In article ,
George wrote:

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.

Oh, but I agree. McCain; however, is a bit too far to the right on some
very important issues than Obama and Clinton. Clinton or Obama will win
just on health care alone. More and more people are getting scared that
they will be cut off from employer-provided medical insurance. Even
those with good employer-provided medical insurance are finding their
co-pays going up and/or their employers requiring increased
contributions from employees.

Its the economy stupid and McCain loses big time in that area.

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.


Oh, but I agree. McCain; however, is a bit too far to the right on some
very important issues than Obama and Clinton. Clinton or Obama will win
just on health care alone. More and more people are getting scared that
they will be cut off from employer-provided medical insurance. Even
those with good employer-provided medical insurance are finding their
co-pays going up and/or their employers requiring increased
contributions from employees.

Its the economy stupid and McCain loses big time in that area.

I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the actions
of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he impressed
me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last round of
primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the religious
right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside but
I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or without
the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.

Yes, I know that excludes just about all politicians.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:13:09 -0800, Paul Knudsen
wrote:

After seven years of the Bush, Jesus Christ himself couldn't win on
the republican line.

Most probably because He wouldn't run as one.

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:13:44 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

nick hull wrote:
In article ,
"Bob" wrote:

election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.
Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(

Even if Hillary 'Lady Macbeth' Clinton WAS qualified, I wouldn't vote
for her. 2 families have held the White House for 20 years- time for
somebody else. It isn't supposed to be an inherited office, by blood or
marriage.

(BTW- I have NO trouble with a woman for POTUS- just not THAT woman.)

aem sends...


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"sherwindu" wrote in message
...




John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.People of good intent my not want him to be president,
based on political views, but that does not detract from his
lifetime of dedication to his heritage and nation.

cheers

I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

I agree most heartedly. McCain is running on the Republican
ticket, but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party
dictates, as are
the other candidates. He has a track record to prove his
independence. Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing the area is
one of the worst things
we can do. Until we can free ourselves from the dependency on oil
(and that will not happen overnight), we need to keep that region
safe from certain factions who are trying to unstablize the
Western world. It
is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the
scale of 9/11, but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the
revenue it brings
in,
they will have the capability to do lots more damage. We are still
seeing
terror attacks in Europe and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not
gone. True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things
in perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day),
than we have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily
names of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications
and concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of
every single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in
business,
but does little to support our troops.

History will write the final page in all this.

Unlikely. 'history' is still disputing what the romans got up to.

It is far past sad and into pathetic when we have the list of candidates
we have, their pasts, and their current Three Stooges behavior.

Romney is the ONLY choice in my book. The others are moral whores.

Romney is a fool.


YOU say it, therefore, it must be true.

All hail Rod!

PaPaPeng wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:13:44 GMT, aemeijers wrote:


nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"Bob" wrote:


election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.

Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(

Even if Hillary 'Lady Macbeth' Clinton WAS qualified, I wouldn't vote
for her. 2 families have held the White House for 20 years- time for
somebody else. It isn't supposed to be an inherited office, by blood or
marriage.

(BTW- I have NO trouble with a woman for POTUS- just not THAT woman.)

aem sends...



I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

"none of the above" has never appeared on any ballot I've seen.

Unfortunately, I would be more likely to go to the polls in order to
vote *AGAINST* some candidate that scares/frightens/****es me off than
to actually vote *for* someone. I haven't seen a serious candidate for
POTUS yet since I was old enough to vote that I actually wanted to vote
for. (George W. Bush vs. John Kerry? Feh! Can I vote for the flaming
bag of dog crap instead?)

I have seen Bush ruin some good men's political careers, however -
although Colin Powell had already said he wasn't interested in the office.

Unfortunately, the Republican party still seems to be controlled by the
religious right and neocons, so good luck finding a reasonable
candidate. The current crop should be ample evidence of the kind of
idiot that most Republicans seem to think fit for office.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

Roughly runs just over 50% in presidential elections. It also isn't
all that unusual for a president to get elected with only a plurality.
Clinton did not get 50% of the vote either time he won, Nixon didn't in
'68 and JFK did not get it 60. Carter and Reagan 1 made it to 50% by
less than .75%.
Yet pretty much every president since Washington has talked about
their mandate (g).

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:

I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

I completely agree; however, nothing in the United States Constitution
requires that our president win by a mandate. We do not even select our
president by popular vote (despite what you may think). Our president is
selected by what is known as the Electoral College. Feel free to google
for it. The Electoral College takes its queues indirectly by the votes
we cast on election day, but it is entirely possible for someone to win
the presidency without getting a majority of the popular vote. This is
what happened with our current president's first term.

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.


Oh, but I agree. McCain; however, is a bit too far to the right on some
very important issues than Obama and Clinton. Clinton or Obama will win
just on health care alone. More and more people are getting scared that
they will be cut off from employer-provided medical insurance. Even
those with good employer-provided medical insurance are finding their
co-pays going up and/or their employers requiring increased
contributions from employees.

Its the economy stupid and McCain loses big time in that area.

I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the actions
of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he impressed
me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last round of
primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the religious
right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside but
I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or without
the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.

Yes, I know that excludes just about all politicians.

I think you have a lot of company in your attitude. I also think the far
religious right isn't as powerful within the Democratic party as they
were when Bush ran for office four years ago. If they are still such a
strong force, Huckabee would be doing a lot better in the primaries.

McCain is a bad taste in the mouths of the religious right, but he's
also too far right for most Democrats, so he won't get too many liberal
votes this November. On the other hand, the Democratic candidate is
likely to appeal to a lot more voters and have ****ed off far fewer
people than the Republicans, so although I have no idea who the
Democratic nominee will be, I feel virtually certain that whomever it is
will be our next president. We will break history in November by
electing either our first black president or our first female president,
and that fact alone will spur more people to vote, and more to vote D.

