Democrats & Liberals..now is your chance...

[ironglow]

   During the last Presidential election the Liberals & Democrats made it very clear..

 
     In order to even THINK of running for the office of chief executive of this nation...any candidate MUST be a military veteran !

   Reserves, National Guard, non-combat or rear eschelon veteran is simply not good enough !

   No ! By golly..any presidential candidate MUST be a COMBAT veteran..nothing else will do...

     So...Here's you chance Democrats and Liberals....

         Tell the world...Of all the present candidates, only John McCain and Duncan Hunter should be considered eligible !

    Time to put your money where your mouth was...

[magooch]

That was then, this is now.  Dumbycrats have zero convictions and even if they did, it would only be good until their next breath.

[billy_56081]

 IG remember this is the do whatever feels good crowd. I would bet alot of the Demoncrat elite spit on soldiers in the Viet Nam era. They are a discusting do anything to get into power group that makes me sick to my stomach.

[ncsurveyor]

........ Dumbycrats have zero convictions.............

Must be they have good attorneys?



(pardon the pun)

[rockbilly]

John McCain? You gotta be kidding me, he wouldn't make a pimple on a Presidents butt.  Based on many of his perceptions of illegal immigration, and world terrorism he is not much better than Hillary.  Sorry, but there has to be a better choice, even if they have not served in the military.

Ain't a lot of choices out there that really attract my attention, but I can spell "Ron Paul."  A long shot at best, but perhaps the best medicine for this ailing nation.

[ironglow]

  Hey Rockbilly..I was only turning the Dem/Libs 2004 arguments back to them.
  You do recall I assume, how the Dem/Libs when they were touting John Kerry as
 the greatest candidate since George Washington, practically called it MANDATORY that
any viable candidate must absolutely be a "combat veteran"..veteran or National Guard
   service were simply not enough!
  This, from a [party that fully supported a guy in the 90s that not only dodged the draft,
  but bragged on it and claimed he "loathed" the military...


     Whadda Parrrty....??

[Casull]

Let's see Al Gore is a combat veteran isn't he? And he already won the election once......right?  So let's just see what the DNC does next?

...TM7
 
 Report to moderator    Logged 
 

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.  Al Gore a combat veteran?  Wasn't he a typewriter jockey during Nam?  Won the election once?  Only in the minds of the wacko left.  But, I must say, I would not be surprised if the DNC were to retread him. 

[Echo4Lima]

Yup, Remington (Typewriter) raider.  In country a whole 4 weeks with body guards galore.  Also, he was there as an enlisted man. Curious, why wouldn't he have been an officer?  Have to be a college grad to be an officer.......Hmmmnnn

[Echo4Lima]

Also, how many times were the votes counted?  How many times did Al win those counts?  ZERO!!

[magooch]

Since Presidents of the United States are not elected by popular vote, Algore has never been elected to that position.  I think you know that TM, so claiming that Algore was already elected once doesn't go very far in lending any credibillity to whatever your point is.

[ironglow]

  And it was Algore that went to court, trying to disallow military absentee votes..have we forgotten that ?

    Yes, the popular vote doesn't get it..and thank God it doesn't !

  If that were the case..and if we were not part of the left coast, or it's counterpart..Kremlin East and a few large cities between,
 
   we may as well stay home on election day !

   Our founding fathers were a good deal wiser than today's liberals...

[jimster]

Well TM7, I'm not a real big Bush fan to be honest, but as far as people still thinking Bush taking Florida was some kind of coup, I have to be honest and say I watched several of the re-counts on TV, Bush won all those, and every time he won a recount, they would want to count again, with slightly different rules...he won those counts also....I'm just being honest as I can here regardless of how I feel about certain people.  I'm not really attached to either of the major political parties, neither of them deserve my loyalty.
I think that election is long gone though, hopefully, the media learned a lesson on calling the winner ahead of time (who they want to win that is)...but I doubt it, they don't appear to be learning much about news reporting.   Florida was a mess for sure that year, seems to most of it all started when a set of judges did not like how another lower judge ruled.  That seems to me to be politics right there, going on inside the judicial system.  Then you have the head honcho of the high court in Florida come out and tell the news people. "what we did won't hold up constitutionally" , he was right, I guess it did not.  Sheesh, we all knew there was politics going on in the juridical system already.  So there ya have it...it's all just politics, and sometimes the actual facts, and how you feel about someone, or a certain party tend to blind people.  I like my way these days...I don't think either party is worth a hoot, and I just sit back and look at the people running for president and say...is that all we got?  Out a several million people in the United States of America....is that it?  Is this my choice?   Same this year as it was back in the big Florida debacle.  I have some one not so good to vote for, which is better than someone real bad, which is better than an all out disaster....some choice.

Absolutely unbelievable.

[Dee]

  And it was Algore that went to court, trying to disallow military absentee votes..have we forgotten that ?

Yes he did, and since them GW, has IGNORED the voice of the PEOPLE in regards to OPEN BORDERS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, THE PATRIOT ACT and on and on. "Algore" as you guys like to call him, tried to silence the voters. GW, on the other hand just chooses to IGNORE THEM. He was elected to SERVE THE "WILL OF THE PEOPLE", and he refuses. It would seem to me that Mr. Gore's issue has long since PASSED AWAY, while Mr. Bush's CONTINUES TO MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE "NEGATIVE " SENSE, as the illegals continue to POUR IN. But hell, he's a CONSERVATIVE .

    Yes, the popular vote doesn't get it..and thank God it doesn't !

Here I would wholeheartedly agree. But neither do the REPUBLICANS backing GW on the above mentioned issues, which are the CRUX of many of our problems TODAY. Rehashing an 8 year old election does NOTHING to solve TODAY'S problems.

  If that were the case..and if we were not part of the left coast, or it's counterpart..Kremlin East and a few large cities between,
 
   we may as well stay home on election day !

Hell, we may as well have stayed home in the last election. GW CONTINUES to ignore the PEOPLE on the above mentioned issues.

   Our founding fathers were a good deal wiser than today's liberals...

Our founding fathers were a good deal wiser than these knuckleheads you guys call CONSERVATIVES. What PAST PRESIDENTS, have done concerning open borders, illegal immigration, and documents such as the Patriot Act, don't amount to a "hill of beans" since 911. GW wants to SECURE THE BORDERS OF IRAQ  "for security purposes", and IGNORES HIS OWN COUNTRIES BORDERS.

Hitlary, Dumbycrats, Algore. How cute. How about Ostrichicans?

[ironglow]

  I agree that GW is far from ideal..

   But look what we have to look forward to unless we all quit quibbling and start pulling together...

   Hillary, Billery and Slik Willie all understand "divide and conquer" !

[Dee]

ironglow, it is not a matter of quibbling. It is a matter of recognizing that the whole damn bunch INCLUDING GW, are a bunch of crooks. Some people seem to think they are MORE PATRIOTIC (not necessarily refering to you) by backing a president right or wrong, and everyone else is a sniviling coward. When one steps into a situation that turns out to be a mistake, it is NOT cowardly to back out of it, it is SMART to do so.
I would agree that Ron Paul is a long shot at best, however, folks like Thompson, have played both sides of the field for years, and because he has a chance (so it is said) he's the guy. BS! The guy is a politics as usual monkey.
Pulling together is a joke. It will not happen, until we finally hit bottom, as a country.
When I was a kid, republicans used to call SOME democrats "yellow dog democrats" meaning they would vote for an "ole yellow dog" if it was a democratic one, before they would a republican REGARDLESS of voting records and PAST AFFILLIATIONS.
There are as many "yellow dog republicans" as there are democrats, and that is the simple truth. It's like the Iraq war. IGNORE THE TRUTH, and spout the propaganda, to justify it. JM2CW

[ironglow]

 
  Dee;

  Yup! There are, to be perfectly candid "yellow dogs" on both sides of the aisle. Up here in the North it appears that the cities are primarily Democrat while the rural areas are Republican ...the suburbs are rather split.
  The larger city in my end of the state is Buffalo, and you want to see yellow dog..
   Yikes !..Buffalo is dying..about half the size it was in 1950..yes, the suburbs got some ..but most just "left" for better opportunities. The death throes can be laid primarily, to POLITICIANS..the same old family names in politics for generations. The same old gang being re-treaded over and over.
  They tax the people to death, treat them like *#@*&^ ..and those people vote them ( or their brother or uncle) back in year after year...

  When a new business or a major public works is likely to come into the area..the "special interest " groups keep growsing and fighting for a (free) piece of the action. That huge "Mall of America" that ended up in Minnesota was eyeing the Buffalo/Niagara falls area, until the greedy infighting for "freebies" started..they said "bye bye"..

   They need a bridge built across the Niagara R. to Canada, to replace an aging one ..they can't even get together long enough to do a little job that other cities do routinely !

  That's what happens when voters turn "yellow dog"...
 
   Here in the rural areas , although there is some of each major party in local governments..to be a registered Republican is a "leg up"..

       The state is gradually strangling under ridiculous taxes..and the state politicians keep adding more taxes ...In the end, they will take their lucrative pensions, and their nest eggs (accumulated, who knows how)..pack up and move to some southern... or foreign resort..

