Topic: Hillary vs Bama | |
---|---|
Edited by
cougar68
on
Sun 12/16/07 05:40 PM
|
|
We need a change and Hillary could be it, but Bama has strong points and goals, but dont they all before there elected?
|
|
|
|
seems to me the only reason to run for president anymore is the bribes, kick backs and all the other money they get for not doing anything. i refuse to vote until they have somebody worth half a sh*t
|
|
|
|
Obama should change his middle name. Hillary would be good because Bill was a good president (not the most faithful husband though).
|
|
|
|
put em both on the ticket and we'll win it all:)
|
|
|
|
so bill was good means hillary would be good..... that makes sence.
|
|
|
|
If Hillary wins she'll be the first woman in history that works ABOVE a desk in a Clinton Administration.... and I'll quit my job
|
|
|
|
I'm gonna vote for one reason this time,"For my own Entertainment" I'm voteing for the one person that can bring me more television entertainment the next term,than bush has in his past 2 terms......mmmmmmm who should that be?????
|
|
|
|
ronpaul2008.com
Vote for Ron Paul Ron Paul for the people! |
|
|
|
they should elect the president the same as jury duty, you get the letter in the mail, you serve or go to jail and make 5$ a day.
|
|
|
|
they should elect the president the same as jury duty, you get the letter in the mail, you serve or go to jail and make 5$ a day. I'll go! |
|
|
|
I meant to duty... not jail, no.
|
|
|
|
Dude, Obama won't pledge allegance to the flag and Hillary, lets face it, her ideas are a bit scary. I say we vote for someone a bit more realistic .....like Peter Griffon.....
|
|
|
|
when are yall gonna learn that it dont matter who "you" elect. its a different means to the same end. Until theres someone who isnt a lawyer or a polititian, whats the point?
|
|
|
|
when are yall gonna learn that it dont matter who "you" elect. its a different means to the same end. Until theres someone who isnt a lawyer or a polititian, whats the point? cheers |
|
|
|
Edited by
Totage
on
Sun 12/16/07 06:26 PM
|
|
Actually, the real problem is that we have corporatiosn running the show NOT the government, and certainly NOT us, the people.
We need to take back America, and we need Ron Paul in office to help us. |
|
|
|
Ron Paul ain't got nuthin on Peter though....
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul, the man who wants to cut half of government programs and privatise everything, and that's gonna get corperations control out of government exactly how? Hillary's a no go too, forcing people to buy insurance as a universal plan not to mention claiming a mistake on her vote for Iraq yet turning around and voting yes to go into Iran. Obama, I've got two problems with Obama, one he hasn't finished serving his first term in congress, and two all his claiming of him not voting yes to go into Iran, is true, however he didn't vote no either, he didn't even bother showing up. I'm looking for a REAL change. I'm with Biden first and then Kucinich, after that I'm back with Nader;^]
|
|
|
|
A Democratic President, no matter be it Obama or Clinton, Edwards by a longshot, and it will be one of the two/three if any, will not pull troops out of Iraq and will have to take a proactive stance against Iran. You far-left Dems and liberals should hammer these points home time and time again. They will not completely withdrawal nor ease up on the pressure of Iran, who just received nuclear fuel from Russia for their peaceful nuclear program....oh of course peaceful.
Kucinich wasn't even invited to the last Democratic debate in Iowa. Quite interesting that they didn't allow all candidates to even appear. |
|
|
|
when are yall gonna learn that it dont matter who "you" elect. its a different means to the same end. Until theres someone who isnt a lawyer or a polititian, whats the point? Excellent point, Rambill |
|
|
|
Edited by
knoxman
on
Mon 12/17/07 08:28 AM
|
|
A Democratic President, no matter be it Obama or Clinton, Edwards by a longshot, and it will be one of the two/three if any, will not pull troops out of Iraq and will have to take a proactive stance against Iran. You far-left Dems and liberals should hammer these points home time and time again. They will not completely withdrawal nor ease up on the pressure of Iran, who just received nuclear fuel from Russia for their peaceful nuclear program....oh of course peaceful. Kucinich wasn't even invited to the last Democratic debate in Iowa. Quite interesting that they didn't allow all candidates to even appear. Second point first, StarSailor: That goes both ways. There were some Republican debates where some of the candidates(notably Ron Paul) weren't invited. That sucks on both sides. I agree with your first point. We'll at the very least have a "presence" in Iraq, no matter WHO'S elected president. We still to this day maintain a presence in just about every country we've fought in. ================================================================ What REALLY sucks is that time after time, no matter HOW many candidates there are, the corporate (not liberal as some would have us believe)media only focuses on about three from each side. Hillary, Obama, Edwards for the Dems, Guliani, Huckabee, Romney for the Pubs. Huckabee never got mentioned much until ole Phone-It-In Fred fell (well, nose-dived probably would be a better term)from the corporate media's good graces. Actually dumping Fred for Huckabee is considered a HUGE step up. And of course, third-party candidates are lucky to get ANY mention. As someone who voted third-party in 2000(Harry Browne from the Libertarian Party), I think this is the biggest election tragedy of all. |
|
|