PaPaPeng wrote:


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

I'm sure you've heard of "Self-fulfilling prophecy:" If everyone thinks a
stock will go up, it does.

Anyway, you've just put forth one of the few examples of "Self-DEFEATING
prophecies."

The mantra of "Your vote is important" is self-defeating. The more people
that vote, the less important any individual vote becomes and the election
itself becomes sort of a random choice.

When everyone believes "your vote is a duty," then the act of voting becomes
more important than the merits of the candidates.

No, best leave the actual voting up to those who've studied the candidates,
poured over the issues, and made sound, logical, and intelligent decisions.

Nate Nagel wrote:



Unfortunately, the Republican party still seems to be controlled by
the religious right and neocons, so good luck finding a reasonable
candidate. The current crop should be ample evidence of the kind of
idiot that most Republicans seem to think fit for office.


You may be correct, but the religious right candidate would seem superior to
the athiest wrong. As to the current crop, I agree with you. My first choice
(me) isn't on any ballot. Still, I have hope for #2.

If the GOP convention degenerates into a morass, a white knight may emerge,
behind which all can rally. I'm rooting for JEB Bush. After eight years of
JEB, then we can have eight years of that good-looking Bush nephew.

By then the dynasty will be firmly established and it's only a small step to
a monarchy, which is what all us Republicans secretely wish for.

Psst! Keep that just between you and me.

Nate Nagel wrote:


I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the
actions of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he
impressed me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last
round of primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the
religious right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside
but I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or
without the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.


So you want another Bush? Me too.

Ah, but all your concerns pale into insignificance compared to security.
Look what recent presidents have done when faced with aggression:

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter(D) cancelled the Olympics.
When Muslims did some nasties, Clinton(D) bombed an aspirin factory.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush 1(R) bombed 'em back to the stone age.
When Iraq just sat there, doing nothing, Bush 2(R), invaded, secured their
leader, killed his children, evicted him from his home, exiled his family,
confiscated his funds, and, eventually, had him hanged.

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it that is
not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to the four
corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of terrorists
destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints in the snow, while
the lamentations of the widows and the cries of the children mix with the
foul north winds?

Well, aside from me, there's probably only one of the four national
candidates.

Tony Hwang wrote:


Tree hugger!

Technology can provide us with all the clean air and clean water
we'll ever need. You'll be able to buy it by the bottle almost
anywhere.
Hmm,
Technology needs clean air and water to begin with. Are you gonna feed
plants, fish, birds, animals bottled water?
If majority is thinking like you, mankind is doomed. It's matter of
time. Good thing you did not say, "God will take care of everyting"

With enough coal-fired power plants, we can distill unlimited amounts of
water and generate Oxygen by electrolysis.

I don't see a problem.

Rod Speed wrote:

Romney is the ONLY choice in my book. The others are moral whores.

Romney is a fool.

Dr. Lawrence J. Peter (discoverer of "The Peter Principle") once said: "I
have been studying politics all my life and have yet to discover whether we
are being led by well-meaning fools or by really intelligent people who are
just putting us on."

I think both Romney and McCain are well-meaning fools, there's not an ounce
of guile between them: what you see is what you get. Meanwhile O'bama* and
Clinton are intelligent people who are trying to jerk us around.

---
*I think the addition of an apostrophe to his name will make him seem more
Irish, thereby appealing to the Catholic vote.

In article ,
PaPaPeng wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:13:44 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

nick hull wrote:
In article ,
"Bob" wrote:

election or vote third party. I know know who will win the
Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our
next
president.
Personally, I couldn't agree more - As a Republican who first voted
for Ike in 1956, I will not vote for McCain. Won't vote Libertarian
because of their stance on Iraq. Will probably skip voting for a
prez for the first time in my life.
Bob-tx

I really hate to say this, but a Democrat (even Hillary!) might be
better than McCain for the 2nd amendment. The NRA will fight a
democratic president tooth and nail, but would compromise our rights
away with a republican ;(

Even if Hillary 'Lady Macbeth' Clinton WAS qualified, I wouldn't vote
for her. 2 families have held the White House for 20 years- time for
somebody else. It isn't supposed to be an inherited office, by blood or
marriage.

(BTW- I have NO trouble with a woman for POTUS- just not THAT woman.)

aem sends...


I am not American so we live with whomever you elect as President.
But please do consider the message you are sending to Americans and to
the rest of the world by not voting. If the American President takes
office on a minority popular vote, of say 30 percent turnout of
eligible voters, then he or she does not have a mandate to do
anything. No mandate to change the direction America is on. No
credibility on the world stage that he or she has the support of the
people.

To vote is a very important civic duty.

Paraphrasing Jim Hightower, "If God wanted us to vote, she would have
given us candidates.", CANDIDATES, not PACs and corporate bribes. As
long as the corporations control the campaign money and the media in the
US, there will be no elections based on merit. Obama has been in
politics the shortest time, so he probably has less mud on him but he
supports ethanol from corn (uses almost as much oil to produce as it
replaces and, reduces food supplies) and his wife makes $316,000 a year
as director of the University of Chicago Hospitals public outreach
program ($316,000 ? What's up with that?).

Not to take away from Ron Paul but Americans, basically, now have four
choices now for president. Our duty is to pick the "least bad" of these
four choices. The long and the short of it is that the corporation buy
the election and then they own the winner. Voting is just a formality.

As Will Rodgers used to say,"Politics is like baseball. It is very
complicated to understand but you have to remember, it doesn't mean
anything."
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush