# Opinions On Who The Next POTUS Will Be



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think Hillary. Wish I was wrong, but she's my odds on favorite atm.

Others?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Hillary will sink. She's got the libs mad at her for the support of the war and if she tries to turn back left the "flip flop brigade" will come out again. 

I say keep an eye on Guiliani. He's been pretty consistent with the positions he has taken and I think the social conservatives may just give him a pass. I'd really like to see Newt do it but I know its a long shot.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Nah, Oprah will endorse Hillary and it will be a done deal. Seriously.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Nah, Oprah will endorse Hillary and it will be a done deal. Seriously.


Nah, Karl Rove has the lesbian issue photo documented 

I hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination, but I'd take her over a Frist or Allen.

McCain is one of the few Republicans that could easily get the PO'd independents on his side...but the GOP really doesn't like him at all. I'd have no issue voting for a moderate Repub, but I'm not holding my breath.

Given the top 10 on each side, I'd pick Biden if I could wave my magic wand. Yes, I know he's a bit slick...but he's got a great wardrobe and on this site it should count for something!

But more seriously, I think Biden is one of the few Dems with the foreign policy experience that can really articulate a better path. He just has to do it in 1/2 as many words.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> But more seriously, I think Biden is one of the few Dems with the foreign policy experience that can really articulate a better path. He just has to do it in 1/2 as many words.
> 
> -spence


He does seem to be quite in love with the sound of his own voice. And yes he's quite a snappy dresser, always with the pocket square. Didn't he get busted in '88 lifting lines from an Irish politician and I seem to have heard something about him getting disciplined in law school for plagarism?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> He does seem to be quite in love with the sound of his own voice. And yes he's quite a snappy dresser, always with the pocket square. Didn't he get busted in '88 lifting lines from an Irish politician and I seem to have heard something about him getting disciplined in law school for plagarism?


Well, I'm guilty of the same "voice love" issue...so I'll give him some slack, although it certainly didn't help endear Kerry with the average Joe last time around.

I did a little reading on the incidents a while back and to the best of my knowledge they were both non issues.

He did give a speech and didn't credit portions to the original author, although on other occations he use the same authors work and did indeed give credit.

The law school incident was investigated and they determined there was no wrongdoing, he just didn't footnote properly.

Obviously the right-wing pundits jump on this stuff because it's easy, and Biden is effective enough to be a serious threat. I'm sure we'll see a Swiftboat style attack, but they had better have some better stuff than this.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

At least he never served on a swiftboat so he's safe there...lol. 

No offense to you as you are a northeasterner but dems from the NE don't seem to do too well through the rest of the country. You need to find another Clinton type, a southern moderate, to have success. Unfortunately the center of gravity has shifted way to the left with MoveOn and company. Even the unions have lost their muscle. Seriously, you guys need to take your party back otherwise you'll be competing with Nader for attention. 

By the way, vote for Chaffee.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Personally, I do not care who gets elected as long as they:

1) Do *NOT* raise my taxes
2) Cut Federal spending
3) Keep the military strong
4) Do not screw up healthcare or Social Security anymore than they are already screwed up
5) Do something about the border (I live 60 miles from Mexico)
6) Fight the _reconquista_
7) Stay tough on terrorism

I think of my seven points, each party is capable of some but neither is capable of all. If I had to pick only a few, I would go with #1, 2, and 3.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Actually, I re-read my points. I have to be truthful, I do not feel like the current crop of Dems would find any of my points as priorities. Vote Repub.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Newt is so far ahead politically. I wish he would run and win. I think the guy is genious or next to it.

Not for Guiliani- to morally liberal.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

WA said:


> Newt is so far ahead politically. I wish he would run and win. I think the guy is genious or next to it.
> 
> Not for Guiliani- to morally liberal.


Yeah, why elect a guy who knows what he is doing, when you can elect some half-wit who sends thousands of our young men out to die for no reason, right? I mean, morally, that was the right thing to do right? That's what Jesus would have done right?

Give me a friggin break.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually, I re-read my points. I have to be truthful, I do not feel like the current crop of Dems would find any of my points as priorities. Vote Repub.


And the current crop of Repubs are meeting your priorities? When I look around I see that the government is spending more than ever and our military is weaker than ever considering the fact that it's over-extended. We didn't even have enough military around to respond to a terrible natural disaster within our own borders.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

odoreater said:


> And the current crop of Repubs are meeting your priorities? When I look around I see that the government is spending more than ever and our military is weaker than ever considering the fact that it's over-extended. We didn't even have enough military around to respond to a terrible natural disaster within our own borders.


Overextended? We have an active force of 1.4 million and if you include reserves (active and ready) we have close to 2.4 million. We have 140K in Iraq right now, that's 10% of our active military. And how do you define "weaker"? Technologically, morale wise, physically, mentally? With regard to responding to natural disasters, that's not what the military does. The military kills the enemy, period. The national guard, once mobilized, responded very well to Katrina (I assume that's what you were referring to) once the organizational messed was straightened out. I will agree with you though that the government is spending way too much money on nonsense right now.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Yeah, why elect a guy who knows what he is doing, when you can elect some half-wit who sends thousands of our young men out to die for no reason, right? I mean, morally, that was the right thing to do right? That's what Jesus would have done right?
> 
> Give me a friggin break.


1st time I voted for Bush he hadn't sent anybody to war.

The 2nd time it didn't matter which one I voted for concerning the war, because we were already in the war. There were other things to vote for.

Morality? How long would it take you to find somebody who measures morality the exact same way you do?

We all categorize morality from most important to lest important. If you took a list of 30 different morals and asked everybody to arrange it to most important to lest it would be an eye opener.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> And the current crop of Repubs are meeting your priorities? When I look around I see that the government is spending more than ever and our military is weaker than ever considering the fact that it's over-extended. We didn't even have enough military around to respond to a terrible natural disaster within our own borders.


They did cut taxes, have not screwed up health care or Social Security more (in fact Bush tried to do something to benefit it) and I have to say I do not see a Gore or Kerry doing better on terrorism.

I did specifically state in my first post I did not think either party could do all, did I not? Meaning of course, I do not expect the Repubs to deliver on all. I just re-read them and realized the Dems were likely to meet any point.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid fellas.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Odor:

while I sip my Kool-Aid (and btw, I don't mind you borrowing one of my common lines there!), please enumerate for me my points that you feel the Dems would be able to meet. Then list the ones you feel the Repubs are unlikely too.

Regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It's too early, really.

I don't envision Newt or Rudy doing very well with the family values folks.

I fully concede that I may be wrong on this, but I don't see Hillary getting the nomination. I don't especially like her, but I'd vote for her.

I have to think it's McCain's to lose. But again, too early to say.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

If Newt can't pull it off I'm hoping Romney can.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> No offense to you as you are a northeasterner but dems from the NE don't seem to do too well through the rest of the country. You need to find another Clinton type, a southern moderate, to have success.


I'm a transplant from Iowa (a rather pragmatic state) so I do see the difference, although I think the NE liberal thing is overblown. Certainly it does hold in many government functions, but the yankee thang is more libertarian than anything else. Down my way we're neck deep in Catholics, although aside from the huge churches you'd never know it.

I've never considered Delaware to be NE, but then again growing up in Iowa I used to think Detroit was near the east coast 



> Unfortunately the center of gravity has shifted way to the left with MoveOn and company. Even the unions have lost their muscle. Seriously, you guys need to take your party back otherwise you'll be competing with Nader for attention.


Gee, thanks for updating my voter registration...

