Poll Question for Republicans

[Danny White]

This question is for registered Republicans or those who generally view themselves as Republicans.

If John McCain named Joe Lieberman as his running mate, would you vote for him?

[burmafrd]

I respect Joe Lieberman a whole lot more then John McCain. So I would have no trouble at all.

[Mavs Man]

I'm tempted to write in "John McClane" but I'm sure they would just apply the vote to someone else. ;)

I'm really not sure what I'm going to do come November. I have yet to miss a national election, midterm or not, but I may just leave it blank and vote for state offices, only.

[jrumann59]

Actually if Lieberman was on the ticket I would have a lot of respect for McCain, because his party will throw him out on his arse in 2012. I am actually warming to McCain this country needs someone more middle of the road than far right or far left, and I always thought of McCain as a liberal Republican

[DFWJC]

Registered Independent here, so I won't vote in your poll.

However, Lieberman is so far right of Obama (or better put, Obama is so far let of Lieb) that I can't see how his being a VP would casue someone to cross the aisle. They may be disgruntled, but I would think the choice would still be clear to those that already favor McCain.

[Bach]

It would basically be moderate Democrats vs. liberal Democrats. One of the two will win so I'd still vote for the least liberal.

[Danny White]

I must hang out with some serious right-wing nuts... because I don't know of a single Republican who would vote for that ticket! :D

[zrinkill]

It would basically be moderate Democrats vs. liberal Democrats. One of the two will win so I'd still vote for the least liberal.

Thats where I am at as well.

Now if Obama gets Powell to run with him ..... I do not know what I will do.

[Doomsday101]

I must hang out with some serious right-wing nuts... because I don't know of a single Republican who would vote for that ticket! :D

I would vote for this ticket. I think this would be a good moderate ticket for the republicans but I do not think McCain will do it because of the far right wing.

[bbgun]

Registered Independent here, so I won't vote in your poll.

However, Lieberman is so far right of Obama (or better put, Obama is so far let of Lieb) that I can't see how his being a VP would casue someone to cross the aisle. They may be disgruntled, but I would think the choice would still be clear to those that already favor McCain.

Obama's the most liberal Dem Senator. Everyone's far to the right of him.

[Hostile]

I'm not a registered Republican but since I've come out and said I am voting for my fellow Arizonan I voted in the poll.

[DFWJC]

Obama's the most liberal Dem Senator. Everyone's far to the right of him.
That is my point

[Rackat]

I've never been a registered member of eithe partty, but have tended towards the Conservative candidates.

Since the choice is McCain or Obama, I'll take the less Liberal guy, with or without Lieberman. I like Lieberman, so it wouldn't be that difficult of a choice for me.

[Bizwah]

I'm not a registered Republican. But I have never voted Democrat. I can't bring myself to vote for people with their ideals. If I ever found a Democrat that was conservative fiscally and socially, I might vote for them.

Ok...Here's the deal.

I would hate the McCain/Liebermann ticket.

But what's the alternative? Obama and whomever else?

Don't think so.

It would be a lesser of two evils thing.....

McCain was just a terrible choice for Republicans. We had junk to choose from this year. Just like the Dems the last couple of elections.

What would Republicans gain from voting for Obama or another party? Would they really want a guy like Obama as president?

[Danny White]

This poll has been eye-opening for me.

It makes me think McCain has a better shot of winning than I may have previously thought. It seems that Obama is really making the right-leaners rally around McCain.

[Bizwah]

This poll has been eye-opening for me.

It makes me think McCain has a better shot of winning than I may have previously thought. It seems that Obama is really making the right-leaners rally around McCain.

He can't hide the fact that he's an ultra-liberal.

But I think Obama wins going away. He "looks" and "sounds" more presidential. I don't mean that in a bad way.

He's charismatic...he's a great speaker...he carries himself in a confident manner.

McCain just looks old. He's quiet....He's frail looking.

McCain gets my vote because I try to vote for the candidate that most closely matches my beliefs. Obama isn't even close.

Of course, libertarians are close....but really, third parties have virtually no shot. A vote for one of them, is a vote for Obama, IMO.

[Ben_n_austin]

Liebrman and McCain.... now that's a ticket to laugh at. And not to be too discouraging, but I wouldn't count on that. Not to mention, Obama hasn't started his campaign attacks on McCain. It's not time yet, nor has be chosen a VP.

[Ben_n_austin]

Actually if Lieberman was on the ticket I would have a lot of respect for McCain, because his party will throw him out on his arse in 2012. I am actually warming to McCain this country needs someone more middle of the road than far right or far left, and I always thought of McCain as a liberal Republican


..us liberals call 'em neo-cons.

[Hostile]

Liebrman and McCain.... now that's a ticket to laugh at. And not to be too discouraging, but I wouldn't count on that. Not to mention, Obama hasn't started his campaign attacks on McCain. It's not time yet, nor has be chosen a VP.What I find funniest is that Liberals would "laugh at" the most possible Liberal ticket the Republicans could run.

Seems to me that's a win-win proposition.

I guess not. I admit I don't get it though. Never quite have grasped partisanship.

[Vintage]

..us liberals call 'em neo-cons.

You can call them whatever you want.

Eventually, one day... you'll actually get it correct.

[Vintage]

I'm not a Republican...

But to answer the question....

It depends on what wins out.... if I decide to be a bit of an idealist, it will be 3rd Party. If I scrap that, it will be McCain.

[Doomsday101]

I'm not a Republican...

But to answer the question....

It depends on what wins out.... if I decide to be a bit of an idealist, it will be 3rd Party. If I scrap that, it will be McCain.

But then isn't that just a protest vote knowing full well that Barr or whoever that 3rd party candidate is, will not win? We are all grownups so (most of us) so who you vote for your business and you should cast your vote as you see fit but other than a protest vote I'm not sure what can be expected and lastly does is Barr plate form similar to you own belief? I have a feeling if these 3rd party candidates were put under the same microscope as the leading 2 candidates are that they would not fair much better in people’s opinion.

[Ben_n_austin]

What I find funniest is that Liberals would "laugh at" the most possible Liberal ticket the Republicans could run.

Seems to me that's a win-win proposition.

I guess not. I admit I don't get it though. Never quite have grasped partisanship.

If you've ever read my comments on Lieberman, you'd know that I, along with most liberals, hate him--for good reason. He's a nut job, through and through, which is why we've never elected him or came close to doing so.

[zrinkill]

Of course ..... a decent man with morals is considered a "nut job" by the left.

:lmao2:

[Ben_n_austin]

Of course ..... a decent man with morals is considered a "nut job" by the left.

:lmao2:


You obviously don't know Lieberman. He said the main reason he ran for office is because he liked the limelight.

How silly of me for thinking he's NOT a decent man. In fact, I think he makes a perfect running mate for McCain.... Since they'll both do virtually anything for the limelight.

To say Lieberman is a man of morals is about the most retarded thing I've ever heard--even from you.

What would we call them? The Limelight Lollipops? Because they both suck....

[Vintage]

But then isn't that just a protest vote knowing full well that Barr or whoever that 3rd party candidate is, will not win? We are all grownups so (most of us) so who you vote for your business and you should cast your vote as you see fit but other than a protest vote I'm not sure what can be expected and lastly does is Barr plate form similar to you own belief? I have a feeling if these 3rd party candidates were put under the same microscope as the leading 2 candidates are that they would not fair much better in people’s opinion.

In my case, it would be voting for a candidate that most closely reflects my political leanings... (and no, it isn't Barr).

So.... am I to understand then, that voting for someone who reflects my political leanings is "protesting"? Hmm.

Maybe I should vote for Obama then. He reflects hardly any of my stuff. But at least he is a "majority" candidate.

My state is probably going to end up blue, anyway.

Guess its time to hop on the Obama bandwagon. Voting for McCain is a waste then.

