Noone wants to truly admit how big an impact illegal immigration has on our economy. A Dem certainly is not going to admit and bring to light what a detriment illegals are. I want a candidate to buck up and talk numbers; how much in just free health care, affect on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure from 20+ million illegals, crime, the list goes on and on. By no means should an illegals offspring be an automatic citizen when born in the US! That is a load of crap. We already paid for them to have the baby here, now were expected to support them after the birth as well. When will Americans wake up and figure out illegal immigration is DESTROYING our country?

 

I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Gonna vote for the cat that sang this song

 

Finally, somebody gets it... Nice reply Tim.

If you're always left, or always right, you're probably always wrong. You gotta be able to look at both sides.

I never said I liked Alan Keyes, I said I know [of] Alan Keyes, and I'd don'e a paper on him.

No: A bigot is one who believes his or her race or culture to be superior to anothers. It's one who exercises hatred or an atttitude of intolerance toward another race, religion, or gender.

Show me where I've done that.

However, anyone who based or changed their voting decision on that, would be a bigot...

Wow... You accuse me of bigotry and stereotyping, and in the same thread, you do both.
So, all those people showing uo to the rallies are looking for a handout? Surely you jest...
So, what are the people showing up to McCain and the other republican's rallies looking for? What will they receive?

Exactly... Aside from some campaign buttons, and pictures- 99.99% will walk away and live their lives with not so much as a handshake.

Man, I am so sick about hearing certain people aren't "qualified" to be President... What the Hell are you guys talking about? What are the prequisites of the Presidency any of the candidates are missing?

How is Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, or McCain any less qualified than Bush?

Well, like I said- I'm still undecided, which is why I didn't early vote today. Once the mudslinging, and word twisting is over- as the months pass, and I hear what these candidates have to say- I'll make a decision. However, the one I pick will be the one I think is the best candidate... Not solely based upon the one from my party.

 

Whoever the Republican nominee is. Looks like it's gonna be John McCain.

 

x2

I gave up listening to politics a long time ago...

I just vote for whoever I hear that people want the most...

 

I never said it was a sole reason for voting for her, just a consideration. Nevertheless, how can a consideration be worse than someone blindly casting a vote without even listening to what the person stands for, or giving the other candidates any consideration?

On a side note:

America gave Bush four more years in 2004, looking right in the face of how poorly he managed the country from Jan. 2001 - Nov. 2004. Isn't doing the same thing over, and expecting a different result, a key component of insanity?

As for mis-steps, we need look no further than Iraq, and the 3,000 plus dead US servicemembers (and, who knows how many dead non-military/insurgent Iraqi's). We've been in Iraq damn near 5 years, with no end in sight. Now, we've got to fix it, and it won't be overnight. Sixty years after WWII, 19 years after the Berlin wall collapsed, and 17 years after Communism (in Russia) and the Cold War ended, we're still in Europe. Hindsight is always 20/20, but we now see invading Iraq was a poor decision. Today, 7 years after 9/11, we now hear Al Queda (Or however it's spelled) is stronger and more powerful than ever. Why? Because we're focused on the wrong country.

Bush all but dismissed the efforts of the federal investigators on the recent CIA informant trial. Unqualified people were placed in high positions by Bush. Call me crazy, but why would you put someone with little/no military experience into the role of Secretary of Defense? Do you think they really know/care what it means to put service members in harms way? As a President, can you really count on their advice to help you make military decisions?

Sure, Clinton made mistakes... All of them do. But, most of what people turn their noses up at Bill for, is the same thing 84% of men and women (various polls) have said they've done... And that is to cheat on a spouse. So, either the top 15% of ethical American's are members of this forum, or- we have a lot of hypocrites- who expect more from some, than they do of themselves.

And, no- I haven't cheated either, but just because I haven't, doesn't mean I'm going to look down from some sort of moral high ground, and crucify the man because he got a BJ. That's between him and his wife, and never should have come to public light. It was a waste of taxpayer money to even have hearings on that BS, just as it's a waste where baseball is concerned. Who really gives a crap about another man getting a BJ, or whether baseball players are juicing? Does it have to go to Congress?

Now, even Republicans are saying that (Invading Iraq) was a mistake. Only 24% of American's are happy with the current state of the country (Gallop polls). So, yes- we need change, obviously. All Presidents are (in some ways) influenced by lobbyists and special interests... friends too, in some cases.

So, yes, "Bubba" made mistakes, but "Bobby-Earl" has messed up just as badly.

I mean, honestly- can anyone truthfully say the economy, and America as a whole, was better off from 2000 - 2008, than we were 1992 - 2000?

 

Bighersh,
I could not begin to say it any better than you did. I salute you sir!

 

At least you guys get more choices off the get go. We get 2 parties, Liberal and Conservatives, NDP too, but nobody really votes for them federally. It's a choice between one crooked frenchman or another.