Seriously, do you really think mainstream democrats frequent MoveOn.org? Unless you're 28 and living in St. Paul or Portland there's not that big of an audience.

The fringe left has gotten more of a voice, but so has the extreme right. I'd wager a lot of it is just easier freedom of expression due to the expansion of personal media and the Internet.

The bulk of the Dem party are moderates like most moderate Republicans, and they're pretty sick of what they are seeing on both sides.


> By the way, vote for Chaffee.


I'm torn between voting for the better candidate or helping balance the Senate to be honest. Chafee will most likely win, the GOP has plans to nuke the Dem any day now...unless there's a backlash.

Rather I'd like to vote for the democratic process, which is at this moment broken and in need of healing.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It's too early, really.
> 
> I don't envision Newt or Rudy doing very well with the family values folks.
> 
> ...


crs, I agree it is abit early to be making the call, but I do think Hillary is the most likely. I do not see McCain winning. If you give the US public the choice between two democrats, they will vote for the Democrat every time.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> If you give the US public the choice between two democrats, they will vote for the Democrat every time.


Ha!

If Barry Goldwater ran today he would be branded a pink panty wearing lib by the GOP establishment...

What has happened to the Republican party?

-spence


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 13, 2006)

How about a McCain/Guiliani ticket? One of these days Conservatives and Liberals will figure out that the majority of the country is moderate.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Ha!
> 
> If Barry Goldwater ran today he would be branded a pink panty wearing lib by the GOP establishment...
> 
> ...


Spence, so you are saying McCain is a traditional staunch Republican?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Spence, so you are saying McCain is a traditional staunch Republican?


I think to answer that you'd have to define "traditional staunch Republican".

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> I think to answer that you'd have to define "traditional staunch Republican".
> 
> -spence


Not going to be led down the garden path like I did with the "fringe" elements in the other thread, huh? 

I would say Bob Dole is a good example of a traditional Republican. Others will argue that no doubt, but I think most would agree he's a good example of one.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

crs said:


> ...I don't envision Newt or Rudy doing very well with the family values folks.


I don't think many people really understand these "family values folks" and how they'll vote. These are the same "flag-wavers" who love a hero. Rudy will probably always carry with him a bit of that afterglow from 9-11, for right or wrong.



> I have to think it's McCain's to lose. But again, too early to say.


I don't think so. There are just too many true Republicans who don't like him be cause he ISN'T.



hopkins_student said:


> If Newt can't pull it off I'm hoping Romney can.


Hear, hear! I think the proverbial bloom is off Newt's rose with the general public. But I would probably vote for him.



Spence said:


> ...Seriously, do you really think mainstream democrats frequent MoveOn.org? Unless you're 28 and living in St. Paul or Portland there's not that big of an audience....


 I think you're probably right, Spence (thankfully!) But despite their meager following (in terms of mere numbers), they are extremely influential within the party because of their extremely deep pockets, and as such, extremely loud voices. They gave over $21 million in the 2004 election cycle.



arbitrage said:


> How about a McCain/Guiliani ticket? One of these days Conservatives and Liberals will figure out that the majority of the country is moderate.


Purely speculation on my part, but I seriously doubt that Guiliani would be willing to play second fiddle. He's a better front man, IMO.

The reason he could win (even though he wouldn't be my first choice) because many (most?) moderates on both sides of the aisle are more fiscally conservative, and yet socially liberal or at least socially moderate.

From what I know of them thusfar, I would like to see Romney, Allen, Gingrich or Guiliani in that order of preference. But I think Rudy is the most electable.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Overextended? We have an active force of 1.4 million and if you include reserves (active and ready) we have close to 2.4 million. We have 140K in Iraq right now, that's 10% of our active military.


I'm not a military expert, but as far as I know the logistical chain of supply requires a huge organization. I think in the US the current tally is something around 10 to 15 people (not all of them military) for 1 soldier on the frontline. So 140k soldiers in Iraq and a few thousands elsewhere is already a lot.

I know France, with a military around 310k (excluding the "gendarmerie") and a logistical chain of supply around 6 people for 1 soldier on the front, would be hard pressed to send more than 30k soldiers abroad (we have bottlenecks in air transport capacity that won't be solved before at least another 5 years).


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I'm not a military expert, but as far as I know the logistical chain of supply requires a huge organization. I think in the US the current tally is something around 10 to 15 people (not all of them military) for 1 soldier on the frontline. So 140k soldiers in Iraq and a few thousands elsewhere is already a lot.
> 
> I know France, with a military around 310k (excluding the "gendarmerie") and a logistical chain of supply around 6 people for 1 soldier on the front, would be hard pressed to send more than 30k soldiers abroad (we have bottlenecks in air transport capacity that won't be solved before at least another 5 years).


I'm not sure about the ratio of frontline to support troops but you have a point. I didn't suggest that we have 2.4 million combat troops and therefore the 140K that we do have in Iraq are not all combat troops. As for the logistical chain the U.S. has bases around the world and agreements with nations for reasons. If France were to deploy I doubt that you have forward operating bases on foreign soil. You have no colonies and really no troops stationed around the globe. We do. In fact France pulled out of the Military structure of NATO a long time ago and therefore I wonder if France even has troops stationed outside its borders in Europe. Our sea and airlift capacity is therefore much more robust. The U.S. Military has had a long standing doctrine to be able to respond militarily in any region in the world within 24 hours and sees to it that it is maintained.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I would say Bob Dole is a good example of a traditional Republican. Others will argue that no doubt, but I think most would agree he's a good example of one.


Well, McCain isnt Dole...but depending on how you slice it they aren't all that far apart...

In many ways the GOP is a "big tent" party...but it's members either don't realize this or don't see the value in applauding the diversity...which leads to a unified message good for campaigning for sure, but isn't very effective at execution.

-spence


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> for the logistical chain the U.S. has bases around the world and agreements with nations for reasons. If France were to deploy I doubt that you have forward operating bases on foreign soil. You have no colonies and really no troops stationed around the globe.


Ahem. I was not discussing the French military, mainly pointing at a rather weak argument made about the US one. You cannot just look at the number of active military personel (1.4 million) and assume that 10% of it broad leaves a lot of room for intervention. I don't know how many troops the US is capable of sustaining on a combat theater abroad right now, and if 140k troops makes it overstretched; but that is something that is probably fairly well documented, and the number of total military personel has little to do with it.

Now, if you wish to discuss the French military, a totally different subject, I will gladly do it. I would ask that you please make some research beforehand, though. France has operating bases on foreign soil. France has troops stationed around the globe (in both cases much less than the US, naturally). And France is part of the military structure of NATO (you might be surprised to learn that some things have changed since the 60's). On these three counts, you are wrong.



> I wonder if France even has troops stationed outside its borders in Europe.


A few in Germany, then of course Bosnia and Kosovo. I don't really see what purpose troops stationed in the EU would serve for us, so I don't really understand your point here. Most of our troops abroad are in Africa, Afghanistan and Australasia. And of course Lebanon now.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Ahem. I was not discussing the French military, mainly pointing at a rather weak argument made about the US one. You cannot just look at the number of active military personel (1.4 million) and assume that 10% of it broad leaves a lot of room for intervention. I don't know how many troops the US is capable of sustaining on a combat theater abroad right now, and if 140k troops makes it overstretched; but that is something that is probably fairly well documented, and the number of total military personel has little to do with it.
> 
> Now, if you wish to discuss the French military, a totally different subject, I will gladly do it. I would ask that you please make some research beforehand, though. France has operating bases on foreign soil. France has troops stationed around the globe (in both cases much less than the US, naturally). And France is part of the military structure of NATO (you might be surprised to learn that some things have changed since the 60's). On these three counts, you are wrong.
> 
> A few in Germany, then of course Bosnia and Kosovo. I don't really see what purpose troops stationed in the EU would serve for us, so I don't really understand your point here. Most of our troops abroad are in Africa, Afghanistan and Australasia. And of course Lebanon now.