[zrinkill]

You obviously don't know Lieberman. He said the main reason he ran for office is because he liked the limelight.

How silly of me for thinking he's NOT a decent man. In fact, I think he makes a perfect running mate for McCain.... Since they'll both do virtually anything for the limelight.

To say Lieberman is a man has morals is about the most retarded thing I've ever heard--even from you.

What would we call them? The Limelight Lollipops? Because they both suck....

Bull

I would like to see this quote.

I think I understand what your real problem with Lieberman is.

[Ben_n_austin]

Bull

I would like to see this quote.

I think I understand what your real problem with Lieberman is.

Don't think. You're an idiot. ;)

[zrinkill]

Don't think. You're an idiot. ;)



Did not take you long to resort to your usual tactics did it?

Spit out a bunch of lies then start insulting those that call you out on it.

I am in to good of a mood to fall for your stupidity tonight though.

:lmao2:

[Ben_n_austin]

Did not take you long to resort to your usual tactics did it?

Spit out a bunch of lies then start insulting those that call you out on it.

I am in to good of a mood to fall for your stupidity tonight though.

:lmao2:

It would only be an insult if it wasn't obviously made apparent by your lack of substance and childish over-usage of the :lmao2: smilie as Zrinkill's childish way of slinging an insult without doing so.

But I do not retract the statement, because that is my opinion of you. But I do apologize in light of the board rules.

You truly are the board's biggest troll. I've noticed that lately and not only in this section of the forum....

I won't put you on ignore, but I will ignore you for a while simply because you have nothing worthy to say whatsoever... you just spout out little one-liners and smilies--and rack up your posts never providing reason...

But I think most of the board has you pegged for what you are--a troll.

I'll be waiting for your web-wife, Ice, to show up in your defense since I've handed your arse to you many times in the past....

But I refuse to bully an uneducated idgit on the internet anymore from now on....

Troll.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You obviously don't know Lieberman. He said the main reason he ran for office is because he liked the limelight.

How silly of me for thinking he's NOT a decent man. In fact, I think he makes a perfect running mate for McCain.... Since they'll both do virtually anything for the limelight.

To say Lieberman is a man of morals is about the most retarded thing I've ever heard--even from you.

What would we call them? The Limelight Lollipops? Because they both suck....

He just thinks the man has morals because he supported the Iraq war.

[zrinkill]

I won't put you on ignore, but I will ignore you for a while simply because you have nothing worthy to say whatsoever... you just spout out little one-liners and smilies--and rack up your posts...

But I think most of the board has you pegged for what you are--a troll.

I'll be waiting for your web-wife, Ice, to show up in your defense since I've handed your arse to you many times in the past....

But I refuse to bully an uneducated idgit on the internet anymore from now on....

Troll.

:lmao:

You have lost every argument you have ever started on this board.

But please do run away ....... its getting embarrassing for you.

[Ben_n_austin]

DW, I apologize about the thread. Somehow, you've managed to earn respect from me along the way and we don't see things at all the same. Sorry for ruining your thread.

Sincerely,
Ben

[zrinkill]

He just thinks the man has morals because he supported the Iraq war.


And you think he does not because of ...... well you know.

[bbgun]

If you've ever read my comments on Lieberman, you'd know that I, along with most liberals, hate him--for good reason. He's a nut job, through and through, which is why we've never elected him or came close to doing so.

They hate him because he's serious about the war on terror (and by extension, Iraq) and they aren't. BTW, why did Captain Planet pick this "nut job" as a running mate in 2000? Are we to believe that he suddenly became nutty in the last eight years? Or is this all about Iraq?

BTW, the good people of Connecticut ousted him in the Dem primary a couple of years ago, immediately realized their mistake, and re-elected the "nut job" as an Independent. What do you know that they don't?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

And you think he does not because of ...... well you know.

come on say it, you think I don't like him because he is hebrew

actually, I have no opinion on him one way or the other. his actions have no effect on me personally so I don't care about him one way or the other.

[Ben_n_austin]

They hate him because he's serious about the war on terror (and by extension, Iraq) and they aren't. BTW, why did Captain Planet pick this "nut job" as a running mate in 2000? Are we to believe that he suddenly became nutty in the last eight years? Or is this all about Iraq?

BTW, the good people of Connecticut ousted him in the Dem primary a couple of years ago, immediately realized their mistake, and re-elected the "nut job" as an Independent. What do you know that they don't?




I remember a radio interview I heard back when I had somewhat of a favorable opinion of Lieberman where he pretty much made a mockery of our system and his role in it. He said he was BBQing at the time and what not, but obviously had drank one two many that night and was utterly rude and obnoxious--not only this, but he said that what makes him love politics is the limelight....

[zrinkill]

actually, I have no opinion on him one way or the other. his actions have no effect on me personally so I don't care about him one way or the other.

Yet you still assumed he did not ..... at least that is the impression you left when you defended the "other one"

[Ben_n_austin]

come on say it, you think I don't like him because he is hebrew

actually, I have no opinion on him one way or the other. his actions have no effect on me personally so I don't care about him one way or the other.

Funny, but that never crossed my mind.... Only a troll would start with that sort of rhetoric. O, the irony.

[zrinkill]

I remember a radio interview I heard back when I had somewhat of a favorable opinion of Lieberman where he pretty much made a mockery of our system and his role in it. He said he was BBQing at the time and what not, but obviously had drank one two many that night and was utterly rude and obnoxious--not only this, but he said that what makes him love politics is the limelight....


Link?

[bbgun]

I remember a radio interview I heard back when I had somewhat of a favorable opinion of Lieberman where he pretty much made a mockery of our system and his role in it. He said he was BBQing at the time and what not, but obviously had drank one two many that night and was utterly rude and obnoxious--not only this, but he said that what makes him love politics is the limelight....

That's it? A dated interview? If you had any balls, you'd admit that you soured on him due to the war. And if you had any brains, you'd realize that he's still a big lib on domestic issues.

"But he loves the limelight!"

And Obama doesn't? .

[Ben_n_austin]

That's it? A dated interview? If you had any balls, you'd admit that you soured on him due to the war. And if you had any brains, you'd realize that he's still a big lib on domestic issues.

"But he loves the limelight!"

And Obama doesn't? .

Sorry, I just don't like the guy. I honestly don't remember the exact date, it was a local radio show that called him up. He hung up on the host....

Of course you can disregard this for your purpose as not being legitimate. But the source is my memory since it was a radio show.... I could do some work and probably find it. Though that'd be a lengthy task, it still wouldn't change your mind. But I'm sure some of his comments like this would eventually come out.

My take was that he's a loose cannon.... and he's all over the place with issues. But my main problem with him is character...

Just my opinion. It shouldn't change yours, I wouldn't think....

[peplaw06]

I remember a radio interview I heard back when I had somewhat of a favorable opinion of Lieberman where he pretty much made a mockery of our system and his role in it. He said he was BBQing at the time and what not, but obviously had drank one two many that night and was utterly rude and obnoxious--not only this, but he said that what makes him love politics is the limelight....If you don't like the limelight... you're not a politician.

[zrinkill]

That's it? A dated interview? If you had any balls, you'd admit that you soured on him due to the war. And if you had any brains, you'd realize that he's still a big lib on domestic issues.

"But he loves the limelight!"

And Obama doesn't? .

Still waiting for a link ..... instead of a "uh I remember him saying he just likes the limelight uhhh yea that what he said"

;)

[Ben_n_austin]

If you don't like the limelight... you're not a politician.

It was in the context of and sometime recently after he dropped out of the '04 election.... He said he didn't care about the issues so much as being in the limelight, dissed on Texans and Austinites as a group and then hung up after the host called him out on what he just said.

