what are we going to do ? i'm a bit concerned about how we'll carry on the legacy of GW after he's gone. and we have to find a way to win in the next election . . . there aren't candidates i'm really excited about at the moment. i'm favoring McCain though.

4/21/2007 8:43:01 PM

i hate bush cause he single handedly fucked the party....well with help from others who lost their conservative roots

4/21/2007 8:51:59 PM

I think Thompson might be our best chance. I really like tancredo, just bc he bucks the PC talk about the border. Yeah, I think the presidency is the democrats to lose. I think if they keep hounding socialized medicine, raising taxes, etc, they might end up shooting themselves in the foot though. Who knows, long time till the election, but the dems def. have more "star power".

4/21/2007 8:53:31 PM

i'm hoping they got a star hidden some where. how's Quayle doing? we have to win this election. the Nation depends on it.

4/21/2007 8:56:29 PM

^^democrats aren't talking about raising taxes and 60% of americans support socialized medicine.

4/21/2007 9:07:58 PM

Lock/suspend/et cetera.

4/21/2007 9:35:54 PM

Romney

4/21/2007 10:15:20 PM

Romney isn't going to make it. When your party's base partially consists of evangelical Christians, you're not going to vote a Mormon into power, even if his religion agrees with most of your social stances.

4/21/2007 10:50:15 PM

Are mormons actually xtians?

4/21/2007 11:21:12 PM

Not really, although they claim to be. There's some threads around here where people have debated it. I think most outsiders agree that some of their beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with what is considered to be mainstream Christianity.

It is also worth noting that, even when compared to the wide spectrum of Judeo-Christian beliefs, it's basically batshit insane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity

[Edited on April 21, 2007 at 11:26 PM. Reason : ']

4/21/2007 11:23:57 PM

I'll overlook his religion if he's solid on the rest. At least he can speak well. He's the only one that has signs up in South Carolina, that I've seen.

[Edited on April 21, 2007 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/21/2007 11:32:43 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: I think Thompson might be our best chance. "

Hunter or Tommy?

4/21/2007 11:43:25 PM

It sucks being economically conservative and socially liberal

4/21/2007 11:44:55 PM

^im with you on that one. However, Id like to see people take some responsiblity, instead of point to others to provide everything they need.

Nuts, Dems arent talking of raising taxes? WTF? Its what they love the most. Its like saying an alcoholic doesnt like alcohol, they cant help themselves. Hell there was an article TODAY discussing how they were going to raise taxes. From the NYtimes:

"WASHINGTON, April 20 — Grappling with one of the biggest domestic policy choices that will confront the next administration, the leading Democratic presidential candidates say they would raise a variety of taxes on affluent people but extend President Bush’s tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families."

Here is my favorite, and the MAIN reason Im not a democrap:
"Democrats say the shift they are advocating would bring more fairness to the tax system and help pay for needed expansions of social programs while helping to keep the budget deficit under control."

LOL, yeah nothing is more fair than taxing workers more to expand social programs. LOL

"Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards, said through aides that they were backing variants of the same approach, which would result in higher taxes on income, capital gains and stock dividends for upper-income people."

Your true to your name Nuts, dems arent talking about raising taxes. And the media isnt talking about VT or Iraq either. LOL

And if its 60% for it, then I assume 80% of that have no idea what they are talking about, but love the sound of a "FREE" anything.

Oh, and the source of those quotes is from that ultra conservative rag the NYtimes. Ok nuts, let debate something else, like Rose never bet on baseball, or bonds never juiced. too funny

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 12:04 AM. Reason : .]

4/21/2007 11:50:55 PM

Quote :

"It sucks being economically conservative and socially liberal anything other than a neocon"

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 9:37 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2007 9:36:55 AM

^^ you didn't even read what you quoted

4/22/2007 9:57:57 AM

Quote :

"carry on the legacy of GW after he's gone"

hahahahahah

4/22/2007 10:14:18 AM

tommy thompson is a fucking joke, are you fucking kidding me?

4/22/2007 10:52:11 AM

I read it stowaway, what is the problem?