But your argument is based on a presumption. You're presuming that the U.S. Military is "overstretched." What exactly is that? Is there a technical criteria? No. Its a buzzword and a punchline by now. Of course many in the Pentagon would say they're overstretched just as every mayor in every town in the U.S. would say they need more Federal money for fire and police. We have a 140K troops stationed in country with a combat attrition rate next to zero.

As for French troops, look I'm not trying to besmirch the French military but lets face facts. You hardly have the military muscle to project power abroad. A few thousand troops stationed about hardly makes for a serious presence. I'm talking about real numbers with real lift capacity. Armoured divisions and the logistics/supply chain to get the job done. I'm talking about strategic bombing capability with in flight refueling and carrier groups with quick strike and troop deployment capability within 24 hours of the President picking up the phone. And if you don't see the purpose of stationing forward operating troops in the EU then the French have come a long way since Richelieu.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> But your argument is based on a presumption. You're presuming that the U.S. Military is "overstretched."


Let me repeat my last post.



Étienne said:


> *I don't know how* many troops the US is capable of sustaining on a combat theater abroad right now, and if 140k troops makes it overstretched.


How exactly do you go from my saying "I don't know" to the affirmation you attribute to me? I was merely pointing out that when you said that the US military is not overstreched because they have much more military personel than what is abroad, you were being hasty. Maybe they are not overstreched, but it needs a little more explanation than that.



pt4u67 said:


> As for French troops, look I'm not trying to besmirch the French military but lets face facts. You hardly have the military muscle to project power abroad.


We can afford to project around 30k troops. Of course that's much less than what the US can project, I never said otherwise. But that's more than the "few thousand" you talk of. You also seem to forget the fact that we do have a real air-carrier (right now we are the only country other than the US to have one, although of course we have only one and middle-sized when you have a dozen), foreign bases, etc.

I am not pulling that "30k" figure out of thin air, by the way. Back in 1991, we sent about 18k if I remember correctly in the Gulf in addition to many thousands in Africa. Hence my statement.



pt4u67 said:


> And if you don't see the purpose of stationing forward operating troops in the EU then the French have come a long way since Richelieu.


Just explain how that would serve any strategic purpose for France right now, I am curious.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I think Hillary. Wish I was wrong, but she's my odds on favorite atm.
> 
> Others?


If the D's run Ms. Clinton the GOP could get anybody elected POTUS.

I think the next Prez will be either Bill Richardson or Mark Warner.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

m kielty said:


> I think the next Prez will be either Bill Richardson or Mark Warner.


Richardson seems to be a very bright and great guy, but I just don't know if he has the charisma to get the job done.

Warner could be the "southern Dem" ala Clinton...but the GOP attack machine is well oiled for 2008. It's going to require party synchronization to get things done, something the Dems have not been able to do since 2000.

-spence


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I'd personally love to see Guiliani get elected, I share alot of his views, plus I feel that the GOP has gotten far too into this religious fundamentalism (I have no problem with religion, but I find that equating God with patriotism is a bit tacky, and sometimes makes me ashamed to be a Republican), I think putting a Catholic Republican in the white house would kind of squelch that a bit, yet at the same time portray a good moral image...Of course I doubt that he could get enough support from within the party to get the nomination...I really like McCain aswell, but once again, I just think that a moderate Republican wont get the party nomination...I absolutely cant stand Newt, I think economically our country woud suffer tremendously if he were elected...I know it's just a pipe dream, but I really think that Colin Powell would make a great president...

Unfortunately, in 08 I deffinately think a lib will take over as commander in cheif, I just sincerely hope that the American people are smart enough not to vote Hillary into office...just a guess, but I see Biden narrowly edging out Frist...

Maybe some day they'll change the constitution so Arnold can run...I really believe that given the opportunity he could be the next Ronald Reagan...I'd vote for him in a heartbeat...


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I'd personally love to see Guiliani get elected, I share alot of his views, plus I feel that the GOP has gotten far too into this religious fundamentalism (I have no problem with religion, but I find that equating God with patriotism is a bit tacky, and sometimes makes me ashamed to be a Republican), I think putting a Catholic Republican in the white house would kind of squelch that a bit, yet at the same time portray a good moral image...Of course I doubt that he could get enough support from within the party to get the nomination...I really like McCain aswell, but once again, I just think that a moderate Republican wont get the party nomination...I absolutely cant stand Newt, I think economically our country woud suffer tremendously if he were elected...I know it's just a pipe dream, but I really think that Colin Powell would make a great president...
> 
> Unfortunately, in 08 I deffinately think a lib will take over as commander in cheif, I just sincerely hope that the American people are smart enough not to vote Hillary into office...just a guess, but I see Biden narrowly edging out Frist...
> 
> Maybe some day they'll change the constitution so Arnold can run...I really believe that given the opportunity he could be the next Ronald Reagan...I'd vote for him in a heartbeat...


Yea all that aside from the Rudy and Arnold parts 

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Personally, I do not care who gets elected as long as they:
> 
> 1) Do *NOT* raise my taxes
> 2) Cut Federal spending
> ...


So of my seven points, who does everyone see as capable of delivering?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The Gabba Goul, do you have any idea what it was like in the US in the 60's and early 70's? How much rewritten recent history did you learn in school? The first legal document says 'endowed by their Creator'. Can the Hindues say that? Muslims say that? etc.

How many places in the US can you leave the car window wide open and leave bags and bags of in the car with out fear of somebody stealing them in todays US? When I was a boy there wasn't this kind of fear, because the windows were open and bags and bags were left in the cars. It was very rare to see somebody lock there car doors when I was a book. An aunt and uncle didn't even put locks on there house until the 80's. A lot of people went to church and believed 'Thou Shall Not Steal'.

Christmas songs in public schools were Drummer boy, Joy to the world, etc. When do you hear those now in public schools?

If I remember correctly an atheist denounce atheism and he would have to acknowlge God in order to become a US citizen. Which is the way it should be today.

What the religious fundamentalist want is what we had in the past. It was much nicer back then.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I wish we could clean our political palates of 'Lib' and 'conservative.' I hardly think bin laden & Co will alter their agenda even if lebanese Ralph Nader were elected. And speaking of Ralph, forget about a third 'spoiler' as unrepentant democrats looking for scapegoats are want to do. Nader had the support of MOST of the Green Party first time around. But like Buchannan and the remnant of Ross Perot's party Ralph used the party as a support base without even being a party member. The election over, Ralph basically disappeared except for periodic cameo resurfacing to replenish his air $upply. The second time around he was not a Green candidate and publically chastised the party for 'political immaturity.This is a real pity. The tradition of third parties to push our de facto two party system into responding to specific issues is a long overlooked and unappreciated part of our process. I'm still angry over the DNC's dirty politics led by Dean. It has been argued the Republican Party encouraged Green Party efforts. What people either chose to ignore or did not see were substantial numbers of republicans who voted Nader/Green as a protest also- and welcome they were.Remember when comedian Pat Paulson actually beat out the candidates in some precincts on a spoof write in candidacy? I'd like some better choices, but this time there isn't much to laugh about, or at.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

m kielty said:


> If the D's run Ms. Clinton the GOP could get anybody elected POTUS.