[bbgun]

Still waiting for a link ..... instead of a "uh I remember him saying he just likes the limelight uhhh yea that what he said"

;)

He can't help it. He's a moonbat.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/5705/moonbatbrainmw6.jpg

[Ben_n_austin]

He can't help it. He's a moonbat.



Uh huh, a local radio show link from 4 years ago.... LOL. I'm sorry for mentioning...

On that note, I find it funny that if I were to sift through Zrintroll's posts I bet I'd find 10x more smilies than any substantiated source(s)....

Rally round the troll. At least, he's one of yours. :laugh2:

[zrinkill]

He can't help it. He's a moonbat.

No way ..... he is a college professor

I mean look at his post history.

[Ben_n_austin]

No way ..... he is a college professor

I mean look at his post history.

Funny, I've openly stated that I'm getting a higher degree and somehow I've stated I'm a college professor to Zrin.... hilarious.

Just because I lecture, at times, doesn't mean I'm a professor.... But you probably wouldn't know that since you're not educated by any higher education system.

;)

It's always fun owning you, Zrintroll.

[zrinkill]

Funny, I've openly stated that I'm getting a higher degree and somehow I've stated I'm a college professor to Zrin.... hilarious.

Just because I lecture, at times, doesn't mean I'm a professor.... But you probably wouldn't know that since you're not educated by any higher education system.

;)

It's always fun owning you, Zrintroll.


Thought you were ignoring me?

You have never ..... not once ...... owned anyone on this board.

But keep trying.

[Ben_n_austin]

Thought you were ignoring me?

You have never ..... not once ...... owned anyone on this board.

But keep trying.
Dear Zrintroll,

It's not necessary to "own you" when you manage to own yourself in virtually every post you write, troll.

Though I did own you just now with that remark because, once again, you provide nothing but an insubstantial trolling remark, which is why I will ignore you until you start providing substance.

Somehow, I have a feeling it'll be a while. Because you provide substance neither here nor on the football board.

12,000 posts and somehow the biggest troll on the board is still trolling about....

Amazing.

[zrinkill]

Dear Zrintroll,

It's not necessary to "own you" when you manage to own yourself in virtually every post you write, troll.

Though I did own you just now with that remark because, once again, you provide nothing but an insubstantial trolling remark, which is why I will ignore you until you start providing substance.

Somehow, I have a feeling it'll be a while. Because you provide substance neither here nor on the football board.

12,000 posts and somehow the biggest troll on the board is still trolling about....

Amazing.

You lose again kid.

But please keep "ignoring" me

:lmao2:

[Ben_n_austin]

You lose again kid.

But please keep "ignoring" me

:lmao2:

NP, Zrintroll.

[zrinkill]

NP, Zrintroll.


:lmao:

[Ben_n_austin]

:lmao:


:lmao:

[Hostile]

If you've ever read my comments on Lieberman, you'd know that I, along with most liberals, hate him--for good reason. He's a nut job, through and through, which is why we've never elected him or came close to doing so.So you're saying he never won any election on a Democratic ticket and being the Veep candidate for Gore is not coming close to electing him?

Interesting.

[Ben_n_austin]

So you're saying he never won any election on a Democratic ticket and being the Veep candidate for Gore is not coming close to electing him?

Interesting.

He has won on a dem ticket, obviously. And I wasn't talking about a "veep" (the annoying sheep term for VP), I was talking about president.

I should have clarified. He doesn't even come close to getting elected as the main guy.... .

I do find funny that some would vote for him because of the (R)he's running with.... or in your case simply because of the AZ next to his name.

[Danny White]

DW, I apologize about the thread. Somehow, you've managed to earn respect from me along the way and we don't see things at all the same. Sorry for ruining your thread.

Sincerely,
Ben
No harm done. I started this thread because I had a theory and I wanted to test it. I got my answer and it turns out I was wrong.

I'm quite honestly shocked that so many Republicans would take a Lieberman pick sitting down.

Lieberman is so horribly pro-abortion, it makes me sick to my stomach to think of him on the Republican ticket. He's in favor of partial-birth abortion and is for taxpayer funding of abortion.

He's even worse than McCain on immigration.

He's a old-school liberal on taxes and government spending.

He has an 8% rating from the ACU.

It would be a total affront to the Republican party.

It's amazing to me that it's even being talked about seriously.

[Hostile]

He has won on a dem ticket, obviously. And I wasn't talking about a "veep" (the annoying sheep term for VP), I was talking about president. Oh goodness I'll repent forthwith and never use the term again.

I should have clarified. He doesn't even come close to getting elected as the main guy.... .Ah, so only President is a qualification. Makes it even more ridiculous since very few men ever get elected President, but it's your game, play it by your own ever changing rules.

I do find funny that some would vote for him because of the (R)he's running with.... or in your case simply because of the AZ next to his name.Don't know why you find it funny that some will vote for him because of his party when you yourself will vote for someone because of their party. Are you somehow above everyone else?

There's never been an Arizona President and it's high time. Illinois has had it's chance. I'm voting that way because of my belief that the political party does not matter. I said before people started dropping out of the races that McCain and Richardson were my two dogs in the fight and it was entirely about region of the country.

If it had come down to the two of them I would have voted exactly opposite of my wife as a show of support for both men.

[Hostile]

No harm done. I started this thread because I had a theory and I wanted to test it. I got my answer and it turns out I was wrong.

I'm quite honestly shocked that so many Republicans would take a Lieberman pick sitting down.

Lieberman is so horribly pro-abortion, it makes me sick to my stomach to think of him on the Republican ticket. He's in favor of partial-birth abortion and is for taxpayer funding of abortion.

He's even worse than McCain on immigration.

He's a old-school liberal on taxes and government spending.

He has an 8% rating from the ACU.

It would be a total affront to the Republican party.

It's amazing to me that it's even being talked about seriously.I really doubt that it is. Same as the speculation of Powell as the Democratic VP (I can't say Veep ever again). I have my doubts that is really in play too.

[Ben_n_austin]

No harm done. I started this thread because I had a theory and I wanted to test it. I got my answer and it turns out I was wrong.

I think it's a bad sample to test your theory on. Here, we have DC fans and those crazy enough to argue in a political forum. And, once again, this years' election has become heavily bipartisan--obviously meaning D v. R. So, those on the R side will vote heavily in favor of the R. Insert "Veep" ____ Turdburgler, and most here would vote for it if only because of the (R).

I'd test your theory other places as well.... but I admire your thought none-the-less. Somehow, I think if all conservatives were like you... I'd be more inclined to lean to the conservative side.

I'm quite honestly shocked that so many Republicans would take a Lieberman pick sitting down.I am, too. He's a virtual sellout. But so is McCain, imo.

Lieberman is so horribly pro-abortion, it makes me sick to my stomach to think of him on the Republican ticket. He's in favor of partial-birth abortion and is for taxpayer funding of abortion.You know, this is one of those tough issues. Personally, I'm pretty anti-abortion. I mean if I were to have a baby on the way I would do everything in my power to raise it or put it up for adoption. I'm not overly religious, but I think it's really something that people should do when there's nothing left to do. And normally the adoption issue comes up.

But that's always an interesting argument because there are bad poeple who adopt... it's just F'd up. But I stand central on that issue and to the right from my personal standpoint as far as free will goes.

He's even worse than McCain on immigration.I'm against that silly fence, too. It's not gonna work... and it's entirely too much money to spend at the moment. Not to mention, the property owners down there are heavily against their property being invaded, taken, etc.


He's a old-school liberal on taxes and government spending.Yep - which is something I'm not, idealistically.

He has an 8% rating from the ACU.???

I guess that's not a good rating from anyone....

It would be a total affront to the Republican party.Yeah, you guys already have a democrat-as-republican running over there. He'll be better than Bush, but I don't like him--even though I know he's a dem in disguise.

