Condi vs. Hillary 2008

Wrong, again. I happen to live here and see firsthand what goes on. Layers upon layers of redundant government, zero to negative job growth (except, of course, if you are a government worker), prohibitive regulations, and a disproportionate ratio of government workers to private. So either cut spending (which I happen to know that libs will never do), or keep raising taxes.
 
I've felt it has been that way since Valley Forge (US Revolution). I preferred that system as I could make money by playing the favorites. But leadership, both political parties, has turned sour from concentrated interested party pressure. During our long reign of prosperity the public lost contact with reality, which allowed political leadership to do as they pleased. IMO they've now become arrogant without the economic ability to pacify a dependent public on a long-term basis. There's no way a service economy will support the current US standard of living.
 
I hope to the goRAB those aren't the canidates we will have in 2008. Both of them are horrible people in my opinion who bow to the slightest whim of their puppet masters, and who don't really care about/pay attention to the real iessues, nor do either of them have an ounce of common sense.

Its time for a viable third party to be created, because lets face it, both democrats and republicans are pretty much the same monster, just wearing a different mask.
 
So when an attack happens one year into Bush 2's presidency it's Clintons fault, and when an attack happens one year into Clintons presidency it's not Bush 1's fault but yet again it's Clintons fault.

There's a term usually associated with views like this one, and it's called hypocrisy.

Oh and BTW, how does Clintons lie about a blowjob relate in any way to terrorist attacks? It doesn't.

You make me laugh though since you're so caught up in this Republican/Democrat, us and them mentality that you fail to realise that both parties are screwing over the American people and have done so for decades. The only difference between the parties is that Democrats are tax and spend and the Republicans are borrow and spend.

Sheeple, they'll never learn...



Oh and as for the original post, well, having to vote between those bitches is IMO akin to having the choice of having my balls either shot off with a 12-gauge or having them torn off by a rabid dog. Both choices are not very appealing and I agree with jitobear, I'd vote for Olive.
 
I know that when you have stifling taxes, business doesn't flourish. The idea is to let the private sector keep the money they've made. Not feed the government pig.
 
So you think that all African-Americans must be left wing Democrats, eh. Read my last two posts in the politics forum in the thread:"Democratic party not the 'party of the people,' sad to say.
 
Don't the majority vote Dems ? I would guess the ones that live in the Inner Cities.

On Topic,

I would guess Rice would win as the Republican party would try to paint her as a baby eating, pinko commie, ultra left anti war Liberal. The worst thing about it the strategy would probably work.

If I could vote in an US election, I would not vote for either of them. Both of them are pro-War and they represent parties that uphold big business over the common worker.
 
From what I have read it would be almost impossible for a Third Party Candidate to get anywhere near the Presidency. The only way is to have more money than the ones that back the Republicrats(my new nickname for the Dems and Reps, since there isn't much difference between them), even then there isn't much of a chance.

So what are you alternatives ? Revolution ?

You would need popular support, I doubt you would get that judging by the apathy of your current population.

I would suggest moving to another Country. I have heard Norway has a good standard of living, the only problem it is bloody cold.
 
Me neither. However, I find gaining that wealth on the backs of workers you are unwilling to pay a living wage to unethical.



That's funny, considering you support the Patriot Act. You really are the last to complain about the government leaning towarRAB facism.

As for the subject of the post. I always said that in the next election I will vote for Popeye the Sailor Man. If it is to be a battle of the women - Olive Oil.
 
I have no comment since I agree completely. I once heard a comment that described it perfectly, "When you vote Republican or Democrat, you select if you get taken for a ride on an elephant or a donkey."
Dono
 
Unfortunately, in this country, we really only have 2 possible choices for president each election. Sure, we will probibly always have Nader's and Perot's and others who we as Americans have the right to vote for. (Any one want to vote for Pedro :p) But they will never be president as long as we have the stupid electrol college. In many states, such as my own state of Kansas, you have to either be Democrat or Republican to vote in a primary. Also, senitors decide who's going to be president. For example, back in 2004, you would either vote for Kerry, or Bush, or Bush (a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush). If it wasn't, then all of the debates would have been between Bush, Kerry, Nader, and the other ones. In some states, Nader was only allowed to be elected on a write in vote. Even still, he wound up with 1% of all the votes put together. I think the last election was
49% Bush
48% Kerry
1% Nader
Oh, by the way, :xkill: close elections.
 
It is a bad thing. The courts are not meant to force laws down the throats of the majority. Not only is it against the constitution, but also against reason.




In case you forgot, the SCOTUS put the nonsense in Florida to a screeching halt because in the final analysis, Bush won both the popular and the electoral votes in 2000. Clinton's foreign policy and his State Department created the atmosphere for the attacks to occur.
 
That being said, here's a question: If you're a business owner and labor costs are killing your profit margin, what do you do? Do you raise the price of your product/service to a point where you aren't competitive?


This society today wants to know anything and everything, every minute detail about the federal government, in spite of national security risks.


LOL!
 
Yeah, I'm well aware of the almost zero chance of another party rising up to challange the current "choice" we have. I'd full advocate (and participate in) a revolution that would make, say California, Oregon and Washington a seperate country, or one that just threw out the current system and replaced it with one that actually worked.

Otherwise, I've pretty much decided that I will move to another country (England or Australia most likely) oce I have the financial means to do so, barring any sort of major shake up in the political system as it stanRAB. The one thing that holRAB me back is the fact that I'd have to leave California, something I dont think most people (who have never lived here) realise as being very difficult and depressing.
 
Horrors! Imagine having prosperity and a budget surplus again.

That's Bush foreign policy, something akin to a square wheel, not something to run on.
I thought Bush/Kerry, the battle of dumb and dumber, was bad, but Hillary and Condi would be a nightmare.
Dono
 
You need to study your history. We (US) got Bin Laden started for our own purposes long before Clinton guided foreign policy. From our self-serving perspective, Bin Laden turned rogue. It was fine if he was killing Russians wanting a pipeline through Afghanistan, but we didn't stop to think he might get caught up in liberating Islamics from oppression and attacking those he considered oppressors.
 
Back
Top