Which is exactly why it's only R's who want her to run. I don't know a single Democrat who wants her to run for President. Limbaugh sure does.

The funny thing is I kind of like her. Or I used to like her when I thought she was a liberal, unlike her husband. Now she just seems like another triangulating conservative DLC Democrat, just like Bill but without the political skills. If we're going to have someone who supports the Iraq war and wants to throw people in jail for burning the American flag, why should it be a Democrat?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> If we're going to have someone who ..... wants to throw people in jail for burning the American flag, why should it be a Democrat?


Why not? I mean, did not a major network just have its broadcasting license threatened by the Dems for airing a made for TV movie that did not paint Billy and his brethren in the proper light?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, I'm not sure when, or where your idyllic and halcyon 'OUR TOWN' existed. Perhaps in Mayberry with Andy and the gang or a Norman Rockwell painting. Times change, and sometimes you look at today and feel nostalgia for yesterday. But I remember those grainy black and white newsreels of firehoses and police dogs on a bridge along with Technicolor images of Robert Preston singing 'Oh we got trouble.' I do know 90% of the time today race is a non issue, and with some of my friends We have to THINK about being somehow 'different.' I had one athiest teacher's aid in university. She decided a comparative religion class was the perfect platform for her agenda. Poor thing complained athiest's had no holiday like Christmas or Hannuka. I defered, and told her April 1st was open. Fortuitously, the course professor, a retired anglican priest interceded before things got real interesting. I used to be much more active in the shooting sports. But girls sort of sidetracked me, and Hoppe's #9 gave way to cologne. I supose I should be less cavalier about gun ownership. The Imperial Navy shelled an oil refinery just north of here and these pulsating lights keep appearing behind my car everytime I go 55 MPH in a schoolzone. Must be some temporal rift in the space/time continuum. I'm trying to tell you to mellow. Things will get worse, I promise.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Scoop Jackson was probably a live during ww1, ww2, Korean and Veitnam. The first three of these wars leaves a different mind set than the last. PLus the cold war. The horrors of Russia and the Soviet Union. The Massacres in China.

The world was certainly a different place back then. I remember the nuclear bomb drills of the 60's and 70's - going to the schools basement and looking at the walls thinking this isn't going to work, and, if this ever happens for real I'll probably never see my parents or brothers again. Maybe that is why so many of my generation got high on drugs. And, the Veitnam war, did the military experiment on those solders in it?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

WA said:


> What the religious fundamentalist want is what we had in the past. It was much nicer back then.


I dont think that one necessarily has anything to do with the other.

I, personally, am a Catholic (and very proud of it). I'm all for keeping Christ in Christmas and everything that stands for, I dont want anybody to steal from me. I like the fact that our money says "In God we trust", I believe in "One nation under God." I think everybody should be entitled to practice whatever religion they choose (as long as it isnt some kind of creepy cult or something), and, yes...*that* is America.

But I dont think there needs to be prayer in schools (If you're that religious, then nobody's saying you cant pray if you want to). I dont believe in trying to villify an entire political party as being against God if they dont think schools should have designated prayer time. I dont believe in using God as some kind of political spin campaign, as if one can find salvation by voting a certain way, or buying into a certain political ideology...I think a person would have to be an idiot to think that God favors Republicans more than Democrats (or vice versa)...Arent we all God's children?

I think everybody would aggree that this country (and world) would be a nicer place if we all just treated each other better, I really dont believe that this is a concept that is exclusive to bible thumpers...


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

As a moderate Democrat, I am hoping for Mark Warner in 2008. If the GOP wins again, I hope it is McCain.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I dont think that one necessarily has anything to do with the other.
> 
> I, personally, am a Catholic (and very proud of it). I'm all for keeping Christ in Christmas and everything that stands for, I dont want anybody to steal from me. I like the fact that our money says "In God we trust", I believe in "One nation under God." I think everybody should be entitled to practice whatever religion they choose (as long as it isnt some kind of creepy cult or something), and, yes...*that* is America.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was in limbo between graduating high school and enlisting. I enrolled with my friends in the local community college located in nearby Moorpark California. We used to reverse the letters of Moorpark and add a big U. I manged 1 unit in P.E. ( social,folk and square dancing) and a deleted course in Poly Sci. My Hippy instructor comitted suicide because Nixon was elected. I was so mad getting stuck with non refundable textbooks I could have killed him. I enlisted and 4 years later had to fish out a jumper off the Golden Gate bridge. We were disturbed to realise it was a fellow coastie, a rather idealistic young man who left a note saying he knew the newly elected Reagan was the antichrist and would plunge us into WW3. These guys ( and gals) come and go. I however, am still here, the gausino in the local politician's bottles. People who loathed Clinton bought a lot of antacids. Now people who Loath Bush buy a lot of antacids. Maybe Tums should market red ones and blue ones. We will survive. This too, shall pass. And if it doesn't, we wont need Tums anymore.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I think everybody should be entitled to practice whatever religion they choose (as long as it isnt some kind of creepy cult or something), and, yes...*that* is America.


Sorry, as a long term agnostic that lives his life as an atheist, I think the real test of this whole "freedom of religion" thing comes when you find it is "creepy" or a "cult". Frankly, I find little difference between Catholics and some splinter Baptist group, except of course that the Catholic church is one of the largest corporations in the world.


The Gabba Goul said:


> I think everybody would agree that this country (and world) would be a nicer place if we all just treated each other better, I really dont believe that this is a concept that is exclusive to bible thumpers...


I sure agree with that.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

My party affiliation aside, I think Barack Obama is going to be President in the very near future.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> My party affiliation aside, I think Barack Obama is going to be President in the very near future.


Ah yes, son of a wealthy immigrant, graduate of Hawaii's most elite school, Harvard Law Review.....man of the people? It certainly is being sold and people are buying. Geez, and he was just "Barry" back an Ponahu.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> My party affiliation aside, I think Barack Obama is going to be President in the very near future.


Yeech...I sincerely hope not...

Gotta aggree with Wayfarrer on this one...I think that Mr Obama has to be the biggest phony in politics (and that's saying somehting)...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I, personally, am a Catholic (and very proud of it). I'm all for keeping Christ in Christmas and everything that stands for, I dont want anybody to steal from me. I like the fact that our money says "In God we trust", I believe in "One nation under God." I think everybody should be entitled to practice whatever religion they choose (as long as it isnt some kind of creepy cult or something), and, yes...*that* is America.
> 
> But I dont think there needs to be prayer in schools (If you're that religious, then nobody's saying you cant pray if you want to). I dont believe in trying to villify an entire political party as being against God if they dont think schools should have designated prayer time. I dont believe in using God as some kind of political spin campaign, as if one can find salvation by voting a certain way, or buying into a certain political ideology...I think a person would have to be an idiot to think that God favors Republicans more than Democrats (or vice versa)...Arent we all God's children?
> 
> I think everybody would aggree that this country (and world) would be a nicer place if we all just treated each other better, I really dont believe that this is a concept that is exclusive to bible thumpers...


I don't know how many religious fundamentalist want prayer in school as the media says they want it. A few years back some other religious group/s wanted prayer. There were prayers around here once in awhile, whereas, now, there are none. Around here the 10 commandments hung in every class room, which I think is a good idea. There is a group, or several, group/s that would really like to have it back the way it used to be (I think Catholics are part of these groups. In fact, the Catholic and fundamentalist have stood together on a number of issues), because this was a Christian country. There were exceptions for other beliefs. But a few people have done there best to ruin Christianity in this country it seems, and the Democrat party has been there power. It is strange how the Democrat party stands for a few and not the majority, anymore.