It's amazing to me that it's even being talked about seriously.Given that I've done a fair amount of listening to him, I find it amazing too. I think McCain has better, if only political, sense than this.

I wouldn't worry too much. :)

[utrunner07]

I'm against that silly fence, too.

Me TOO!!!!! We Agree!!!!

I am for the alligoration of the Rio Grande...but thats a WHOLE other thread :)

[Ben_n_austin]

Oh goodness I'll repent forthwith and never use the term again.

Sorry so anal. :)

Ah, so only President is a qualification. Makes it even more ridiculous since very few men ever get elected President, but it's your game, play it by your own ever changing rules.

Look at how much support he got as a whole and he's been in politics for a long time. Yes, gore ran with him. Yes, B Clinton gave him props... but that's because he likes the limelight.

We don't need that kind of guy right now. McSame is the same way... and yes, so is Obama... but whoever the VP for either president is needs to have some sense.

Colin Powell makes sense, because he's not a lunatic and not really such a politician.

Personally, if one picks a genius candidate for VP. That could sway my vote. I'd do some serious listening to what the VPs were saying--on the other side of the coin, a bad pick could sway me as well.

Say, if Obama asked a zealot I'd consider McCain or write in Gravel, etc.

Don't know why you find it funny that some will vote for him because of his party when you yourself will vote for someone because of their party. Are you somehow above everyone else?

Yeah, I guess because a really really bad pick or a really good one could change my mind. I like Obama, but if he picked a Jeb Bush or something for VP I'd jump ship.

I don't think he'll do that though--and I'll be hurt if he picks Biden. I'm not a fan of him at all... and I don't know what I'd do at this juncture... it'd depend on who McCain picked as VP...

There's never been an Arizona President and it's high time. Illinois has had it's chance. I'm voting that way because of my belief that the political party does not matter. I said before people started dropping out of the races that McCain and Richardson were my two dogs in the fight and it was entirely about region of the country.

Regionalism really doesn't strike me as a reason to vote for someone due to recent history... but I could see how you might think it'd work out for you, honestly.

If it had come down to the two of them I would have voted exactly opposite of my wife as a show of support for both men.

Cool... I'd have to do some listening at that point... I like Colin Powell when he's not associated with Bush.

[Ben_n_austin]

Me TOO!!!!! We Agree!!!!

I am for the alligoration of the Rio Grande...but thats a WHOLE other thread :)

Interesting proposition....

[burmafrd]

If McCain wanted to gamble he would try and get Condi.

[Ben_n_austin]

I like Bill Richardson for Obama... He really should consider him. He could get a lot of the anti-partisan votes.

I don't like Condi. She sold her soul to the devil.

[bbgun]

I don't like Condi. She sold her soul to the devil.

No pun intended, but what the hell does that mean? This is a woman who, despite the obstacles posed by gender and race, has risen to the highest levels of government and academia, with concert pianist skills to boot. Care to compare her resume to yours? She didn't have to "sell" anything or make any Faustian bargains to get where she is. She simply busted her butt. Instead of snark and venom, you might want to follow her example.

[jrumann59]

I would vote for a politician that thinks the system is a joke and the only reason he is running is because of the limelight. That means he at least isn't so deluded to believe the lies he spews to his constituents.

[Ben_n_austin]

No pun intended, but what the hell does that mean? This is a woman who, despite the obstacles posed by gender and race, has risen to the highest levels of government and academia, with concert pianist skills to boot. Care to compare her resume to yours?

Pfft.

Why should I have to? She's a brain for sure, but she was a Bush mouthpiece when he was spewing lie after lie after lie....


Colin finally jumped ship. Condi stuck around for more arse kissing. The woman just gives me the creeps, because she's so smart and so evil.

[bbgun]

Pfft.

Why should I have to? She's a brain for sure, but she was a Bush mouthpiece when he was spewing lie after lie after lie....


Colin finally jumped ship. Condi stuck around for more arse kissing. The woman just gives me the creeps, because she's so smart and so evil.

Congrats. You somehow managed to defame a pioneering public servant and trivialize real evil in this world. Do humanity a favor and never reproduce.

[jrumann59]

I think it's a bad sample to test your theory on. Here, we have DC fans and those crazy enough to argue in a political forum. And, once again, this years' election has become heavily bipartisan--obviously meaning D v. R. So, those on the R side will vote heavily in favor of the R. Insert "Veep" ____ Turdburgler, and most here would vote for it if only because of the (R).

I'd test your theory other places as well.... but I admire your thought none-the-less. Somehow, I think if all conservatives were like you... I'd be more inclined to lean to the conservative side.

I guess that coin only has one side. The sad thing is Obama wouldn't have nearly the traction he does if he wasn't "black". His politics are far more Socialistic than Kerry's which is hard to believe but ultimately only thing that has gotten him to where he is at is race, if he was a white guy no one would care about him and he would have lost to Hilary because she doesn't have a penis, and she would have been in the same boat.


You know, this is one of those tough issues. Personally, I'm pretty anti-abortion. I mean if I were to have a baby on the way I would do everything in my power to raise it or put it up for adoption. I'm not overly religious, but I think it's really something that people should do when there's nothing left to do. And normally the adoption issue comes up.

But that's always an interesting argument because there are bad poeple who adopt... it's just F'd up. But I stand central on that issue and to the right from my personal standpoint as far as free will goes.

In my opinion Roe V Wade should have been kicked back to the states, and each individual state should have put the law on their ballots, let the people choose instead of a bunch of judges with agendas.


I guess that's not a good rating from anyone....

The ACLU should be brought up on treason and sedition charges, they stir up more harm then good.

Yeah, you guys already have a democrat-as-republican running over there. He'll be better than Bush, but I don't like him--even though I know he's a dem in disguise.

Given that I've done a fair amount of listening to him, I find it amazing too. I think McCain has better, if only political, sense than this.

I wouldn't worry too much. :)

Please enlighten us about Obama and his change, the only thing I see changing is how much more money I will be giving the government to fund programs that aren't needed and I don't need. Obama's change is to get rid of the middle class and make it dependent on the gov't.

[jrumann59]

Pfft.

Why should I have to? She's a brain for sure, but she was a Bush mouthpiece when he was spewing lie after lie after lie....


Colin finally jumped ship. Condi stuck around for more arse kissing. The woman just gives me the creeps, because she's so smart and so evil.

And neither one are really "black", Bill Clinton is "blackier" then those 2 were.:lmao:

[Danny White]

I like Bill Richardson for Obama... He really should consider him. He could get a lot of the anti-partisan votes.

I think it'll be Richardson. He makes the most sense for Obama.

Curiously, I think Obama may be more likely to pick a (liberal) Republican than McCain is to pick Lieberman. Someone mentioned Bill Cohen to me the other day and I have to admit it'd be a pretty canny pick.


BTW, "ACU Ratings" are the American Conservative Union's ratings of Congressmen based on certain selected votes. A high rating means you're conservative, a low one means your a big bad lib. ;) On the left, Americans for Democratic Action release their ratings of how "liberal" members of Congress are.

Here's Lieberman's ratings from several public interest groups on a variety of issues:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53278

[Ben_n_austin]

Congrats. You somehow managed to defame a pioneering public servant and trivialize real evil in this world. Do humanity a favor and never reproduce.

Oh, jeez. You have a crush on a hot smart woman, very attractive and somehow a "pioneer" in your eyes..... big deal.

[Ben_n_austin]

I think it'll be Richardson. He makes the most sense for Obama.

Curiously, I think Obama may be more likely to pick a (liberal) Republican than McCain is to pick Lieberman. Someone mentioned Bill Cohen to me the other day and I have to admit it'd be a pretty canny pick.


BTW, "ACU Ratings" are the American Conservative Union's ratings of Congressmen based on certain selected votes. A high rating means you're conservative, a low one means your a big bad lib. ;) On the left, Americans for Democratic Action release their ratings of how "liberal" members of Congress are.