[deltecs]

It seems to me that the Demoncrats basic political philosophy is that the welfare (rights) of society are more important than the rights of the individual.  I meant welfare rather than the more commonly used term rights with regard to society.  Society unto itself has no rights.  Individuals have rights.  A prime example of this is the US Supreme court decision with regard to eminent rights to property ownership in Connecticut where the community condemned private residences, so the town could cede the land to a private developer, thus increasing tax revenue.  Every conservative judge on the high Court opposed this tenet.  It was the liberal judges, appointed by Demoncrats, that stole these properties and reinterpreted this time honored property right.  Another example is their collective stand on firearms, which the Democrats resoundingly believe to be granted to the States National Guard rather than the individual.  Another example is their position that having oral sex is reason enough to commit perjury and not be accountable for it.  There are some things I dislike about some of the conservative postions and our current President but there are many more I like.  There are very few Democrat positions I agree with.

[ironglow]

  Deltecs;

    BINGO !!

   If we wait around and refuse to vote until the "perfect" candidate comes along..we will be sitting on our votes while the worst of the possible choices takes office.
 
  surely I don't have to remind people on this forum that there is not..nor ever will be a perfect candidate, since absolute perfection does not reside in human kind !

  There has been much discussion about voting for the lesser of two evils...if that is too complex a statement, let's rephrase it back to where it started..

  " Vote for the best candidate between the 2 or 3 that will be offered next November !". 
 
      The change in wording only reflects the difference between the " glass half
   
    empty, or glass half full " syndrome.

    Keeping in mind that there is no absolutely perfect human presently ambulating this earth; we will always be faced with that choice . Thus it boils down to either we try to participate in
   
   the democracy experiment or pick up our marbles (votes)..and cry wee, wee, wee all the way home...
   
   K

[Dee]

ironglow it is the same here in Texas. Republicans are in, and Democrats a dirty word in many areas. Several years ago when GW was first running for Pres. I was in Boston for a couple of days, and several of the guys in a crew were giving me a hard time about the backwoods Texan wantin to be Pres. I calmly reminded them that they had been electing a DRUNK (kennedy) to run their business for years. Nuff said. Subject changed.
Bush has been a big disappointment for me, although I have family that still swear he can walk on water. I tell them; He "wishes" he could walk on water, and wants you to think he can. His UNWILLINGNESS to take care of "US" first, and places like Iraq and Mexico last are one of the MANY issues I have grown to resent about his attitude toward actually doing the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
Until this week, Lyndon Johnson was the spendingest pres. in history, and that war went on 10 years, but this week GW passed him in the funds dept. and accomplished it in less than 8 years.
I think what made him look so good as a governor down here was ANN RICHARDS. She too was a drunk, and had made the statement on TV, that as long as she was governor of Texas there would be no CCW here. Once again. NUFF SAID! "This is Texas honey", big mistake. She was history, and GW was in.

[ironglow]

  Dee; I do know exactly what you mean..and GW has disappointed me too ! 

   His view on ILLEGAL immigrants and his "justice dept" punishing the two border guards for shooting a border-busting drug smuggler in the butt...when they should have been given medals and a wage increase actually enraged me.
 
   his attempts to "go along, to get along" with the likes of Teddy Kennedy and other hopeless liberals was also disappointing .

  That being said, we would be infinitely worse off with Gore or Kerry as Prez..to say nothing of the Hildebeast !

   If the Hildebeast is successful next fall, I would HAVE to take it as a sign that His hand is being taken off the USA..

[Dee]

I see Gore and Kerry as none issues. They DIDN'T win. So what's the use in speculating. Hillary is probably destined to win, at some point in time, if she can stay out of jail, and I believe she can. We cannot stop defending GW's screwups long enough to take an honest look at the available candidates, and stop fretting about what MIGHT HAVE BEEN concerning Gore and Kerry.
I for one will never vote for the lessor of two evils again. My consicience tells me to vote for the BEST candidate, regardless of his chances, and that is what I will do. Unless it is Paul, it won't be Republican or Democrat, and I would seriously doubt Paul makes the cut.

[jh45gun]

I would seriously doubt Paul makes the cut.

Just now starting to realize that??? 

[billy_56081]

And were the out of touch ones!   

I'm still waiting for some of those words of wisdom though. 

[ironglow]

   Gore and Kerry are issues only as a reminder that if we refuse to vote for the best available candidate..we may well be allowing the worst available candidate to win by default !

[Dee]

I would seriously doubt Paul makes the cut.

Just now starting to realize that??? 