The left media attacks the religious right in such a way that it is slander and plays on people emotions so they feel uncomfortable with religious rights view points. But, since it is slandered they have you confused about the religious rights view points. In graphic arts you learn how to manipulate peoples feeling and thinking so they buy the product, usually with colors and shapes and fancy print and placement and catchy phrases and sometimes music. The news media has is own methods of manipulating us. The new news anchor at CBS will play somebody up real nice, then sort of drift ones attention to something else in a way that when she comes back to the subject it leaves a sour taste, so to say, about the person she built up so you think of the person repulse. When she leaves out pertinent information she has slandered the person and tried to decieve the veiwers. She did this resently with Bush, GM, another fuel alternative, by saying at the end, as though this is the answer, which it isn't- just plug the auto in to a electic socket and then drive another 240 miles after the auto is charged; now, how you going to drive from Seattle to LA doing that in a day or two? Bushes idea is better for somethings. But, the veiwers were set up to think "Bush is such a fool."

If you want to know what the various religious groups want to do. Then go to them the source, instead of maybe a lie. Your Catholic Priest is probably involved with a number of groups, including fundamentalist, so we don't loose even more rights. It is interesting to see the Catholics and fundamentalist get together on a number issues. The left media is trying to divide us- not unite us. You should have seen what they did to Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell back in the 80's. Jerry would write a letter, probably once a week, and send out to everybody on his mailing list, and the left media would get a copy and rewrite it and print that for everybody to see and claim he wrote it. The rewritten version was something that Jerry could never have written, they were so crazy. The media hated what he wrote, because he had better answers for the problems back then.

The political spin campaign- The left media has got you really going.



> if we all just treated each other better


Certianly not just a Christian idea is it? In the past the Bible had a big impact on this country, today little. Some of the poorest countries are the safest. I remember this one boy in high school who lived by a lake and had a couple of boats, a yatch at the saltwater harbor- at the end of the snow skiing season he would wrap a sleeping bag around his skis and put them on the curb and then drive over them to get his money back. The boy with all this wealth was not satisfied. 10 - 15 years ago you could leave the auto at the trail-head and never worry. Not any more. What happened to America?


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Spence said:


> Richardson seems to be a very bright and great guy, but I just don't know if he has the charisma to get the job done.
> 
> Warner could be the "southern Dem" ala Clinton...but the GOP attack machine is well oiled for 2008. It's going to require party synchronization to get things done, something the Dems have not been able to do since 2000.
> 
> -spence


I think the D's could stumble to the top if they presented someone who 
had a strong business background, is an intelligent talker and a Christian from the South, someone like Mark Warner.

The problem is really with the Dem's leadership. Nancy Pelosi is a good example.(The right salivates at the mention of her name.) 
I heard her do an interview on NPR.
The interviewer asked how the D's would handle the Iraq war differently from G.B.
N.P. got very testy and said she had already stated what the D's would do ,which of course she hadn't, other than saying the D's would handle it differently. The interviewer kept pressing and N.P. got more and more testy repeating that she had already answered. She didn't have an answer because there is no answer, it would have been better if she had said we just need a fresh approach.

The primary question of the coming campaign will be, "What is to be done about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?". It would behoove the Democrats to at least develop a strategy on how they'll handle the question.

If Dem leaders like Nancy P. have their hands on the wheel than my guess is they'll screw up the opportunity to win inspite of the election being handed to them on a silver platter..


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

WA-You deffinately make some valid points...

I dunno...political spin can be a mutha'...for example one of my favorite issues to debate with people is the libs attempts at a draconian tobacco prohibition...not to hijack this thread, but if one looks at all the real facts (not just some dubious EPA drivel), there is really no reason that smoking should be as villified as it has become in recent years, granted it isnt healthy _per-se_ but there are alot worse things that people put into their bodies which are considered copacetic (sp?), how come the innumerous scientific studies showing how parents constantly feeding their children fast food and making them so overweight that they will have no chance at leading a healthy lifestyle arent getting crammed down out throats like the ones painting smoking in such an unfavorable light, but those "looking out for our health" have decided to use these "findings" as a juggernaut (sp?) to try and take away our rights as smokers and make it seem as though we smokers are somehow being socially irresponsible because we choose to participate in an activity which may not be good for us, yet is still completely legal. And Politicians ranging from the lowest of the low level municipalities all the way up to the white house have camped on this ideal that "If we could just eliminate smoking, we would have no more health problems..."

Yeah...I'm deffinately not a fan of spin...but...I guess when it comes to politics that's just the nature of the beast...


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

WA said:


> If I remember correctly an atheist denounce atheism and he would have to acknowlge God in order to become a US citizen. Which is the way it should be today.


Wow. If that's what the US should be according to you I'm so glad I don't have any intention of moving there. Having a state that requires me to denounce my beliefs and feeling is so oppressive I did not think anybody outside real theocraties (like Saudi Arabia or Iran) advocated that anymore.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes, son of a wealthy immigrant, graduate of Hawaii's most elite school, Harvard Law Review.....man of the people? It certainly is being sold and people are buying. Geez, and he was just "Barry" back an Ponahu.


Yes, as opposed to a born-again C-student with nasal freezer burn, a business failure from an American dynasty whose biggest achievement prior to becoming Texas executioner-in-chief was, as Ron Reagan pointed out, that he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?

Do the American people create the President in their own image? In that case, I think I know who I'd want. Man of the people, indeed -- as if most of us on a forum where thousand dollar shoes are daily topics have a real good idea about that.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Giuliani, I hope. But it doesn't matter because the Republican Party is really the American Socialist Party, and the Democrat Party is really the American Communist Party. So either way we are screwed.

*Wayfarer*, you should probably naturalize to become a ****** now like the rest of us. That way you can vote. Ya know you can keep the Canadian thingy too, neither country requires you to reject the other.

As for *Etienne*, we should quit beating up on the French military. We owe them much. Our entire military staffing system is based on the French model. Gen. "Blackjack" Pershing brough this system back with him from WW1, and it exists intact to this very day. Also, West Point was built to emulate Ecole Polytechnique, whose engineering system Sylvanus Thayer brought back to the US with him after a prolonged visit there. Ecole Polytechnique still turns out the finest engineers in the world as far as I am concerned - and they really know how to be practical out in the field, as opposed to just theoretical number cruncher types. And just for fun, I would recommend a visit to Les Invalides (their military museum) for anyone who visits Paris.

M8


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RJman said:


> Yes, as opposed to a born-again C-student with nasal freezer burn, a business failure from an American dynasty whose biggest achievement prior to becoming Texas executioner-in-chief was, as Ron Reagan pointed out, that he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Read and learn.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> *Wayfarer*, you should probably naturalize to become a ****** now like the rest of us. That way you can vote. Ya know you can keep the Canadian thingy too, neither country requires you to reject the other.
> 
> M8


M8, working on it this fall. I checked into the renounce part. Yup, the US still requires you to renounce past citizenship. Canada does not find that valid. All is good.