Here's Lieberman's ratings from several public interest groups on a variety of issues:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53278

Bill would be cool. Though I'm afraid too many would cry about "minorities" on the ticket, I'd still vote for 'em.

I'm still waiting to read that headline... Obama picks VP from left field, Mike Gravel.

[Cajuncowboy]

Well, I'm already holding my nose in voting for McCain so I might as well close my eyes as well.

Here's the thing... If I vote for McCain, it's one more vote that helps push him towards the ultimate goal.

If I vote 3rd arty, it's a vote McCain doesn't get and virtually a vote for obama.

If I vote for obama, the Earth will split in half, so I am left with only one choice.

Just biding my time for 2012 when Newt runs. McCain is just going to keep the seat warm for him.

And as this poll somewhat shows, McCain will have strong support amongst the base. This is something obama doesn't have and will not have. That's pretty clear.

[Doomsday101]

In my case, it would be voting for a candidate that most closely reflects my political leanings... (and no, it isn't Barr).

So.... am I to understand then, that voting for someone who reflects my political leanings is "protesting"? Hmm.

Maybe I should vote for Obama then. He reflects hardly any of my stuff. But at least he is a "majority" candidate.

My state is probably going to end up blue, anyway.

Guess its time to hop on the Obama bandwagon. Voting for McCain is a waste then.

As I said you vote for whomever for whatever reason you have. I respect any person who at least votes. When I say protest vote is because you know and I know that 3rd party candidate does not stand a chance in hell the most they do is siphon off votes from the 2 major parties.

[zrinkill]

Congrats. You somehow managed to defame a pioneering public servant and trivialize real evil in this world. Do humanity a favor and never reproduce.

:muttley:

[Hostile]

Sorry so anal. :) You should be. :p:

Look at how much support he got as a whole and he's been in politics for a long time. Yes, gore ran with him. Yes, B Clinton gave him props... but that's because he likes the limelight. I just don't believe that the fact he's never been the Dem nominee for the White House means much. Sorry, no sale.

We don't need that kind of guy right now. McSame is the same way... and yes, so is Obama... but whoever the VP for either president is needs to have some sense.

Colin Powell makes sense, because he's not a lunatic and not really such a politician.Powell isn't going to put his name on a ticket. I wish he would, but he won't.

Personally, if one picks a genius candidate for VP. That could sway my vote. I'd do some serious listening to what the VPs were saying--on the other side of the coin, a bad pick could sway me as well.

Say, if Obama asked a zealot I'd consider McCain or write in Gravel, etc. You would consider voting for McCain depending on his VP? Forgive me for doubting this, but I do.

Yeah, I guess because a really really bad pick or a really good one could change my mind. I like Obama, but if he picked a Jeb Bush or something for VP I'd jump ship.That I admit I could see because you can't stand that family. I doubt any other person on the planet though.

I don't think he'll do that though--and I'll be hurt if he picks Biden. I'm not a fan of him at all... and I don't know what I'd do at this juncture... it'd depend on who McCain picked as VP... The shock continues. I'm still skeptical.

Regionalism really doesn't strike me as a reason to vote for someone due to recent history... but I could see how you might think it'd work out for you, honestly.

Cool... I'd have to do some listening at that point... I like Colin Powell when he's not associated with Bush.It's really just this simple. I do NOT believe that the candidate for either party makes that big of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

If one party ever fixed everything they would never lose power. Both parties promise stuff they can't deliver. When they don't deliver they will point at the other party and say they voted it down, blame them.

Both parties are too married to their special interest groups. Using the grand divider topic for a minute, do you really believe that no Republican would ever get an abortion? Do you really believe that every Democrat thinks they are a good idea as a means of birth control? I don't on both points. I'm not that naive. Yet those two special interest groups have tremendous power and control over the parties they back.

Tell me this, because I have never got it. Why are the Conservatives not the party of ecology? Conservation and Conservative come from the exact same root words. Yet because special interest groups began to back the Democratic party the Conservatives felt obligated to oppose many of the measures (I grant you some go too far) for Conservation and as such they've created a stigma that they are against the ecology and environment. Forgive me, that's crazy.

Do you believe every Republican supports the NRA? Do you believe every Democrat is against guns? Hell, Ms. Anti-Guns herself, Rosie O'Donnell, admitted to Bill O'Reilly that her bodyguards carry guns. Yet she felt obligated because of her political party to be rude and condescending to Tom Selleck when he agreed to be on her show. That's crazy too.

Both parties are so blinded by what the opposing party is doing that they come across as crazy. I didn't care for Bill Clinton. Did the country go to hell in his 8 years? I don't think so. Some things I didn't like, some I did. I don't believe the country has gone to hell in Bush's terms either. Some things I like, some I don't.

I sit back and watch some of you guys foam at the mouth at the mere mention of the other party and I confess, I don't get it. I openly admit that I lean Conservative, but I also have a lot of Liberal beliefs. The funny thing to me is that when I espouse my Liberal beliefs the "Righties" on this forum do not jump on my case. If I espouse a Conservative belief it is almost always questioned, sometimes rudely. So I know that I look a lot more Conservative to some people than I really am.

Have you ever noticed that BrainPaint calls me a "gun toting tree hugger?" He's one of the few people who gets it. He's right. I am Pro-2nd Amendment and I am also Pro-Environment. Partisanship to a political party shouldn't allow that. I could care less about what they allow. I owe nothing to either Party.

I like it that way.

[zrinkill]

When I say protest vote is because you know and I know that 3rd party candidate does not stand a chance in hell the most they do is siphon off votes from the 2 major parties.

Yup ..... most learned that lesson in 1992

[zrinkill]

I sit back and watch some of you guys foam at the mouth at the mere mention of the other party and I confess, I don't get it. I openly admit that I lean Conservative, but I also have a lot of Liberal beliefs. The funny thing to me is that when I espouse my Liberal beliefs the "Righties" on this forum do not jump on my case. If I espouse a Conservative belief it is almost always questioned, sometimes rudely. So I know that I look a lot more Conservative to some people than I really am.


Groovy

[Doomsday101]

Yup ..... most learned that lesson in 1992

You would have thought so.

[BrAinPaiNt]

If McCain wanted to gamble he would try and get Condi.

Condi is on the record as not wanting to be VP.

[Doomsday101]

Condi is on the record as not wanting to be VP.

Right she wants Goodell job. :laugh2:

[Vintage]

You should be. :p:


Tell me this, because I have never got it. Why are the Conservatives not the party of ecology? Conservation and Conservative come from the exact same root words. Yet because special interest groups began to back the Democratic party the Conservatives felt obligated to oppose many of the measures (I grant you some go too far) for Conservation and as such they've created a stigma that they are against the ecology and environment. Forgive me, that's crazy.



Or... how the "liberals"...which somehow gets associated with the Democrats don't support more economic liberalism?

There's more and more examples....

But its a waste of time. I've tried this route before with Ben_N_Austin. You can't go this route. I think pretty pictures might be a better alternative. He might respond well to something like that...

[zrinkill]

But its a waste of time. I've tried this route before with Ben_N_Austin. You can't go this route. I think pretty pictures might be a better alternative. He might respond well to something like that...


Blahhh you just like dead Muslims .....


:D

[zrinkill]

Right she wants Goodell job. :laugh2:


I wish she would get it.

[Vintage]

Blahhh you just like dead Muslims .....


:D


You forgot the buzzword "neocon."

[zrinkill]

You forgot the buzzword "neocon."


Dammitt ..... I am slipping.

[Doomsday101]

I wish she would get it.

So you are on record as wanting to give it to Condi Rice? You go boy. :laugh2:

[Hostile]

Or... how the "liberals"...which somehow gets associated with the Democrats don't support more economic liberalism?

