So every one it looks like John has some karisma to come so far. I see Mccain or Obama becoming the next president.

I am having hard time seeing Hillary becoming the next president.

Once I heard Viet-vet & prisoner McCain talking about Vietnam.

He said, "It all went downhill after Diem was assassinated. After that we just had a parade of charlatans."

Anyone lamenting the demise of the unelected, Buddhist-repressing, torturing regime of Diem may not have a realistic take on history.

And, interestingly, Diem was finally taken out once he came to the realization that the NLF was too strong in the South to be defeated and therefore had to be negotiated with.

I would think McCain would know the history better or, at least, not lie about it.

I wonder if McCain will get swift boated like John Kerry did? I don't know if it is true but some believe he betrayed his fellow POW's.

Oh, and don't forget the Keating Five [S&L].

Anyway, it beats me as to what people see in this old fossil except to carry out the will of the NWO.

quote:

I am having hard time seeing Hillary becoming the next president.

As much baggage as Hillary has it seem like the rethuglicans get a free ride. On the plus side, what is so good about McCain? I see him as just another Bush toadie and a Bush Bootlicker considering how Bush smeared him in 2000.

Something else: His ole man wasn't worth a **** either in covering up the USS Liberty scandal.

Conservatives aren't happy about McCain. He's on the wrong side of too many issues.

quote:

Conservatives aren't happy about McCain. He's on the wrong side of too many issues.

Maybe, but would they be happier with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards in the WH?

No, they'd be happy with Thompson or Romney. Personally, I like Rudy but I don't know if his campaign strategy will be effective enough for him to be nominated.

For me, Rudy has the right combination of administrative skill and toughness combined with some personal flaws that both enable him to do the job and understand the real world on a personal level.

Hillary is who the republicans want to get the nomination, then ads coming showing that the reason she got it was 'cause she cried, she's the most beatable. Huckabee for their side must be a better man than I thought..I mean if rush and the dittoheads are agin' him, he must have a shred of decency. Rudy does have the 'right stuff'...he lies more than the rest, is friends with and hires criminals, and can waste your tax dollars like nobody's business, NYPD are supposed to walk your mistress's dog, and clean up their mess.

Question: Rudy, what's your middle name?
Answer: 911.
Question: What's your birthday?
Answer: 911.
Question: Rudy, what's your claim to fame?
Answer: 911.

So, what is the truth about Rudy's claim to fame?

Huckabee is a liberal democrat who says he likes the Fair Tax and wants everyone to go to church.

I'm with him on the Fair Tax and that's about it. Democrats want him to run because he's unelectable.

quote:

No, they'd be happy with Thompson or Romney.

But will they vote for the lesser of two evils if McCain is the nominee?

quote:

if rush and the dittoheads are agin' him, he must have a shred of decency.

.......and taking this logic a step further,
you might be wise to vote for candidates who DON'T have the NWO approval. Look at the ones who they are ignoring and marginalizing. The NWO control both sides -period! It has its favorites and the things is rigged so that they'll win regardless.

Here's an example of just how rigged it is. A few days ago CBS news was giving their account of the Republican primaries discussing the top candidates. They ignored Ron Paul even though he came in second and some news accounts were claiming McCain got second.

Dennis Kucinich was banned from the debate.

quote:

Huckabee is a liberal democrat

...

That's a good one! The word liberal has really taken on a new meaning. I'm confused. How do you classify Rudy Guiliani?

Guiliani is fairly liberal socially. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with that because it's doesn't matter what he thinks as long as a Justice doesn't die. Naturally, I prefer a judicial nominee who is an originalist who strictly interprets the constitution. Guiliani said he would nominate one like that.

Beyond that, he's a good administrator who did a good job fiscally and with managing crime in New York City. He's had the second toughest job in the country. He'd be fine with the first.

quote:

But will they vote for the lesser of two evils if McCain is the nominee?