The main reason I am going to do it is travel between the two countries is becoming stickier. Also, as I am paying thousands into it, if it is still around when I hit 65, I would like to have rights to Medicare too. To my knowledge you can not participate in Medicare unless you are a citizen.....well, by "participate" I mean "utilize". Even non-citizens get to "participate" in terms of paying into it.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Giuliani, I hope. But it doesn't matter because the Republican Party is really the American Socialist Party, and the Democrat Party is really the American Communist Party. So either way we are screwed.
> M8


This is somewhat off-topic, but why do so many on the right insist on using "Democrat" when there is a perfectly good adjective ("Democratic") available?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Probably to avoid confusion between "Big D" and "Little D" type thing.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Probably to avoid confusion between "Big D" and "Little D" type thing.


Yeppers.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> M8, working on it this fall. I checked into the renounce part. Yup, the US still requires you to renounce past citizenship. Canada does not find that valid. All is good...


Ah, yes. I forgot the rule is a little different depending on which soil of which country one was born on with the dual-nationality status.

M8


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Probably to avoid confusion between "Big D" and "Little D" type thing.


No, I think it's the same sort of corrosive incivility that allows some to refer, for example, to Jewish attorneys as "Jew lawyers." Not that M8 would be guilty of that particular lapse.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Wow. If that's what the US should be according to you I'm so glad I don't have any intention of moving there. Having a state that requires me to denounce my beliefs and feeling is so oppressive I did not think anybody outside real theocraties (like Saudi Arabia or Iran) advocated that anymore.


America got along quite fine back then.

Today the government, because of the Democrats, sic's the atheist evolutionist on students. The "theory" of evolution has a 100% failure rate. It is all words, hot air, and no facts. A bunch of wind bags of wishful thinkers. Moving dirt is all they think they are. To them life is not worth much, being dirt. One thing about all religions is life go on beyond the grave, so life has purpose, whereas, evolutionist are just dirt. Do you see hope in evolution?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

WA said:


> America got along quite fine back then.
> 
> Today the government, because of the Democrats, sic's the atheist evolutionist on students. The "theory" of evolution has a 100% failure rate. It is all words, hot air, and no facts. A bunch of wind bags of wishful thinkers. Moving dirt is all they think they are. To them life is not worth much, being dirt. One thing about all religions is life go on beyond the grave, so life has purpose, whereas, evolutionist are just dirt. Do you see hope in evolution?


Man, I been saying for a while now we really need a "troll" smiley.

Sir, I think your post makes you the poster boy against intelligent design.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Yeah...I'm deffinately not a fan of spin...but...I guess when it comes to politics that's just the nature of the beast...


Spin is part of life. We all get con-ed from time to time.

About smoking- Smoking cost everybody lots of money. If you don't smoke your health cost is paying for there health loss. People who don't smoke but come down with smoking cancer way to young, because they worked in a resturant or bar with second hand smoke is a terrible thing when it is personal. In many industries when working in unsafe air, or no air, you wear a mask of some sort- do you want to see the waitress wearing a gas mask?

Smoking and alcohol was a cult when I was a boy. Don't drink, don't smoke- your nobody. At work and you want a smoke, oh, no problem. But, if you try to take a 3 minute breather brake with out smoking- "get to work or your fired, and never do this again". Smoking was a cult, and some people are trying to keep it that way. Drinking too, President Fords wife became an alcoholic- the social rules about drinking had to change from you drink or your unsocial to OK, you don't have to drink to be social. People who didn't drink alcohol were consided anti-social. So the hubba hubba about smoking has very deep roots that really need to be yanked out. Another thing about smoking is all those chemicals that have been banned from use on foods because of some very bad health problems, these chemicals are still being used on tobacco, so when you breath in that smoke your breathing in a whole lot more. I believe Congress is just starting to tackle these thousands of chemicals that were band for food, but still dumped on tobacco. If you don't like lung cancer and other health problems with tobacco now, you'll like it less later. So, be cool, don't smoke!!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

cufflink44 said:


> So if evolution is all "no facts," could you tell me what the "facts" are about life beyond the grave?


You ask me to present facts of life after death, but you present no facts that evolution exist, so what is your argument?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

WA said:


> You ask me to present facts of life after death, but you present no facts that evolution exist, so what is your argument?


I think this is nearing the realm of "fact" vs "scientific fact". Perhaps it needs it's own thread...

And *Wayfarer*...I just recalled (as I was upstairs making some pasta) that I did indeed vote for Bob Dole 

-spence


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I, personally, am a Catholic (and very proud of it). I'm all for keeping Christ in Christmas and everything that stands for, I dont want anybody to steal from me. I like the fact that our money says "In God we trust", I believe in "One nation under God." I think everybody should be entitled to practice whatever religion they choose (as long as it isnt some kind of creepy cult or something), and, yes...*that* is America.


I agree with much of what you say, particularly about prayer in public schools (not prohibited, no matter what people say).

It's fine for you to say you trust in god, or that you think this is a nation under god, but I can't imagine how someone would think that it's okay for the government to say that.

And as for "as long as it isn't some kind of creepy cult or something", I submit that there is no difference between a "cult" and a "religion". As a little experiment, try coming up with a definition of a cult that would enable someone who doesn't belong to your religion to figure out whether you belong to a cult or not.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> And as for "as long as it isn't some kind of creepy cult or something", I submit that there is no difference between a "cult" and a "religion". As a little experiment, try coming up with a definition of a cult that would enable someone who doesn't belong to your religion to figure out whether you belong to a cult or not.


I can't determine if this makes no sense at all...or is simply brilliant 

-spence


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> My party affiliation aside, I think Barack Obama is going to be President in the very near future.


It's hard to get to the top, but Obama is definitely a star so I wouldn't be surprised. It may be too early to tell, but he looks like the real thing. Even though he's new to the Senate, he's come up from the grass roots. I'm disturbed by his recent move to the right, but we'll see.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, My academic background and avocation is a MA in archaeology, AKA the anthropology of dead people. I am presently converting to eastern orthodoxy. The THEORY of evolution, and I hope you look up 'theory' is merely an attempt to understand the HOW, and not the WHO, or WHAT and most importantly, the WHY, or for that matter the WHY NOT? 7 days of human calibrated 24 hour spans set at 9A.M. September 17th 3928 B.C. ( John Lightfoot, Chancellor at Cambridge in 1642) is no more relevant to the Gospel, or good news than The BIG BANG set at some 6 billion years + or - the 5 second daily variance on my fine mechanical chronograph is to any scientist who still ponders the ability of a bee to fly against all rules of aeronautics. You have far to many enemies, not a healthy thing. I prescribe a poster of the laughing Jesus, a good bottle of wine to relax and read G.K.Chesterton's poem THE FISH.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Concordia said:


> No, I think it's the same sort of corrosive incivility that allows some to refer, for example, to Jewish attorneys as "Jew lawyers." Not that M8 would be guilty of that particular lapse.


Wow, that's a lot of to assume for using a noun vs. an adjective. I guess you have some insight the rest of us lack.

Cheers


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It's been my personal observation that people who refer to jewish lawyers as 'Jew lawyers' at some time got their butts kicked in court by one. Kisses my thumb and forefinger looking up and says a prayer for and thankyou to Mr Goldstein.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

WA said:


> America got along quite fine back then.


Well you know how it is with totalitarian regimes who try and control what their citizens have the right to think or believe. Quite often, they a whole lot safer than democracies.

Again, I was not passing any judgement. If in your opinion the US should require atheists to renounce their belief and become christian, I am just glad not to have to deal with that theocratic vision of a country.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Concordia said:


> No, I think it's the same sort of corrosive incivility that allows some to refer, for example, to Jewish attorneys as "Jew lawyers." Not that M8 would be guilty of that particular lapse.


Please don't refer to me in any paragraph or in any context whatsover that is anti-Semitic, even with qualifiers, "...not that M8..."

