I am calling it right now.

[mike22cha]

I guess you guys aren't seeing it.
The public road system and the public school system is part of our tax dollars going in to provide a free public service.
What kind of idea do you think it is? I'm not saying that our government takes all our money and divides it up like a socialist government, but it's an example of socialism.

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Sorry; Hillary is still a socialist

You can think that. I'm fine with that, if that prevents more people from voting for her than I'm all for it.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
I guess you guys aren't seeing it.
The public road system and the public school system is part of our tax dollars going in to provide a free public service.
What kind of idea do you think it is? I'm not saying that our government takes all our money and divides it up like a socialist government, but it's an example of socialism.
The Constitution allows for both, as I pointed out. That is not socialism.

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The Constitution allows for both, as I pointed out. That is not socialism.
So because a Republic allows a socialistic idea that socialistic idea become a republic idea?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Had Hillary lost NH I might see where you are coming from. But, not now. Edwards doesn't have enough gold in his war chest (or bank account) to compete with her or avoid the long knives sure to come out from her political hit squads.
I praaay you are wrong about McCain, but the media has coronated him so there's certainly going to be a push.

McCain wouldn't be so bad, he would sway a lot of middle the road Democrats. My father in law would even vote for him and he is democratic as they come.
As for Edwards, he hasn't been in his strongest states yet and he beat Hilary in Iowa, wait till the get in the south....mark my words...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
McCain wouldn't be so bad,
McCain/Feingold
Open borders/amnesty
Negotiating for more activist judges
Considers religious leaders "agents of intolerance
wishy/washy on gay marriage ban...
And I'm not really sure what kind of judges he would appoint to the SC. The guy scares me. I'm not convinced he's a Republican at all.
Originally Posted by darthtang aw
he would sway a lot of middle the road Democrats. My father in law would even vote for him and he is democratic as they come.
As for Edwards, he hasn't been in his strongest states yet and he beat Hilary in Iowa, wait till the get in the south....mark my words...
No question, independents (as seen in NH) love him. Unfortunately that is negated by the number of conservatives who feel he's betrayed the party.
I'd love to see Edwards get the nomination. I hope you're right. We would decimate him.

 

[darthtang aw]

Reagan gave us amnesty once as well, many forget that, and the border issue would be closed under McCain, he never oppossed that, he just was looking for a solution for those already here.
I am not concerned about gay marriage personally and personally think it is a waste of tax payer dollars to legislate it. It is a state decision.
The judges, I had not heard about and would like more info on this.
And many religious leaders are intollerant and preach it...Osama Bin laden for example.

 

[1journeyman]

Oh, I remember well what Reagan did. A stain on an otherwise perfect 8 years

I'm not convinced he is willing to close the borders. Let me look more into it.
Unfortunately as States will be required by federal law to accept marriages from other states it becomes a federal issue. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't a deal breaker for me, but I list it to the long list of issues I have with him.
Yup, judges a huge issue.
Unfortunately McCain was talking about the "religious right" in this country who were supporting President Bush in the 2000 primaries. Hardly islamic radicals.
This thread definitely shows how interesting a primary season we have coming up when you and I aren't in full agreement, hehe.

 

[kjr_trig]

Bold picks Darth, especially on the Dem. side...I sure hope it comes true though...McCain is certainly whom I favor, and Edwards would be worlds better than Hillary and Obama, not to mention more easily beaten. Don't think McCain would pick any of the current Pres. candidates as a running mate (especially not Rudy).

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
.
This thread definitely shows how interesting a primary season we have coming up when you and I aren't in full agreement, hehe.

No kidding...lol. But I see compromises in the future. Small ones such as McCain has proposed. Both sides are to far on either side on many issues and McCain does seem to have the ability to throw out other options and ideas to get the train moving again. that is what I like. 4 years of deadlock would not be a good thing. Which is what I believe will occur unless McCain wins the election or at the very least, Guiliani, all the other candidates on both sides are to set...and won't compromise or atleast think outside the box a tad. That is my whole thing.
The way things sit now is unless both sides can compromise on issues and how to do things, we will be still discussing the same topics in the election 32 years from now as nothing will have been done.

 

[b bauer]

past republican now dem but would vote for McCain over any other on either side

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I have been preaching this message to friends and family for 6 months now.
Guiliani is certainly not my favorite person, but at least he's not a socialist. Once we start down the road of choosing socialist candidates who promise the most if we elect them we've doomed our Republic.
I agree with your points, but this country has elected socialist leaning presidents before. I do hope & pray that Hillary freakin' Clinton does not get elected.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
As for Edwards, he hasn't been in his strongest states yet and he beat Hilary in Iowa, wait till the get in the south....mark my words...
I'm in the state that Edwards was born and raised in, and I can tell you that he's not going to win any southern states in the general election. maybe in the primary though. however, there's a larger per capita population of black people in the south than anywhere else in the country, so Obama will likely do very well in the south (in the primary).

 

[itom37]

Edwards doesn't have a shot... is he leading in any state? He's a SC boy and comes in 3rd here by a huge margin, like everywhere else.
If I had to guess...
Giuliani vs. Obama (though the dem nomination is gonna be fun to follow).

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by Pontius
I'm in the state that Edwards was born and raised in, and I can tell you that he's not going to win any southern states in the general election. maybe in the primary though. however, there's a larger per capita population of black people in the south than anywhere else in the country, so Obama will likely do very well in the south (in the primary).
I agree about edwards, but Obama hasn't really carried the black vote like one might think he would. It's funny to look at SC polls before and after he won Iowa... he surged ahead after being way behind. I guess people wanted to make sure the rest of the country was serious about him before they got on the bandwagon. It's not as though he did or said anything particularly spectacular to have swayed people's minds that quickly.

 

[mfp1016]

Romney's politics aren't bad, but unfortunately I've known far too many mormons to hand this country over to one. I'm marred.
As far as I'm willing to accept the only reasonable candidates are:
Romney, Thompson, Guiliani, Hucky, McCain
Barack, Hilary, and barely, but hey why not, Edwards.
That being said, I think it would be wise for us to knock off one or two candidates. I agree with Journeyman, although there are things I do like about McCain, there are many many reasons why I don't like him. And would you people quit with the "he is a veteran" schtick. The last time we elected a candidate solely on military achievement, we wound up with 8 solid years of corruption and scandal, a la Ulysses S. Grant. I'm just saying, it would be wise to read your history books. Being a military man, or veteran has no bearing on a person's ability to be a good president. If you are going to follow that thinking alone, you might as well elect a zombie-Charles Whitman. I'm not writing this to disrespect veterans, but just to urge people to look at more than just that one thing. I digress.
If we at least got rid of Thompson and the Huckster, I think we will fair better election time.
Sadly though, I must admit that I'm getting that gut feeling that there will be at least 4 years of socialist-nimcumpoopery ahead....(writing that sentence made me realize that there aren't enough emoticons to express my fears)

 

[mfp1016]

Oh yeah, back on topic....
best guess....
Guiliani v. Obama

 

[steelgluer]

mickey mouse with donald duck is much better

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
No question, independents (as seen in NH) love him. Unfortunately that is negated by the number of conservatives who feel he's betrayed the party.

i don't like getting involved in political discussions, but just a little reminder:
lieberman lost the primary as democrat and ran as independant and STILL won, so i wouldn't think betraying a party would alienate people as much as you think.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by renogaw
i don't like getting involved in political discussions, but just a little reminder:
lieberman lost the primary as democrat and ran as independant and STILL won, so i wouldn't think betraying a party would alienate people as much as you think.
But he didn't run nationally, and he ran in a very "independently" minded state where he was from and well known.