There's more and more examples....

But its a waste of time. I've tried this route before with Ben_N_Austin. You can't go this route. I think pretty pictures might be a better alternative. He might respond well to something like that...Great question.

[zrinkill]

So you are on record as wanting to give it to Condi Rice? You go boy. :laugh2:



:shades:

[Ben_n_austin]

Or... how the "liberals"...which somehow gets associated with the Democrats don't support more economic liberalism?

There's more and more examples....

But its a waste of time. I've tried this route before with Ben_N_Austin. You can't go this route. I think pretty pictures might be a better alternative. He might respond well to something like that...

I'm well aware of the examples.... It's pretty common knowledge. So then it comes down to which party you side with on the most or the most important issues.

Going "that route" is just so basic that I think looking at it like that is oversimplification. Aside from the linguistic roots changing over time and so on, there are many levels to be looked at. And well, slappy, that's because the issues change, people change and so do political organizations/establishments over time.

And there are a lot of reasons for that. I'd be glad to list, but I'm afraid it'd be a waste of time. . . .

[Vintage]

I'm well aware of the examples.... It's pretty common knowledge. So then it comes down to which party you side with on the most or the most important issues.

Going "that route" is just so basic that I think looking at it like that is oversimplification. Aside from the linguistic roots changing over time and so on, there are many levels to be looked at. And well, slappy, that's because the issues change, people change and so do political organizations/establishments over time.

And there are a lot of reasons for that. I'd be glad to list, but I'm afraid it'd be a waste of time. . . .


What do you think Bush means when he talks about "liberal democracies?"

You think he is referring to a bunch of democrats running Iraq?

Its meaning is very much in tact, even if you cannot use it correctly.

[Ben_n_austin]

You should be. :p:


:)

I just don't believe that the fact he's never been the Dem nominee for the White House means much. Sorry, no sale.

That's your view. I'm entitled to mine....

Powell isn't going to put his name on a ticket. I wish he would, but he won't.

I think he'd consider it, but we shall see.... I'm sure something is going to happen soon.

You would consider voting for McCain depending on his VP? Forgive me for doubting this, but I do.

It'd be hard, but Obama would have to flop and McCain would have to really hit on a good one. The reason being is both presidents are Congressmen, I just think Obama has more qualifications than McCain.

That I admit I could see because you can't stand that family. I doubt any other person on the planet though.

There are a few others I won't tolerate. Pressure is on him to pick a good VP. I'd go for Clinton, Richardson, Powell, Gravel and a litany of others... but those would be my top 4. And I say Clinton because I think she can bring home a of the "base" as well as instill some confidence in the ticket.

My guess is she's looking for a run in 2012, but I think Obama gets this one so she'll have to wait or accept the VP appointment if it's offered.

The shock continues. I'm still skeptical.

Yeah, and somewhat hypocritical given your own "political stance". Saying there are other ways to look at it than black and white... oh, you don't understand this view. But this so called phenomena is not unique to you. People have views that go both sides of the fence.

It's really just this simple I do NOT believe that the candidate for either party makes that big of a difference in the grand scheme of things

The way the media portrays the president and the way the president is the commander-in-chief and has veto power is underemphasized by people like you. And that's how we get a lot of rotten candidates running for president, imo.

If one party ever fixed everything they would never lose power. Both parties promise stuff they can't deliver. When they don't deliver they will point at the other party and say they voted it down, blame them.

I've said this about the "conservatives" and abortion. They truly don't want to outlaw it because it'd be one less issue for them to run on.

The Bushie sure didn't get it done, nor have his judges.

Both parties are too married to their special interest groups. Using the grand divider topic for a minute, do you really believe that no Republican would ever get an abortion? Do you really believe that every Democrat thinks they are a good idea as a means of birth control? I don't on both points. I'm not that naive. Yet those two special interest groups have tremendous power and control over the parties they back.

I agree. I mock special interest groups all the time, but I have more problems with the tobacco, oil, alcohol etc... the sleezy ones, more or less.

Tell me this, because I have never got it. Why are the Conservatives not the party of ecology? Conservation and Conservative come from the exact same root words. Yet because special interest groups began to back the Democratic party the Conservatives felt obligated to oppose many of the measures (I grant you some go too far) for Conservation and as such they've created a stigma that they are against the ecology and environment. Forgive me, that's crazy.

It's not crazy. It's how things have happened over time.

Do you believe every Republican supports the NRA? Do you believe every Democrat is against guns? Hell, Ms. Anti-Guns herself, Rosie O'Donnell, admitted to Bill O'Reilly that her bodyguards carry guns. Yet she felt obligated because of her political party to be rude and condescending to Tom Selleck when he agreed to be on her show. That's crazy too.

I never said anyone believes one certain way. But when you start using Rosie O'Donnell and Bill O'Reilly in the same sentence I get nauseous. :)

Both parties are so blinded by what the opposing party is doing that they come across as crazy. I didn't care for Bill Clinton. Did the country go to hell in his 8 years? I don't think so. Some things I didn't like, some I did. I don't believe the country has gone to hell in Bush's terms either. Some things I like, some I don't.

OK.

I sit back and watch some of you guys foam at the mouth at the mere mention of the other party and I confess, I don't get it. I openly admit that I lean Conservative, but I also have a lot of Liberal beliefs. The funny thing to me is that when I espouse my Liberal beliefs the "Righties" on this forum do not jump on my case. If I espouse a Conservative belief it is almost always questioned, sometimes rudely. So I know that I look a lot more Conservative to some people than I really am.

You've said this, but I don't see it. I see the so-called righties with their zrintroll crashtest dummies acting like a 12 year old with access to a computer.

The real insult is when those people start to represent a perceived group of people.

Have you ever noticed that BrainPaint calls me a "gun toting tree hugger?" He's one of the few people who gets it. He's right. I am Pro-2nd Amendment and I am also Pro-Environment. Partisanship to a political party shouldn't allow that. I could care less about what they allow. I owe nothing to either Party.

No, but I'll start paying attention to that. And I owe nothing to either party either. I do think we need a good president. And I tend to like the presidents the Ds put out better than the Rs.

yeah, 4 years ago McCain would have been a good candidate for the job. But time has gone on and how he fits in isn't the same as it was when the dumbya was the incumbent.

It's how the cookie crumbles. I like AZ. I have relatives there. But I'm not a big fan of McCain and haven't been since a lot of conservatives warned me about his meandering for the limelight as his ultimate goal was the presidency.

He made them sick, hos. Sick! But now they're voting for him.

I like it that way.

You like it a lot of ways. ;)

And you said I didn't get it. :laugh2:

[zrinkill]

Its meaning is very much in tact, even if you cannot use it correctly.

Do you expect anything else from him?

[Ben_n_austin]

What do you think Bush means when he talks about "liberal democracies?"

You think he is referring to a bunch of democrats running Iraq?

Its meaning is very much in tact, even if you cannot use it correctly.

I'm not interested in discussing the definitions of meanings or the meanings of definitions with someone who uses George double speak meandering Bush as an example.

You've got a lot of "grasping" to do yourself. :o:

[Vintage]

Is it possible to be as lost on this issue as BenNAustin?

[Ben_n_austin]

Is it possible to be as lost on this issue as BenNAustin?

Funny. Yet another zrintroll style drive-by.

[zrinkill]

Is it possible to be as lost on this issue as BenNAustin?

Funny. Yet another zrintroll style drive-by.



Is it possible to be in a trolls head as much as I am ......

:D

[Vintage]

Funny. Yet another zrintroll style drive-by.


You failed to answer my question.

What does Bush mean by liberal democracies? Or if you don't like Bush... what does Obama mean by liberal democracies?