Thank you,

M8


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Well you know how it is with totalitarian regimes who try and control what their citizens have the right to think or believe. Quite often, they a whole lot safer than democracies.
> 
> Again, I was not passing any judgement. If in your opinion the US should require atheists to renounce their belief and become christian, I am just glad not to have to deal with that theocratic vision of a country.


Étienne, I can't make you into a believer, and I believe you have rights, too. Even the Bible says that. Jesus said that he came to save who he can, and not condem. So, I guess we condem ourselves if we refuse. Some laws in the past are clearly wishful thinking in todays world.

I am not against atheism, because, I believe only God can reveal Himself. So, if you have never meet him, then there are many reasons not to believe in Him.

One thing I don't like (since this is a political thread) is schools teaching evolution as though it is fact, because it is hot air. There is so much in science to teach and learn and reseach that has nothing to do with evolution or creation, so why put either in? If the schools want to teach evolution then put it in as a side class (another problem with evolution is counter theory, where is it?).

You know a lot about evolution, but what about the science in the Bible? When I was in pre-school Sunday school I was taught that snakes had legs. When I got older some people scoff the Bible and said nonsence. When I got into high school scienitist discovered snakes had legs. How could the first book in the Bible, written thousands of years ago, know this? It says that Adam and Eve saw the snakes with legs. The Bible has lots of scienific facts in it. Friends want you to know the facts, no matter where the facts come from. Those that keep you away from the facts are not your friends. So, enough said for now about science, evolution and creation. I hope that the next President is a Republican, but not at all like Bush.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> As for *Etienne*, we should quit beating up on the French military.


Thanks for that statement [email protected]



WA said:


> I am not against atheism, because, I believe only God can reveal Himself. So, if you have never meet him, then there are many reasons not to believe in Him.


I'm so glad you tolerate that. Indeed, I was once a christian before I got rid of the superstition. I am not against christianism, judaism, and the other superstitions, I believe only yourself can convince yourself to follow reason instead of superstition. So, if you have never made that effort, then there are many reasons to keep the comfort of religion.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Back from my Ask Andy sabbatical. More details later.

McCain-Rice is my fervent hope for 2008. The GOP by all accounts deserves to lose the House and Senate this year bc of outrageous spending and something bordering on ethical bankruptcy. Unfortunately they are the lesser of two evils as the Democrats simply have nothing positive to offer and simply have no clue about national security (which is saying alot given this adminstration's inefficiencies in that area.) The country badly needs a moderate Democratic party so the Republicans can lose and intellectually reinvigorate, a good 4-6 years in the opposition would allow the GOP to become fresh and dynamic again. The Democrats sadly have come along way since Truman and JFK, baby.

And Etienne - I have no clue as to the true capabilities of the French military bc its been so long since it has seen extended combat. I would think that French ground forces suffer from European-wide malaise of mostly obsolete equipment, inadequate training and a serious lack of transport capacity as you mentioned and we discussed at length last year. A pity most of Chirac's reforms of the "New Defense Program" outlined in 1996 did not take place. The French Air Force is on paper, the third best in the world, but the lack of sustained combat operations against a credible enemy makes any analysis incomplete (the same goes for the US Air Force as well as we have not faced any serious enemy pilots, save for a few Soviets loaned to the North Vietnamese, since the Luftwaffe.)

But the real issue is not whether France can forward deploy 30,000 or 300,000 but rather does it have the political will to do so in any meaningful way? The evacuations of French nationals from time to time from trouble spots and "stabilization" operations in Africa (which haven't quite been a success and when we really want to discuss weapons of mass destruction then lets one day take up the recent history of French policy in Francophone Africa) don't really count as serious forward deployments. If France had chosen to be serious about the crisis in Yugoslavia and been willing to make a serious effort to deploy large numbers of troops (when it had an even more competent military that was still at Cold War equipment and training levels) then much of the bloodshed in Bosnia and likely in Kosovo could have been prevented. But it took US led action in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999 to do that. If France could not muster the political will to stop ethnic cleansing that was two hours flight time from Paris it should come as little surprise that military force is rarely a serious French option. The 1930's aren't the only "hollow years" that afflicted the French military. 

Poland offered additional troops for the NATO mission to Afghanistan though France did not. Paris will undoubtedly suffer a shortage of reasonably priced plumbers this summer. Funny, though that the French military had no problems conducting naval excercises with the ChiCom navy in the last few years. I have no doubt that when the French public hears its military is cooperating with a goverment that is ethnically cleansing Tibet, props up the homicidal regime in the DPRK, selling weapons to Iran and costing the French fashion industry billions a year in losses as it turns a blind eye on counterfeit goods will take to the streets and protest this outrage. Well, I have my doubts - at least until George W. Bush is president of the People's Republic. Then I am certain the righteous fury of France will be felt.

And as to your calling Christianity a superstition I take issue. As much as I disagree with WA's theocratic notion I find your comments patently offensive. I would suggest you read the Pope's recent remarks on the nature of reason and Christian faith and how both have Hellenic roots. You may not choose to believe in Christianity (or Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. for that matter.) but to dismiss it as mere superstition is not the action of a rational person, much less a gentlemen. 

Karl


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

Étienne said:


> ...I'm so glad you tolerate that. Indeed, I was once a christian before I got rid of the superstition. I am not against christianism, judaism, and the other superstitions, I believe only yourself can convince yourself to follow reason instead of superstition. So, if you have never made that effort, then there are many reasons to keep the comfort of religion.


Wow. That's a little condescending, isn't it?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> It's hard to get to the top, but Obama is definitely a star so I wouldn't be surprised. It may be too early to tell, but he looks like the real thing. Even though he's new to the Senate, he's come up from the grass roots. I'm disturbed by his recent move to the right, but we'll see.


Unfortunately, many times in politics the "winner" is the best salesman with the best sales staff. I haven't followed his career well enough to know his politics, but it sure seems like he has done a very good job of putting himself in the right places at the right time.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Jill said:


> Wow. That's a little condescending, isn't it?


I was a bit pushy, too. And him going to a superstition "church"- no wonder!

McCain-Rice - That is an idea I never connected. Almost voted for McCain, because he is very honest, but a person needs more than honesty.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Jill said:


> Wow. That's a little condescending, isn't it?


If you read carefully, you may notice I used the exact same sentences that WA used. I am glad you realize how condescending to atheists he was being.

I admit though, I will take "condescending tolerance" over "being forced to renounce my beliefs" (as he was earlier advocating) anytime.



Karl89 said:


> the lack of sustained combat operations against a credible enemy makes any analysis incomplete


For conventional combat, that can be said about all naval and air forces in the Western world, as you point out yourself. We have only international exercises to go by when trying to assert the efficiency of our armed forces.

I am not interested in broad geenralizations, but will nevertheless ask details on one affirmation.


> Poland offered additional troops for the NATO mission to Afghanistan though France did not.


What are you talking about?



> Funny, though that the French military had no problems conducting naval excercises with the ChiCom navy in the last few years.


If you are talking naval exercises, the French navy did one with Pakistan a few months back and led a NATO-one (40 nations) last year. What's your point there?



> And as to your calling Christianity a superstition I take issue.


You might then understand how I was offended by WA's remarks. Although that's about what I think about it, I would never make such an offensive remark unannounced.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Étienne said:


> I admit though, I will take "condescending tolerance" over "being forced to renounce my beliefs" (as he was earlier advocating) anytime.


