Thread: Don't pull no punches, tell me what you really think.

Originally Posted by HNSB

I'm just going to vote for the best looking candidate.

I'll be honest. I voted for McCain last time around just hoping he'd keel over and then we'd have a hot president. I'm all for a hot president. I'll vote for whoever is either hottest, gives me the most money, lets me keep my guns or a combination of all 3...

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

As a conservative I am conflicted. The revisionists in 1954 added that phrase to the pledge, which is bad. I like tradition. At the same time it makes the liberals mad, so it is kind of good.

Anything that makes the liberals mad is a good thing. Or at the very least I enjoy watching liberals (I always thought they shouldn't care what people do being liberal and what not, just so long as it doesn't impinge upon their life) get worked up over Hannity. Sure, the man is mostly insane but he sure does a good job of getting their panties in a wad.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Where is Ross Perot now that we really need him ?

I voted for him....

Originally Posted by bharner

Anything that makes the liberals mad is a good thing. Or at the very least I enjoy watching liberals (I always thought they shouldn't care what people do being liberal and what not, just so long as it doesn't impinge upon their life) get worked up over Hannity. Sure, the man is mostly insane but he sure does a good job of getting their panties in a wad.

Actually, the conservatives should have been upset over adding that clause.
After all, that's what 'conservative' means, no?
Adding a clause to the pledge of allegiance, when that clause has no constitutional foundation, and then making other people swear that pledge, That's not conservative.

Also, wouldn't politics be a much more productive game if people stopped doing things, just to make the people of the other party angry?

If I remember my history correctly, adding that clause was not a wholly conservative push. In fact I think it was just about as bipartisan a thing as we've had in the last 75 years. I don't think it's fair to assume that was done to annoy.

On the other hand, if you want to annoy a liberal, there's no need for legislation. Just tell them you'd prefer to keep your own money, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

On the other hand, if you want to annoy a liberal, there's no need for legislation. Just tell them you'd prefer to keep your own money, thank you very much.

Yeah but that argument works both ways, which is the problem.
You don't want to pay for general healthcare (I suppose. my apologies if I am wrong). So you could annoy people who do by saying you like to keep your money.

But they can make the same argument over the war in Iraq. Or various other things that conservatives are generally very much in favor of and don't mind spending federal money on, even though another group of people don't agree.

That is why those one-liner catch phrases are not accurate. They generally work both ways and both parties are doing the same thing.

But to get back to the election: who do you think would be the best republican candidate?

No apologies necessary; you're correct. I absolutely do not want to pay for that! However, you are guilty of this yourself, too. I think saying that "the conservatives" don't mind spending federal money on Iraq is a rather large generalization, and not as correct as it once may have been.

My statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not specifically directed towards healthcare. It was directed to a fundamental difference in opinion on many things.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Actually, the conservatives should have been upset over adding that clause.
After all, that's what 'conservative' means, no?
Adding a clause to the pledge of allegiance, when that clause has no constitutional foundation, and then making other people swear that pledge, That's not conservative.

Also, wouldn't politics be a much more productive game if people stopped doing things, just to make the people of the other party angry?

There is mention of God several times in the Declaration:

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

I don't recall anyone getting into trouble in school for not saying the pledge. That does not mean it did not happen.

I read Joseph Ellis's "Founding Brothers" and McCullough''s "John Adams" back to back. I had little remembrance of what I had learned on the revolutionary war era in grade school. I guess I am naive but I had a vision in my mind that the founding fathers were a tightly united bunch with a common purpose and that partisanship didn't enter into the equation until much later in history. I couldn't have been more mistaken. They were like cats and dogs. I found that I was glad when Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton. He may be on the ten dollar bill but he was a duplicitous little twerp whose ambition knew no bounds. Jefferson was also duplicitous and a back stabber while Adams was as honest as the day is long and a straight shooter in all regards. At least that is my take from the two fore mentioned books. So what goes on now is nothing new. People with heartfelt points of view cannot compromise because they "know" they are right.

If it were the president of almost any other country i would say that it is your problem. But as the president of the US (and Russia) are the only ones who have seem to get the privilege of messing in other countries too i would hope that he is the person who think that his country is just one among others in the world. Not the best or worst, just one among others.
So many of my friends have died in Afg, thanks to Bush and it was so damn close that i didn't have to get there myself.
That it strange, really, how the decisions of one man can make the the world go around. Medjevev is another with such unbelliable power ofcourse.