Personally, I would have to think long and hard about McCain. I hope he doesn't get nominated. I don't think I could vote for him. I'll hold judgement until I see who's running. I will never vote for a ticket that includes Clinton or Edwards under any circumstance.

quote:

Personally, I would have to think long and hard about McCain. I hope he doesn't get nominated. I don't think I could vote for him. I'll hold judgement until I see who's running. I will never vote for a ticket that includes Clinton or Edwards under any circumstance.

Sawdust, you sure know how to pick'em! As long as you've been on this board one would think a little bit of progressivism would have rubbed off on you. Lots and lots of information have been exchanged on this board and whether you believe that information or not you still have the opportunity to research it.

One thing that puzzles me, I don't understand people like you who seem to be hellbent on voting for another Republican considering all the damage they've done to this nation. I don't understand why you still haven't figured out that it's all a game - rigged. Republican or Democrat, the powers that be own both sides, especially the frontrunners: Hillary, Obama, Rudy, Mitt, McCain....and I've heard they've written Edwards off.

One thing that really disappoint me is that so many people haven't figured out that all the people are controlled by the Monsters behind the curtain.

It sure looks like they have blessed Hillary as the next pResident, but if something goes wrong, I'm sure they have a backup plan. Sometimes things do go wrong - like Rudy isn't polling well, Hillary would have lost in NH without Diebold (that would have screwed things up.), Ron Paul is getting too much attention, and Kucinich keeps bringing up "uncomfortable" issues.

Didn't come here to learn about liberalism. I came to be a voice against it. I think it's a fairly destructive philosophy if you really want to know the truth. Liberalism strives for a stronger Federal government, conservatism strives for a weaker one giving more power to the states, just like the constitution desired. Liberalism favors sameness over exceptionalism. Sameness and equality are different.

That's what I have against McCain and Huckabee. Neither displayed conservative tendencies while in office although Huckabee is socially conservative. Rudy was at least fiscally conservative, Romney is conservative fiscally and socially. Nobody knows how they would be in office.

I'm not religious so I'm more apt to vote for a candidate who sleeps in on Sunday and then watches football and has a beer. That's one thing I like about Rudy. I suspect that's more his style.

I've been having some conversations with my friend Dave from this board and the other. He works for Ron Paul. Paul has no chance but thinking through some of the positions which I though were absolutely crazy are starting to make some sense. While I think he's dead wrong about Iraq, I'm a big fan of a non interventionist foreign policy. When the war is over, I think he could be my guy.

quote:

Didn't come here to learn about liberalism. I came to be a voice against it. I think it's a fairly destructive philosophy if you really want to know the truth. Liberalism strives for a stronger Federal government, conservatism strives for a weaker one giving more power to the states, just like the constitution desired. Liberalism favors sameness over exceptionalism. Sameness and equality are different.

That's what I have against McCain and Huckabee. Neither displayed conservative tendencies while in office although Huckabee is socially conservative. Rudy was at least fiscally conservative, Romney is conservative fiscally and socially. Nobody knows how they would be in office.

You just made my point. The discussions here [and Thom's show] range far beyond "liberalism" - whatever that means. And there have been many discussion here debunking the nonsense about liberalism and conservativism - at least how the words have lost their meaning.

I'm afraid if you're looking for fiscal conservatism you won't find it with a Republican anymore than you will with a democrat. You hear republicans accusing the dems
of tax and spend, but just what the heck do they
do? People need to stop listening at what these people claim to do and LOOK at what they do once elected. Both parties spend like drunken sailors, Dems seem to be more inclined to pay as they go with taxes while Republicans borrow. They are less accountalbe because the effect of borrowing falls on future generations [posterity be damned]. And this my friend, is one the subtle ways wealth get redistrubuted - upward. It's welfare for the rich. You talk about liberalism, I say neither party do anything to correct these inequities. And if someone brings it up or talk about our bulging defense budget that person is immediately labeled a liberal.

Your Alexander Tytler quote got it backwards: It is the wealthy who have bought "themselves largesse from the public treasury". That is why our democracy is failing. That is why we get the candidates we get who once they get elected they offer us sheeple some meaningless legislation like flag burning amendments while they line the pockets of their cronies.

quote:

I'm afraid if you're looking for fiscal conservatism you won't find it with a Republican anymore than you will with a democrat.