While many people want to rewrite American history, there is still, I believe, prayer- before the Supreme Court starts a new session. When you look at America's national songs - no doubt about America's Christain backgound. When I got the right to vote- I put my hand on the Bible and swore and oath to God and Country.

Didn't the French throw God out when they had their Revolution?

When I went to school I wonder how much history had be rewritten for my "education"?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

WA said:


> While many people want to rewrite American history, there is still, I believe, prayer- before the Supreme Court starts a new session.


Indeed there is. In my opinion that's really not something to be proud of, but I would of course never presume to tell Americans what they should do about their country. That would be highly offensive, so that opinion is normally kept to myself.



WA said:


> Didn't the French throw God out when they had there Revolution?


No.

In 1905 a specific law was voted to complete the separation of the churches and the state. It is quite different from the US version, though. We have not only decided not to have any form of established cult. We also decided that the state should have nothing to do with religion, period. Religion is, in France, a strictly private matter, and the state has no job advocating any religion or lack thereoff.

As a result, you would never have a mention of "in God we trust" on the French currency, for example. Some people are atheists. Some are polytheists (with several gods and not just "god"). All those are equally respected as French citizens.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Personally, I do not care who gets elected as long as they:
> 
> 1) Do *NOT* raise my taxes
> 2) Cut Federal spending
> ...





Wayfarer said:


> So of my seven points, who does everyone see as capable of delivering?


No one. You've asked for several things that are incompatible. But don't feel bad, Frédéric Bastiat wrote about that problem in politics about 150 years ago: https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BasEss5.html


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Yeech...I sincerely hope not...
> 
> Gotta aggree with Wayfarrer on this one...I think that Mr Obama has to be the biggest phony in politics (and that's saying somehting)...


How exactly is he the biggest phony in politics?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Srynerson said:


> No one. You've asked for several things that are incompatible. But don't feel bad, Frédéric Bastiat wrote about that problem in politics about 150 years ago: https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BasEss5.html


Could you please outline for me, which points of mine are incompatible and why?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> How exactly is he the biggest phony in politics?


That's what I'd like to know.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> How exactly is he the biggest phony in politics?


I'm not a fan of his but I don't think he is a phony. I just think he's a classic academic liberal. For Sen. Obama there is no societal ill that a well funded, highly thought out government program can't address. Everyone always says he seems so genuine and he's very likeable as though those are qualifications for being the next POTUS. I think he would make a terrible president.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Probably too early for him to be really ready. I wouldn't mind seeing how he looks after he's been governor of Illinois for a while, though. That would test his executive ability.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Concordia said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing how he looks after he's been governor of Illinois for a while, though. That would test his executive ability.


I think this is a facially appealing idea, since the job of governor has a lot of similarities to that of President. In addition, although Senators are like corporals in Napoleon's army, the Senate has not been a stepping stone to the White House.

Of the last four Presidents who had been governors (two D's, two R's) I wouldn't say that any one of them was a good, let alone great, President. Politics aside, of these four, I would say that Clinton and Reagan were the ones who were most successful judging by the standards they set for themselves.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Obama is just another political version of Eric Estrada. They show up all smiles and youthfull vigour and we forcast Emmys, Academy Awards and the White House. Then like Senator Hart a minor scandal, or loss of enthusiasm sends them to ex menudo anonymity and selling real estate on the teevee.That, or they slam into trees while skiing.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Atheism is too simple.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Concordia said:


> Probably too early for him to be really ready. I wouldn't mind seeing how he looks after he's been governor of Illinois for a while, though. That would test his executive ability.


Exactly. The job of a senator is to talk, look good, raise money and vote. Occasionally argue. The job of a governor is a real job. They have to get things done. They build roads, bridges and actually manage. I still hold that Obama is a classic liberal cut from the same cloth as the classic New England liberals. I think the dems are so desparate for a rock star they'll latch onto anything. So far I haven't heard him come up with any new ideas.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> So far I haven't heard him come up with any new ideas.


So if you're criticizing Obama for lack of new ideas, I assume you must believe there are other politicians who DO have a new idea or two. Who and what?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> So if you're criticizing Obama for lack of new ideas, I assume you must believe there are other politicians who DO have a new idea or two. Who and what?


I think new ideas are not really welcomed too much and I think if a new idea does get brought forward, by the time is has been morphed by special interests and tweaked by policy wonks, it is not the same idea you started with. It's a shame but too many people have too much invested in the status quo.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I think new ideas are not really welcomed too much and I think if a new idea does get brought forward, by the time is has been morphed by special interests and tweaked by policy wonks, it is not the same idea you started with. It's a shame but too many people have too much invested in the status quo.


This is true, and this is why when all is said and done we will wind up with bland choices in 2008. They will either be bland people to begin with, or they will be real people neutered, the way McCain seems to be headed. This is why I laugh when someone points to a specific politician and calls him a phony. If he isn't a phony already, they will turn him into one if he aims high enough. That goes for both parties equally.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Our contemporary assembly(s) known as the Bible is the work of MEN. We have " the gospel according to..." in the New Testament, not the Gospel as written in stone by GOD, and an assembly of events in the old. Was there really a worldwide flood and a man named Noah, or an older document describing the plight of a Babylonian family who survived the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates, found by Rabbis who thought it a magnificient parable for teaching? Did God part the Red Sea, or is this a mistranslation of the REED SEA, where ancestors of contemporary israeli IDF leaders went into a marsh and Pharoah's charioteers tried to follow with the same rigid strategies that failed in a later conflict? There is a monthly magazine called BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, where many events in the bible have been given location, date and artifacts.I doubt any such periodical will ever exist for Islam, a religon that teaches every word is an infallible message from Allah. Take the Gospel and turn it into stale paranoia and you are just another american ayatollah. Christianity is a FAITH based commitment. Yet that faith has some subtle hints of devine love. That story of Noah? One of our prime naval architects built an early USN battleship using the dimensions of the ARK. Navy men of the time recalled it as the best riding ship in heavy seas. Astronomers have used modern science to track and identify the 'Star' used by the three Magi to find Jesus. Light streaming in through stained glass is best enjoyed without sunglasses or turning away, and optical knowledge not taking any of the pleasure away.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

cufflink44 said:


> Speaking of snakes . . . how about speaking snakes? Genesis says that snakes can talk. Do you think that's a scientific fact as well?


Good question. Didn't satan speak through the snake? Because the snake agreeded to be used, is that not why the snake lost it's legs?

Adam & Eve are the only people that saw snakes with legs. The story is verbally passed down until Moses wrote it down (It is believed that Moses probably wrote the first 5 books). What ever you think about this, remember, the scientist didn't know that snakes had legs until about 1960's to early 1970's and scientist didn't have the ability to know until about then, either.

Contagious, quarantine are two interesting words. Is Mose the first that to write quarantine because of contagious health problems? Moses was brought up in the Royal Family of Egypt, so, highly educated, and yet, what he wrote out in the desert about health care is not what he learned in Egypt, is it? He said God told him what to write out in the desert for health care. Today we have the knowelge to quarantine because of contagious health problems, but this scientific knowelge is maybe 200 years old thanks to microscopes?

And one last thing. Why are there tracks of humans stepping on "Dinosaur" tracks and dinosaur stepping on human tracks- squshed into the mud togther, which are now rocks? If you were not around back then, people who want to decieve you, will tell you those dinosaurs died millions of years before humans were even around, by leaving out a few facts.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

WA, I take it you believe in the literal translation of the Bible.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The bible is a menu and a road map. I don't eat menus and drive in circles when a great burgerstand with cherry cokes is revealed daily on my journey.


----------