(Hint: they aren't referring to Democrats)

From the Audacity of Hope

“The system of free markets and liberal democracy that now characterizes most of the developed world may be flawed; it may all too often reflect the interests of the powerful over the powerless. But that system is constantly subject to change and improvement - and it is precisely in this openness to change that market-based liberal democracies offer people around the world their best chance at a better life.”


Obama refers to it as liberal democracy...

So...

What does that mean Ben?

Or.... is Obama not worth talking about either..

[Ben_n_austin]

You failed to answer my question.

What does Bush mean by liberal democracies? Or if you don't like Bush... what does Obama mean by liberal democracies?

(Hint: they aren't referring to Democrats)

From the Audacity of Hope


Obama refers to it as liberal democracies...

So...

What does that mean Ben?

Or.... is Obama not worth talking about either..

Lemme know.

We can talk about other current politicians...

Or we can go back into history.

Oh, please please please Vintage tell me what Bush means by liberal democracies.


I think he means we're going to establish a representative republic, like the ones we have. You'll have to vote for elected representatives who you give all your power away to on election day... like we do.

Liberal democracy :rolleyes: . Get outta here.

Who cares what they refer to it as now. It's what they have to refer to it by. It has a nice ring to it. But don't be stupid...........

[Vintage]

No...

The "Democrats" and "Republicans" have evolved and shifted politically over time.

But liberalism itself has remained the same.

There has been NO evolution of linguistic roots, like you have continually claimed. The evolution that has taken place is that of the Republican/Democratic parties; not liberalism.

And the fact that you seem to think it means something else does not mean its "linguistically evolved" either. It just means you don't understand the definition of it.

[Ben_n_austin]

No...

The "Democrats" and "Republicans" have evolved and shifted politically over time.

But liberalism itself has remained the same.

There has been NO evolution of linguistic roots, like you have continually claimed. The evolution that has taken place is that of the Republican/Democratic parties; not liberalism.

And the fact that you seem to think it means something else does not mean its "linguistically evolved" either. It just means you don't understand the definition of it.

Yes, the definition of liberalism has evolved. If you're that stupid I can't help you.

But the mere fact that it's associated differently with different parties in and of itself would mean it changed its context. Yet, some of its applications remain in context.

But please don't act as if liberal and liberalism isn't taken out of context and used in various ways.... your argument is absurd if not beyond....

[Hostile]

That's your view. I'm entitled to mine....It will be interesting to me down the road to see if your guy, Gravel, ever wins the Nomination. If he doesn't then you'd have to define him the same way you're defining Leiberman. Either that or change the parameters again of what you meant by "can't win anything" in the party.

I think he'd consider it, but we shall see.... I'm sure something is going to happen soon. Geez Ben, do you really think so? Just because the Conventions are happening soon and campaigning will begin hard right after that is no reason to believe a choice will be made. [/sarcasm off]

It'd be hard, but Obama would have to flop and McCain would have to really hit on a good one. The reason being is both presidents are Congressmen, I just think Obama has more qualifications than McCain. LOL

The only qualification he needed for you to think that is his party. The D thing matters.

Yeah, and somewhat hypocritical given your own "political stance". Saying there are other ways to look at it than black and white... oh, you don't understand this view. But this so called phenomena is not unique to you. People have views that go both sides of the fence. What in the world are you babbling about now? Me saying I'm skeptical because you are so one sided politically is hypocritical because my political stance is neither party make a difference?

The way the media portrays the president and the way the president is the commander-in-chief and has veto power is underemphasized by people like you. And that's how we get a lot of rotten candidates running for president, imo. I'm at fault for the nation's politcal mess?

Coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

My opinions are directly contrary to 99.9% of the media and public perception, but I'm the guy friggin' it all up?

I rock. I had no idea I was that good. Or bad.

I've said this about the "conservatives" and abortion. They truly don't want to outlaw it because it'd be one less issue for them to run on.

The Bushie sure didn't get it done, nor have his judges. I haven't seen them even go after it, but I openly admit I think it is a boring topic that will never find a middle ground so I don't look for it.

I noticed the Bushie didn't institute a mandatory Military Draft or take away the elderly's Social Security benefits either. I was warned that he was going to target those things in 2000. And again in 2004.

He must have forgotten.

The voter scare tactics always amuse me.

I agree. I mock special interest groups all the time, but I have more problems with the tobacco, oil, alcohol etc... the sleezy ones, more or less.

It's not crazy. It's how things have happened over time. No, it's pretty much crazy. There are certain issues both parties ought to fight for and they won't. They prefer to be polarized. It's absolutely defeating.

I never said anyone believes one certain way. But when you start using Rosie O'Donnell and Bill O'Reilly in the same sentence I get nauseous. :)I'll try and do that more often then. It amuses me when people yack. You should have seen how much fun I had when my nephew was sea sick.

OK.

You've said this, but I don't see it. I see the so-called righties with their zrintroll crashtest dummies acting like a 12 year old with access to a computer. zrinkill and the other "Righties" do go after you and a couple of other Liberal minded posters. I never said they didn't. I said they are more respectful to me when I espouse a Liberal belief than you and a couple of others (whom I will not name) are when I espouse a Conservative belief. It honestly was not that hard to grasp.

BP caught on to that and for his amusement began calling me a gun toting tree hugger.

The real insult is when those people start to represent a perceived group of people.I confess, I don't even have a inkling as to what a "perceived group of people" is. I've always figured that if someone was a person (singular of people) that it was pretty much common knowledge they were human and I did not need to perceive them as anything but human.

No, but I'll start paying attention to that. And I owe nothing to either party either. I do think we need a good president. And I tend to like the presidents the Ds put out better than the Rs. You do? You mean the very thing I've been teasing you about for 2 months has been the truth?

Damn I'm good.

yeah, 4 years ago McCain would have been a good candidate for the job. But time has gone on and how he fits in isn't the same as it was when the dumbya was the incumbent. Yeah, I know, the R thing. But the R thing would have been there in 2004 and it would have made you vote for the guy with the D thing. We both know it. The R thing is a myopic spot with you. It works vice versa for others.

It's how the cookie crumbles. I like AZ. I have relatives there. But I'm not a big fan of McCain and haven't been since a lot of conservatives warned me about his meandering for the limelight as his ultimate goal was the presidency.

He made them sick, hos. Sick! But now they're voting for him. Why are you surprised? I've been telling you forever that there are people who pay attention to the R thing the same way you do the D thing. Maybe if you paid attention for a change, you'd know that.

[Hostile]

No...

The "Democrats" and "Republicans" have evolved and shifted politically over time.

But liberalism itself has remained the same.

There has been NO evolution of linguistic roots, like you have continually claimed. The evolution that has taken place is that of the Republican/Democratic parties; not liberalism.

And the fact that you seem to think it means something else does not mean its "linguistically evolved" either. It just means you don't understand the definition of it.Thank you!

[Ben_n_austin]

Thank you!


The old getting the last word in makes you right trick. You're absolutely wrong here--absolutely.


But thank away. :)

[Hostile]

The old getting the last word in makes you right trick. You're absolutely wrong here--absolutely.


But thank away. :)Does the word etymology mean anything to you?

Sorry, Vintage is exactly right. The political parties have changed the goals and scope of their own politics.

If you do not realize this then you need to study etymology and see for yourself.

I know exactly what Vintage is getting at, very similar to my laughing at "Conservative" and "Conservation" and how those two root words have parted political company. He is right. Origins never change.

That's like saying as you get older your birth place will evolve to another state.

[zrinkill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy72lpZWtzo


:lmao2:

[bbgun]

Does the word etymology mean anything to you?

The study of bugs? :-)

[bbgun]

The old getting the last word in makes you right trick. You're absolutely wrong here--absolutely.


But thank away. :)

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4372/moxieboyty8wm6.gif

Just. Plain. Stupid.

[Vintage]

Yes, the definition of liberalism has evolved. If you're that stupid I can't help you.