Very true unless you consider Ron Paul.

quote:

And this my friend, is one the subtle ways wealth get redistrubuted - upward. It's welfare for the rich. You talk about liberalism, I say neither party do anything to correct these inequities.

There are a number of issues you bring up here. The first is corporate welfare. In general, I'm not in favor of any welfare, unless it's directed to someone who is unable to care for themselves. Those who can work, should. But as for companies, are tax incentives offered to companies to establish themselves in areas of depressed employment considered "corporate welfare" or tax breaks for the wealthy? There are hundreds of examples where government uses it's taxing power to encourage public and private companies to act in a way that benefits local populations. Personally, I'm not certain that this is a bad thing.

Additionally, the bottom half of all tax payers pay three percent of Federal tax revenue. When taxes are cut, how can cutting them on the upper half be avoided? Tax cuts for the rich is a political slogan that is all heat and no fire. Basically bullshit. Class attitudes like that are primarily exhibited by those who have low financial aspirations. There isn't anything wrong with low financial aspirations as long as an individual has aspirations in other areas like family or service. I would say no aspirations is a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:

quote:

I'm afraid if you're looking for fiscal conservatism you won't find it with a Republican anymore than you will with a democrat.

Very true unless you consider Ron Paul.

quote:

And this my friend, is one the subtle ways wealth get redistrubuted - upward. It's welfare for the rich. You talk about liberalism, I say neither party do anything to correct these inequities.

There are a number of issues you bring up here. The first is corporate welfare. In general, I'm not in favor of any welfare, unless it's directed to someone who is unable to care for themselves. Those who can work, should. But as for companies, are tax incentives offered to companies to establish themselves in areas of depressed employment considered "corporate welfare" or tax breaks for the wealthy? There are hundreds of examples where government uses it's taxing power to encourage public and private companies to act in a way that benefits local populations. Personally, I'm not certain that this is a bad thing.

Additionally, the bottom half of all tax payers pay three percent of Federal tax revenue. When taxes are cut, how can cutting them on the upper half be avoided? Tax cuts for the rich is a political slogan that is all heat and no fire. Basically bullshit. Class attitudes like that are primarily exhibited by those who have low financial aspirations. There isn't anything wrong with low financial aspirations as long as an individual has aspirations in other areas like family or service. I would say no aspirations is a problem.

I am not against welfare - corporate or personal, as in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I look at the Preamble as a policy statement, and who ever wrote it had to be flaming liberals by today's standards. I see the government's role as a policy maker, a manager, a referee, etc. This is the one rap I have with Libertarians. This nation was built as a result of government grants and policies which allowed it to achieve what it did. I remember the answer G H W Bush gave to solve the recession in 1992, "Let business do what business to best." That was obviously the wrong answer, because businesses don't act in unison and they sure as hell don't act for the good of the nation. Businesses act to make a buck today and to hell with tomorrow.

Just like a football team it need a coach and a captain to call the plays. And when I hear all the nonsense the government being to big and individuals getting too much help, that is a mere diversion away form what is really going on. Big government is NOT the problem. It is the big corporation who want to control the government. The biggest scam giveaway by the government is letting private banks print money and lend it to us at interest and we can't even audit them.

quote:

..the bottom half of all tax payers pay three percent of Federal tax revenue.

The bottom half is about $40,000 and below. If you say 3%, do they make 3% of the income? Probably not. When you look at the top 1% it gets really obscene and a great deal of this came from government policies favoring the rich. In other words the the government is doing a very poor job of promoting the general welfare. Eg., average CEO pay has gone from 40 times of the average worker to over 400 times since the Carter era.
Of those 6 or seven things mentioned in the Preamble the government has gone overboard in the area of defense which is just another way of transferring money upwards.

quote:

When taxes are cut, how can cutting them on the upper half be avoided?

Paying 3% of the overall taxes is not the same as their tax rate. I don't know what their average tax rate is but I'm sure they pay Social Security, sales and property taxes as well. To all those people who like Mike Huckabee's idea of a Use Tax - That's worse than what we already got.