people.

[mc30707]

Haven't you been listening. They all claim to be Reagan conservatives. I think we end up voting for the last republican standing as the lesser of two evils.:popcorn:

[saintsfanbrian]

Unfortunately, that is the truth lately. We have been forced to pick the lesser of two evils as opposed to picking the person that actually can do the job well.

I really wish we Americans had a true gumption and would vote only for people who are not currently in office. Stir the pot up a little bit so that the boys up there don't get too big for their britches as most of them have.

I also wish there were term limits, but ultimately, we are to blame.

I will hold my nose on election day and vote for the republican party to do my part to keep billary or obama out of the office. They both could be white males and I still wouldn't vote for them. Their socialist ideas scare the crap out of me....

Personal recommendation? Sign up for the Hillsdale College Newsletter. Good reading and the recent one compared US to Canada. By a Canadian. We have it sooooooo much better.

[The Rabbi]

Good news.
Both Edwards and Giuliani are out of the race. You have to look for the bright spots where you can find them.

[Marswolf]

Rudy ignored the early stuff like the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshaaaaa. Even South Carolina. History has shown that that isn't a winnable strategy. Even if you don't win them, you need to get out, meet the people, and get your views out.

Of course, I'm not sure that Rudy's strategy wasn't to hide his views. And as I've said before, Edwards is the poster child for tort reform.

It's looking to me like McCain - Obama. I suspect that is good for McCain. As Obama's extreme views become better known, it makes McCain look like Reagan.

[The Rabbi]

I'd say McCain-Hillary, which looks bad for McCain. The woman is brutal and determined. Of course, she also has the highest negatives of any candidate,so maybe that's positive.
I could hold my nose and vote for McCain with a gun to my head. I couldn't have with Rudy.

[jackdog]

I could not and will not for McCain is a damn fraud. AS for the Democrats, This is'bt very good either. I reallise Ron Paul as no chance but I still think he is far more qualified than any one else

[Marswolf]

Ron Paul isn't a fraud, but he is an idiot.

As I keep saying, I don't like any of the candidates, but I'm going to vote for someone who can run effectively against Obama or Hillary. That surely ain't Paul.

And how is McCain a fraud? Because he doesn't follow the nutso religio-fascist born-again Republican line? Hey, I'm not fool enough to do that either. Unlike Kerry, McCain is a genuine war hero. Only time I recall him being a fraud was when he talked about the Confederate flag in South Carolina years ago. I didn't agree with him - still don't. But he did come back and have the ballocks to say he had made a mistake in not answering honestly on that issue. I can respect that, even when I disagree.

[Marswolf]

I'd say McCain-Hillary, which looks bad for McCain. The woman is brutal and determined. Of course, she also has the highest negatives of any candidate,so maybe that's positive.
I could hold my nose and vote for McCain with a gun to my head. I couldn't have with Rudy.

I held my nose and voted for McCain in the primary. I was not a happy camper.

But I think Kennedy, Kerry and company know that Hillary is a loser. And she's Bill's loser, not theirs. That's why they are working to get Obama into the nomination. If they go down in flames, they will say it's because Americans are racists, and we need more government programs to combat that.

Hey...think Cheney would agree to be VP for another 8 years? :rolleyes:

[Mike.357]

I finally was able to get out and do the early voting thing today. At least that was painless this time in itself.

I was going to give Paul my vote but just really saw that as useless. Better to go for someone else who just might could beat the Dem's.

And today there is a bright side. Guilliani dropping out is almost as good as the Dem's losing. At least with Clinton or Obama you know what you are getting. Rudy is nothing but a pack of deceit and question marks.

Who knows maybe the guy I voted for will win.

[Marswolf]

And today there is a bright side. Guilliani dropping out is almost as good as the Dem's losing.

I'll have to go along with that, although except for his anti-gun stuff, I agreed with a lot of what he said (not necessarily what he really thought.).