Well so much for civility on this thread. jh45gun, I have NEVER said that Paul was going to win. I HAVE said that I think he would make a good candidate, IF he could get the nominational support, which I ALSO said he probably wouldn't get. Your so damn busy blindly defending your hero GW, and mine and others alleged BASHING of him on things he has, and has not done,  that you hadn't noticed. That hasn't and will never surprise me. You have a one track mind.

billy_56081, I'm still waiting on the hint that you might be able to absorb any wisdom, or recognize wisdom if you heard it. All I have seen you do is beat the war drums, for a war you aren't fighting in, and then sending me emails whining about my responses and your own terrible plight. You look healthy enough holding that deer. Both of you accuse myself, and others of doing PRECISELY what you are doing. One of your latest insults billy is that people whom disagree with you, make you sick to your stomach, and spit on soldiers.  Pretty strong words for an "armchair" warrior.

ironglow and I were having a "civil" dialogue, and here come the election profits. Got any "new" cute names for the candidates, like dumycrats, or hitlery, the funny has worn off of these, even for my grand kids.

[magooch]

So, the final analysis is that Ron Paul is the only perfect candidate.  Says who?  I've seen him and listened to him and he has as many, or more warts than many of the others.  It's all a matter of opinion. 

Personally, I like Duncan Hunter, but I would imagine that even he has some different ideas about things than I do.  I also think that his chances are just a little better than Ron Paul of actually being nominated.  So that probably brings us back to Rudy, Mitt, and Fred.  I'll take Fred.

[jimster]

Dee, I agree with you on voting for the best candidate, For a couple times now I tried the voting for someone to keep someone else from getting in there, it was not voting FOR anybody, it was voting against someone.  My bad, I ain't feeling good about giving up my integrity, and I'm sorry for what I did.  Now, I don't care if the place goes to hell in a hand basket because I didn't vote AGAINST somebody, far as I'm concerned they all deserve what they get, maybe I deserve it too.  it's time to hit rock bottom so people can start climbing back to the top.  Maybe that will work.
There are many people that feel the way I do now.  I'm not loyal to any party, I get lip service from both, I need nothing from either one, nor want nothing either one has to offer.
I'm tired of one party thinking they need to meet the other part half way on things...THERE ISN'T ANY HALFWAY on some issues.  So every time a deal is made to pass a bill it's got 350 items on it that make it a BAD bill, most of which have NOTHING to do with the original bill.  I don't like that game they play up there, it's all politics and nothing with any substance, all in the name of pleasing
as many people as we can.  Pleasing people, or appearing to please people is what those two major parties have evolved into. 

[Fazak]

   During the last Presidential election the Liberals & Democrats made it very clear..

 
     In order to even THINK of running for the office of chief executive of this nation...any candidate MUST be a military veteran !

   Reserves, National Guard, non-combat or rear eschelon veteran is simply not good enough !

   No ! By golly..any presidential candidate MUST be a COMBAT veteran..nothing else will do...

     So...Here's you chance Democrats and Liberals....

         Tell the world...Of all the present candidates, only John McCain and Duncan Hunter should be considered eligible !

    Time to put your money where your mouth was...

You forgot about former General Wesley Clark.

As a 25-year old Army captain in Vietnam, commanding a mechanized infantry company, Clark was on patrol in the jungle, looking for Viet Cong, when he was shot four times. Commanding his troops despite his wounds, he gave a series of orders, and his soldiers quickly overran the enemy positions. His bravery in battle earned him a Silver Star.

[ironglow]

  Is he a candidate this time around ? If so, he must be a silent runner, I haven't heard from him...

[deltecs]

I don't know how many times I've read on these posts about voting against someone by voting the lessor of 2 evils.  Let's review this picture.  If a person votes for someone with the intention of not voting for the other candidate, then the person he votes for must have some redeeming quality that the other does not.  This doesn't mean that he/she (in this case, God forbid) has every qualification desirable to the voter.  It means that candidate he votes for has the best qualities of those running with a possibility of winning.  When Ross ran for President, I debated between him and Bush Sr.  However, it was obvious to me that he had no real chance of winning.  And a vote for Ross actually gave a vote to Slick Willy by splitting conservative voters.  There were a few things I disliked about Bush Sr., some things I liked that Ross was proposing, and nothing I liked about Clinton.  The value vote went for Bush Sr.  So in reality, this was not a vote against Clinton, it was a vote for the qualities of the candidate most likely to win and I believed that to be Bush.  This is another example of whether the glass is half full or half empty.  I think it is time for our populace to start positive thinking instead of the politically correct concept of doubting Thomas'.  We need to wake up and say Good Morning to ourselves and neighbors without our first cup of coffee.  Then maybe we can get those candidates that can win elections and have honest, bipartisan government.  We cannot have achieve this goal when our President commits perjury, Senators commit manslaughter, Representatives think they are Ambassadors, and Judges are illiterate with regard to the English Dictionary.