But the mere fact that it's associated differently with different parties in and of itself would mean it changed its context. Yet, some of its applications remain in context.

But please don't act as if liberal and liberalism isn't taken out of context and used in various ways.... your argument is absurd if not beyond....

Its NOT associated with political parties (and by this, I mean your black/white view on things..... as in Republican/Democrats).

There are people who do attribute it to a political party, mainly, the Democrats....


Many, many Presidents have believed in the "liberal democracies" as the "best" form of government.

That DOES NOT mean they believe governments should be run by Democrats.

That is BECAUSE LIBERALISM has a DIFFERENT meaning than you are trying to use it as.

[Ben_n_austin]

Does the word etymology mean anything to you?

Sorry, Vintage is exactly right. The political parties have changed the goals and scope of their own politics.

If you do not realize this then you need to study etymology and see for yourself.

I know exactly what Vintage is getting at, very similar to my laughing at "Conservative" and "Conservation" and how those two root words have parted political company. He is right. Origins never change.

That's like saying as you get older your birth place will evolve to another state.


The way the word is applied changes the meaning, if only slightly, because of the modern context it's used in. You may not like that fact. But that's the fact. Denying it only makes you look stupid, really.

You obviously don't get that linguistic evolution goes way beyond the original point of origin. Words to evolve. Their root words do not, but the usage of terms over time evolve.

They damn sure do.

[Ben_n_austin]

Its NOT associated with political parties (and by this, I mean your black/white view on things..... as in Republican/Democrats).

There are people who do attribute it to a political party, mainly, the Democrats....


Many, many Presidents have believed in the "liberal democracies" as the "best" form of government.

That DOES NOT mean they believe governments should be run by Democrats.

That is BECAUSE LIBERALISM has a DIFFERENT meaning than you are trying to use it as.

You're so good at pointing out the obvious it's funny. But again, you guys are spinning your tricycle wheels over a bunch to do about nothing.

[bbgun]

The way the word is applied changes the meaning, if only slightly, because of the modern context it's used in. You may not like that fact. But that's the fact. Denying it only makes you look stupid, really.

You obviously don't get that linguistic evolution goes way beyond the original point of origin. Words to evolve. Their root words do not, but the usage of terms over time evolve.

They damn sure do.

Condescending and ignorant. You're the total package.

[Ben_n_austin]

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4372/moxieboyty8wm6.gif

Just. Plain. Stupid.


Good one bbgun. When you get a real shooter, pee wee, let me know. ;)

[Ben_n_austin]

Condescending and ignorant. You're the total package.

Did you know that all words come from the same language. The etymological root of the word goes way beyond "liberal".

I'm sure we could trace it back to the Greeks or some other advanced society and study how they used it, where they got it from... etc. But that doesn't mean its applications haven't changed.

... at least I'm not a hypocrite. ;)

[Hostile]

The way the word is applied changes the meaning, if only slightly, because of the modern context it's used in. You may not like that fact. But that's the fact. Denying it only makes you look stupid, really.

You obviously don't get that linguistic evolution goes way beyond the original point of origin. Words to evolve. Their root words do not, but the usage of terms over time evolve.

They damn sure do.Ben, wake up. We are not saying the meaning of the words are changing. Nor are we saying that the origins are changing.

Look past the fog around you for a second.

[Vintage]

What do liberalism mean, ben?

Intentionally done in Hambrick's wording...

[Ben_n_austin]

What do liberalism mean, ben?

Intentionally done in Hambrick's wording...

Used in what context?

[Ben_n_austin]

Ben, wake up. We are not saying the meaning of the words are changing. Nor are we saying that the origins are changing.

Look past the fog around you for a second.


I'm trying to look past your dense ideas and pointing out of the obvious to see where you're pointing out anything unique--and you're not.

[Vintage]

Used in what context?

In the context of politics.

[Ben_n_austin]

In the context of politics.

For which era, which society or culture?

You see, that's the thing. The root word is only part of the equation. How you apply it in context is a different thing altogether. But you don't want to see that. You'd rather stick with the basics. Yet, that's not entirely the reality. I wish it was, but it's not.

You really don't have anything here, other than saying where does the root word come from. My guess is your bent outta shape over something Hillary said and trying to prove a point. But you're proving that you and Hos are willing to make an issue out of silly examples....

[Hostile]

Used in what context?He's been talking about politics Ben. Pretty safe to say he's still talking about politics.

[Vintage]

For which era, which society or culture?

You see, that's the thing. The root word is only part of the equation. How you apply it in context is a different thing altogether. But you don't want to see that. You'd rather stick with the basics. Yet, that's not entirely the reality. I wish it was, but it's not.

You really don't have anything here, other than saying where does the root word come from. My guess is your bent outta shape over something Hillary said and trying to prove a point. But you're proving that you and Hos are willing to make an issue out of silly examples....


What does Hillary have to do with this?

Either answer the question, or admit you don't know....

[zrinkill]

This thread reminds me of something ..........

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/BachKnight.jpg

[Hostile]

I'm trying to look past your dense ideas and pointing out of the obvious to see where you're pointing out anything unique--and you're not.I love irony.

I know for a fact you were not an English Major.

[Ben_n_austin]

I love irony.

I know for a fact you were not an English Major.

You don't know anything for a fact, slappy. Not to mention, I was in fact an English major.

[Ben_n_austin]

What does Hillary have to do with this?

Either answer the question, or admit you don't know....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc&feature=related

[bbgun]

You don't know anything for a fact, slappy. Not to mention, I was in fact an English major.

And when that didn't work out, what did you try next?

[Hostile]

You don't know anything for a fact, slappy. Not to mention, I was in fact an English major.Then act like one of us. You're making me look bad.

:wink2:

[zrinkill]

You don't know anything for a fact, slappy. Not to mention, I was in fact an English major.




:lmao:

This is getting embarrassing.

[Ben_n_austin]

Why did you erase your post Benny?

I didn't. ;)

[Hostile]

Why did you erase your post Benny?No, I did. If he wants to get personal it won't last long.

He knows nothing about that and it has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Ben_n_austin]

some of us know how to play on both sides of the ball. I see how it is... ya'll have fun in this thread.

[Vintage]

Hos likes kickers.


Ooops... wrong thread.

:)

[zrinkill]

I see ...... Benny could not Win an argument AGAIN ..... so he tries to bring up personal crap that he knows nothing about to anger someone in to retaliating.

I just assumed he was babbling nonsensically as usual.

Guy is a joke.

[Hostile]

Hos likes kickers.


Ooops... wrong thread.

:)My motto is "Embrace the Hatred."

That means I do not like kickers. It means I kick likers.

[Ben_n_austin]

I see ...... Benny could not Win an argument AGAIN ..... so he tries to bring up personal crap that he knows nothing about to anger someone in to retaliating.

I just assumed he was babbling nonsensically as usual.

Guy is a joke.


Trust me. That wasn't the case. You'll never know why it was really erased. PM me..... I can give you the skinny.

Until then, carry on zrintroll.

[Ben_n_austin]

I see ...... Benny could not Win an argument AGAIN ..... so he tries to bring up personal crap that he knows nothing about to anger someone in to retaliating.

I just assumed he was babbling nonsensically as usual.

Guy is a joke.


.. as slow as you ar, even you're probably sharp enough to figure this one out given what was erased. ;)

[zrinkill]

Trust me. That wasn't the case. You'll never know why it was really erased. PM me..... I can give you the skinny.

Until then, carry on zrintroll.

I would not PM you for any reason troll

I know exactly how you roll ...... you tried the same thing with me and Vintage and everyone else you have ever argued with.

Cannot argue the facts ..... so you insult hoping they return the tactics.

Thats why nobody takes you seriously except the other hard core libs ..... they need all the "allies" they can get.