Condi vs. Hillary 2008

Pendall, the educator of city and regional planning at Cornell, A respected university, quoted in the link leans more towarRAB ~ "It's much more than taxes," Pendall said. "There are issues with labor market, infrastructure issues and a diffusion of resources, people and educational institutions" across a wide, remote area.~

Those places attracting population growth are a combination of retirees (wait until the baby boom retirement cranks up, if it can), vacationers, workers to service that industry and realtively mild climates. We're in consumer, service economic mode and that trend will continue.

We business people always go for lower taxes. It makes margin requirements easier to accomplish. Our problem, not just that of NY or other states, is that we've lost our industrial manufacturing base to global competition. Even the service industry will eventually find it difficult to achieve acceptable operating margins as our personal/public debt mounts due to our personal and public lifestyles.
 
It might be possible for a third party candidate in this country to get ellected. If the third person is a celebrity of some kind. [Arnold Swartsanager (I don't know how to spell it and quite possibly the spell check wouldn't know either) could have had a chance to win in California back in '03 no matter what party he was with simply because of the fact that he was a big name. Oh, and, no pun intended.] Infact, while you're thinking about it, check out the Celebrity President thread in the Fun debates. Now, if you're looking for a woman president, I would offer up Pat Benatar as a third candidate.
"Knock me down, it's all in vein. I get right back on my feet again."
-"Hit Me With Your Best Shot"

Of course, I am a Rock'N'Roll person. It doesn't have to be a singer, it could be an actress who is chosen.
But my point is that a third party may have a chance in this country if the person is already a celebrity.
 
Well then I guess it's up to us to forego the "two cars in the driveway" lifestyle. and not to live beyond our means, hey, shouldn't the Federal Government do the same? Not to go beyond the Constitutional mandates?
 
His brand of Wahabbi Islam that defines other Muslim sect as infidels. Alquaeda's stated goal is to spread their exttremist brand of Islamic law by the bomb, if necessary. Bin Ladin is not a "freedom fighter," or other such nonsense. He is a terrorist, plain and simple. And we have no business appeasing terrorists.
 
A utopia compared to what we have now. Growing government, record deficits, diminishing rights, invading a country that posed no threat and spending over 2000 lives and $billions for the blunder, a negative savings rate, our world image tarnished, massive debt levels throughout the economy, a falling dollar and a divided population. This all in just five years. Makes one wonder about the remaining three.
Dono
 
I don't want to live in a world with either group and if the courts will so much the better.






Are we living on the same planet.
Excuse me but Gore did win the popular vote so so much for the conservative theroy of majority rule since Bush became the president over the will of the majority of the nations voters. OOPPS I forgot conservates only believe in majority rule if it favors their position. :xbanghead:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/

Candidates Votes Vote % States Won EV
Gore
50,996,116 48 % 21 266
Bush
50,456,169 48 % 30 271
Other
3,874,040 4 % 0 0
 
America consider him a freedom fighter during the Soviet/Afghan War, but the Soviets considered him a Terrorist. In that case then America did support and aid a Terrorist.

Now we can debate whether that was a correct action, but it doesn
 
I've lived in Northern and Southern CA, including in San Francisco (IMO the best US city after NYC) on two different occasions. I last resided in CA in 1986 and have no plans to ever return. At one time it was a great state, offering far more opportunity than any of the many others I've lived in. Those days are long gone, primarily due to the enormous population growth and subsequent legislation. Believe me, explore other areas and you won't miss it.

For quality of life and people, I'd pick New Zealand over Australia. But again, it's been 20-years since I spent time in those places and time does present change. I always enjoyed England (was long ago married to an English lady), but after five years in Hawaii decided islanRAB weren't my calling.
 
Let's see, over 2 million jobs added this past year, not one terror attack on US soil since 9/11, and finally a potential SCOTUS that will interpret the law, rather than make law from the bench.
 
Low wage service industry jobs. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2004-06-29-jobs_x.htm
Then again conservates like this as they see the rich are entitled to get richer and the poor are only scum to to serve the rich and do not deserve a decent standard of living.


This one I am suprised at and view as only luck. As shown with several hurricanes this last year government responce is not what it used to be.


And this is a bad thing? I do not trust my elected representative. Fred Upton
http://www.house.gov/upton/contact.htm
He does not represent my intrests and has worked against me and my family in congress. This is the problem with representitive democracy. I do support michigans two senators.
As for my state representatives Cameron Brown http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/senator/brown/ And Rick Shaffer http://www.gophouse.com/Members/SHAFFER/Bio/shafferBbio.htm
I do not trust either one of these men since they do not have my and my families intrests at heart. They do not represent me. So since My representative to congress and the legislature do not represent me and have work in contrary to my families intrest my only recorse is to turn to the courts to protect me.
 
I've been all over the world, and the US, and I still have yet to find a place thats better to live in as a whole than California. sure, some places may do better than Cali in certain areas, but when taking in the whole picture, IMHO, CA is beyond compare.

As for Australia over New Zealand, I'd have to go with Australia for several reasons, the biggest being that I have dual citizenship with Australia, as a benefit of being born to an Australian mother (though she is a US citizen now). Also, most of my family lives there (the rest in England, my imeadiate family is the only part in the US), and I'm much more acquainted with Australia than New Zealand.
 
Yes, but Teddy was enormously popular which enabled him to do that. No one is turned on by any of today's offerings. The only newcomer to either party that shows any promise is Barick Osama, the Democrat from Illinois, but he is still learning and might sour in that basket of bad apples that is Congress.
Dono
 
The problem with this is that there is no checks or balances, nor is there accountability with the voting public. In other worRAB, your plan for a judicial dictatorship would create a country akin to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia:"Either comply with the doctrine of the "party" or you will die. It seems to me there is hypocrisy here when you scream for your rights and "freedoms," but from the posts I've seen, you don't want that at all. You want a judicial dictatorship.



OK, so my figures were off. However, the ELECTORAL votes are what elect Presidents, not the popular vote.
 
Over the exploitation of people - you betcha. Anyways - there is always that middle ground I know exists that the big wigs never see as option... no new Mercedes this year.

Granted - I am not talking about small businesses here - but most of us don't work for those.




They work for me. I am the one in charge. I want due process and I do not want them snooping in on me without it.

I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for the Patriot Act and the administration's snooping. Zero zip nada.

I had an abusive ex. None of the abuse, none of the threats were as bad as the cage, the control. I would take danger over totalitarianism any day. If it takes too long to get a damned warrant - speed up the process, but leave my rights be.

How dare that man claim to be protecting us by compromising all that we are? They day the Patriot Act become law was a bigger win for the terrorists than 9/11. Those deaths were tragic. But for the last two hundred years from the founding fathers to MLK, tens of thousanRAB of our ancestors have stood on the edge of real danger and sweated, bloodied themselves and even died so we could be free. And then one little frat boy takes a #### on all of it out fear - of a bunch of cowarRAB skulking in the shadows. No president, no administration in US history has disgusted me this thoroghly.
 
What about all the anthrax that continued to show up in the garbage, mail boxes, and at a T.V. studio? That continued almost through November 2001. Wasn't that in association with terrorist?
Anthrax is a deadly chemichal so there fore, sending out Anthrax would be an attack.
 
So, let's see, you'd rather our cities are destroyed and our population decimated, eh? Well guess what. If it does happen, the US Constitution gets thrown out the window in favor of US Martial Law. First order of business, Law and Order.
 
Back
Top