I'd still rather Clinton than Obama. She is not so shady and if she is, hides it better. I think Obama has good ideas sometimes, no way for them to happen. He's more concerned with his political catch phrases and one liners.

McCain would probably get my vote though. I'm getting more interested in US politics as what happens there eventually influences Canada greatly unfortunately for some things. Where's that Ross Perot fella, he meant business.

 

Well said Bighersh..

I'm a registered independent. I'm having a hard time over coming the Hypocrisy of McCain and Clinton.

McCain is a self proclaimed "anti Lobbyist" yet surrounds himself with them (maybe even More with the 30 yr old chick he was hanging with)

Clinton is all over the place.. I don't even know who she is Any more.

I'm still un-decided but I'm leaning towards Obama right now.. (seems the Lesser of all the Evils, Again).

I guess Ralf Nader is going to run again.. Ahhh, I don't Think I'll be voting for him!

Wouldn't it be cool to actually vote for someone you Believe In! Maybe someday.....

 

What? No one is going to vote for this guy?

ABC News-Ralph Nader Flirts with Presidential Bid

 

well you hit that on the head... the idiot is running officially now. Only good thing about him is the far left will vote for him instead of obama. hersh, you are so mistaken about iraq. And no, we don't want to go towards the "middle" We want real conservitism in office. That is the only answer. Ever hear the phrase "you can't please all of the people all of the time......." well sorry... for the good of the country you need to be displeased I guess. You consider obama or mrs clinton worthy... how is it you want your taxes raised? How could anyone want money TAKEN from them? I just don't get it.


http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8V0OR0O0.html

 

The U. S. attacked Iraq because they were part of the "axis of evil." It has been proven that Saddam had no ties with Bin Laden and in fact feared the man. This was stated by (I beleive FBI) that interrogated Saddam and was on 60 minutes. It was an unprovoked attack which is a war crime by definition.
Ralph Nader is not an "idiot."
"a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25."
How does one complete a law degree if he is an idiot?
No I am not a Nader supporter or agree with him much, but I do respect him.
Obviously no one wants their taxes raised, but do you personally spend more money year after year than you make? No, you can't. The same goes for government spending. Check out the graph http://zfacts.com/p/318.html.
Government waste needs to be eliminated or at least reduced. If non profit organizations are not truly non profit, they need to pay taxes. U. S. contractors overseas need to be audited and the sweetheart deals need to be stopped! Our elected officials need to be accountable and credible. They lack integrity. Government is supposed to be for the people, by the people. We are far from that. IMO.
I'm done rambling for now.

 

Well, I'm probably more conservative than I am liberal, but I don't think being 100% conservative all the time is the right answer. When it comes to taking care of people, I'm liberal. When it comes to pork barrell spending, and special interests, I'm conservative.

I'm mistaken about Iraq?

In what way?
There's a documentary on Showtime called Semper Fi. listen to what a Marine had to say about the war.

We've got ground pounders and elected officials saying the war was a mistake. For the first time in US History, we started a war- but I'm wrong for saying it was a mistake?

Well, maybe I am. I'll admit it's possible I can be wrong. After all, I was wrong in 2003 when I supported and debated in favor of Bush's decision to go into Iraq, on this very board. I was just as worried about America being attacked again as anyone else. Bush made a very convincing argument that night in early 2003 on TV, and I bought it- giving Bush, the CIA, MI6, and everyone else the benefit of the doubt. After all, we've got great intelligence agencies, and- we wouldn't be doing it, if it weren't justified? Right?

Years later we find they had no credible evidence, intelligence was not clear, and we ignored any report that said Saddam wasn't building WMD's. To move on news and research you want, while ignoring the research and results which does not support your arguement, sounds like an "personal agenda" to me. To present less than all the facts to America, is the definition of misleading.

After five years of searching, we have found no uranium, no plutonium, no nerve agent, no blood agent... nothing.

I was misled- perhaps blatantly lied to- and I agreed with the misleading/non-existant facts. Now that I know I was misled, I'm not happy about it. As an American, you shouldn't be happy about it either. Sure, Iraq probably didn't like us, maybe they'd like to have hurt us, but you don't go around socking everyone in the mouth that doesn't like you. Unless they hit you first.

But, we're there now. The s**t is on our boots now, and we can't leave until we clean it off. Or, at least get enough of it off, so that we don't track it back into our homes.

 

I remember that. I had you on 'ignore' for two months.

Shouldn't Iraq be put on notice that they have one more year to get their act together?
I'm voting for the candidate who saw it the way I saw it in '03.
I can't pull the lever for the '100 year presence' guy.

Not that it matters.
This election is a 'slam dunk'.

 

OK, you ignored me the one time I agreed with the masses!
Come on Raoul, I thought we were cooler than that?!

Well, it was reluctant agreement, but yes- I did agree... Reluctantly.

yeah, it might take that- but Iraq will fall into Civil War, and recover. That's the only way for Iraq to be a self-governing state again.