Fred Thompson is the republicans best chance in my opinion. I also like rudy, but he wont carry the very religious right very well...sadly.

4/22/2007 11:10:00 AM

i don't think Rudy can do it. i mean NYC was one thing, but this is the USA. its apples and oranges. we need a good southern Republican. Trent Lott would be good . . . Jeb Bush would be awesome.

4/22/2007 11:51:25 AM

trent lott?

ok that seals it

Lock/suspend/et cetera.

4/22/2007 11:55:46 AM

eyedrb doesn't read a god damned thing he quotes.

dumbest soap box poster evar

4/22/2007 12:30:08 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, April 20 — Grappling with one of the biggest domestic policy choices that will confront the next administration, the leading Democratic presidential candidates say they would raise a variety of taxes on affluent people but extend President Bush’s tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families."

Quote :

"LOL, yeah nothing is more fair than taxing workers more to expand social programs. LOL"

to you, are the majority of workers in this country considered affluent? sure sounds like it.

4/22/2007 2:29:12 PM

Quote :

"trent lott? ok that seals it Lock/suspend/et cetera."

what do you know about politics? the Republicans are in need of a figure head. Somone the country will support. Honestly, other than McCain I'm not sure who else there is.

the country is depending on a strong Republican candidate. if you have suggestions feel free.

4/22/2007 2:42:22 PM

Tent Lott? Are you fucking kidding me?

and the Republicans lost their best candidate in Lincoln Chaffey

4/22/2007 2:45:41 PM

The Wealthiest One Percent. . .

4/22/2007 2:59:32 PM

just on the basis of getting chicks alone

why would you ever want to be a republican?

I ASK YOU THIS

4/22/2007 3:01:25 PM

This thread is first class trolling at its finest.

4/22/2007 3:02:33 PM

Quote :

"and the Republicans lost their best candidate in Lincoln Chaffey"

Um....

4/22/2007 3:05:43 PM

In terms of uniting America behind a Republican. Chaffey was the only Republican who both democrats and republicans could have gotten behind.

4/22/2007 3:21:40 PM

so what are your thoughts on Jeb.

4/22/2007 3:43:38 PM

absolutely not.

4/22/2007 3:49:27 PM

"i'm favoring McCain though."

I somehow don't think it'll be this old guy. Maybe once when he was younger, and more independent during the last election cycle yeah, but not this time around.

4/22/2007 4:42:10 PM

thats whats make this whole thing so frightening. the republican candidates are disqualifying themselves. they need massive PR and the need a candidate that's going to come from out of nowhere and RULE.

4/22/2007 4:54:40 PM

Quote :

"i'm a bit concerned about how we'll carry on the legacy of GW after he's gone."

What is the legacy of GW?

4/22/2007 5:13:57 PM

Quote :

"I somehow don't think it'll be this old guy. "

Is it me or wasn't McCain too old eight years ago? - Chris Rock

4/22/2007 5:19:31 PM

Quote :

"What is the legacy of GW?"

just a presidency faced with so many obstacles and a public that was unable to accept so many truths. he's the Dallas Cowboys of Presidents. his legacy is going to be in his resilancy.

4/22/2007 5:55:59 PM

Faced with obstacles? He had a Majority Republican congress in both houses, and a sympathetic Supreme Court. The fact that there were no checks and balances for almost 6 years bred the "we can do anything we want without recourse" culture of corruption in the Republican Party. He was so unencumbered by obstacles that he has only vetoed one bill, because everything else has been killed by partisan committee heads.

If anything, his administration will be known for vast incompetence, expansion of government, curtailing of civil liberties, profiteering and cronyism. This administration did not want less government. They wanted less government oversight.

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 6:04 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2007 6:02:45 PM

4/22/2007 6:04:52 PM

trolling? lol

maybe I do (I like to challenge people's assertions)

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2007 6:12:14 PM

Quote :

"just a presidency faced with so many obstacles and a public that was unable to accept so many truths. he's the Dallas Cowboys of Presidents. his legacy is going to be in his resilancy"

actually, I think we have to admit that he had the most tragic event in recent american history laid at his feet. Even if Bush wasn't in office we had this coming, but he seems dead set and determined to defeat an enemy that is much more than one country or government, religious extermism... fascism, whatever you want to call it. Whether his approach worked or not is still up in the air and time will tell us if he was right, wrong, or whatever there may be in the middle.

I'm not a fan of the whole thing anymore either, but I do believe he felt compelled to act, even though none of us can be sure whether we've fucked up completely or not.

our policies today may have some effect 20 years from now (see Iran), in a positive or negative way

either way, I voted for GW... didn't really want to, but I felt he was better than the other options, I don't think he's a great president, but I don't think he's the worst either. I would really like this country to not be so decisive anymore, but I don't think the president can shoulder all of that blame either.

I'm just ready for people on both sides to find some middle ground and stop the bullshit.

4/22/2007 6:30:17 PM

stow, nuts said that dems arent talking about raising taxes, and they are. Its that simple.

4/22/2007 8:42:03 PM

OMG Will Someone think of the rich.

4/22/2007 8:48:53 PM

Democrats raise taxes on everybody. The rich will not feel the pinch, the poor will when prices and services are raised to compensate for the loss of revenue.

Anyhow...Fred Thompson is the only chance the GOP has at the moment. McCain is too old and has a lot of baggage. Romney, although I think he has the best pedigree of any of the candidates, doesn't seem to have that much of an appeal at the moment. Guliani has way too much baggage as well and his stances on social issues is extremely suspect, not to mention his anti-2nd amendment stances.

4/22/2007 8:57:32 PM

Look, they are talking of raising taxes..PERIOD. If you think its OK bc its someone elses money, thats fine. That why you lean liberal. Where does it end? 200k? maybe its will be 100k next? who knows. This is just one idea they are tossing around about raising taxes. Besides, a family making 200k is taxed the same as someone making 100M. That fair? THe point is where do you draw the line? And why punish someone who is working hard and successful to give more of thier money to someone who is less successful, just plain lazy, or continue to make bad decisions? That seem fair?

4/22/2007 9:00:20 PM

nutsmackr doesn't care, just as long as the people that are effected makes more than he does, which I'm guessing isn't much.

4/22/2007 9:02:14 PM

^yeah, thats the feeling I get.

I think Fred is older than mccain, but mccain seems to twist anywhich way he can to conform to the poll of the week. I just cant respect him as a politicain, but he is no doubt a war hero.

4/22/2007 9:11:26 PM

McCain was born in 1936, Thompson in 1942.

But other than that, yeah I agree.

4/22/2007 9:13:36 PM

Quote :

"Democrats raise taxes on everybody. The rich will not feel the pinch, the poor will when prices and services are raised to compensate for the loss of revenue."

Isn't that the Republican's strategy? Recklessly cut taxes and increase spending, then when the Democrats take office and have to raise taxes to prevent the country from financial insolvency and ruin, the Republicans can use this as a campaign platform for reelection!

4/22/2007 9:14:02 PM

Quote :

"just a presidency faced with so many obstacles and a public that was unable to accept so many truths. he's the Dallas Cowboys of Presidents. his legacy is going to be in his resilancy."

Not sure if his legacy is his resiliency.

The truth of being behind the setup that brought Hamas to power in Palestine? The truth of being behind the setup that gave the Muslim Brotherhood some power in Egypt? Those two instances alone gave me the impression that he's a man that stands behind absolutes and does not realize the consequences of those absolutes.

It's easy to look at the Iraqi quagmire and how the Shiite leadership has led to greater Iranian influence in a region where we do not want Iranian influence, but his neoconservative foreign policy everywhere has weakened our ability to carry out our will worldwide. We'll see what comes of that in 10 years or so.

I think for years to come GW's legacy will be:

-The 2000 election and the resulting turmoil, similar to Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876
-became a powerful leader through patriotic pride following September 11th
-the Second Iraq War
-"Mission Accomplished" and the ongoing conflict and unrest
-Republicans and Democrats under his watch became increasingly partisan and started saying "F*** you!" to each other instead of...I don't know, solving problems. That was our country's politics for the last four years pretty much...I love this country.

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 9:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2007 9:19:25 PM