Huckabee

[El Guapo 8]

Obama: Riding an 8 week Love festHillary: Spending crazy amounts of money to beat ObamaElection 34 weeks away?Neither of them can sustain their current efforts to make it to the big show.McCain, as much as it pains me, will be the next pres. Probably pick Rudy or Thompson for VP, which explains why they bailed so quick. No way Mitt or Huckabee.

Most likley Rudy - He was stroking McCain 30 seconds after he dropped out, most likley to be the VP.I think Huckabee has a shot, I am 50/50 on wether it would be a good or bad decision, I would personally like it because I think he would bring better and more conservative viewpoints to McCains liberalism.Thompson is a long long shot, he said numerous time before he decided to run he did not want to be VP. If he changed his mind that would be great and it would allow me to be more comfortable voting for McCain, but I don' think it will happen.Romney has a much of a chance as Edwards being his running mate.I have not head any outside candidates mentioned.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The more I think about it, the better of a pick I think rudy is for vp. He can go mean.. he can be mccain's attack dog, much like agnew was for Nixon. He can say the things and make the speeches McCain can't.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

The more I think about it, the better of a pick I think rudy is for vp. He can go mean.. he can be mccain's attack dog, much like agnew was for Nixon. He can say the things and make the speeches McCain can't.

Going mean is exactly McCain's biggest risk. Everyone in Washington has a "McCain's nasty temper" story. He'll certainly be better off if he can pick someone else to do it for him. [Also true for Nixon, a nasty little man who got elected by allowing someone else to be even nastier for him.]

[Berak 0]

Obama: Riding an 8 week Love festHillary: Spending crazy amounts of money to beat ObamaElection 34 weeks away?Neither of them can sustain their current efforts to make it to the big show.McCain, as much as it pains me, will be the next pres. Probably pick Rudy or Thompson for VP, which explains why they bailed so quick. No way Mitt or Huckabee.

BG, you and I seem to hold a very similar political views. I'm writing in Dennis Miller for my vote in Nov!! Mitt maybe a choice as VP for McCain as his weakness is perceived to be (true or not) economics. Thompson would be my first choice though.

[hblask 1]

"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote 'First Amendment rights' are being respected that has become corrupt" --- John McCainYeah, that's right, dishonest politicians are a reason to throw out the Constitution. Nice, John.The sad thing is, if politicians would pay attention to their constitutional limitations, the corruption brought on by their excess, as explained in public choice theory, would not be an issue. Also, he said this in response to his bill that creates even greater levels of corruption in Washington by denying challengers the same right to airtime as incumbents have.I don't think I can vote for anyone who could be so dismissive about our most important right.McCain hates the Constitution because it gets in the way for his lust for power. The only good thing to say about that is at least he hates it a little less than Obama and Clinton.

[PillyPill 0]

Alright. I read the beginning, got angry, and here I am. Those of you in the Church of Obama, please once again tell me his "change" from the record of Ted Kennedy, who is not the most "change" oriented person. Also, since Obama wants to "unite us, not divide us", shouldn't he atleast have to show that he can agree with Conservatives on something? In case you don't know, Obama has the most left voting record in the entire Senate. So his uniting is basically for all of us to agree with him. Hmmm...sounds kinda forceful...In regards to separation of church and state and how it employs free speech, the ACLU and Hillary and Obama certainly don't want you to be able to celebrate your own religion. God forbid you have a manger scene in your lawn! ACLU=Fight for everyone against white, Christian, males.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I think McCain is referring indirectly to the Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo. That ruling held that "soft money," contributions aimed at bypassing individual giving caps, was a form of constitutionally protected free speech. People on both the right and the left have called for having that decision overturned, because of the corrupting influence of soft money, but the Court is very rarely inclined to overturn its predecessors. The decision essentially says that those with more money have more free speech than those with less.I'm not defending McCain, because I think he has exactly this kind of imperious streak, but I believe that this is the context the quote belongs in.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

In regards to separation of church and state and how it employs free speech, the ACLU and Hillary and Obama certainly don't want you to be able to celebrate your own religion. God forbid you have a manger scene in your lawn!ACLU=Fight for everyone against white, Christian, males.

That's patently retarded. Where do people get this garbage?

[hblask 1]

I think McCain is referring indirectly to the Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo. That ruling held that "soft money," contributions aimed at bypassing individual giving caps, was a form of constitutionally protected free speech. People on both the right and the left have called for having that decision overturned, because of the corrupting influence of soft money, but the Court is very rarely inclined to overturn its predecessors. The decision essentially says that those with more money have more free speech than those with less.I'm not defending McCain, because I think he has exactly this kind of imperious streak, but I believe that this is the context the quote belongs in.

By "people on both the right and left", I assume you mean "corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle". Basically the politicians are saying "we have such low morals and are so easily corrupted that we need to ignore the Constitutional right of challengers to have their message heard." Under McCain's idea of campaign finance reform who gets heard? Let's see, those who can get on the news whenever they want.... and that would be, oh yeah, incumbents. His bill should be called "The Incumbent Protection Act", because any group that gets organized and raises money to campaign against the entrenched bureaucrats is shut down. Only people who can call a press conference on Capitol Hill get coverage. And that's free speech?I have a better idea: let us hear all sides of the story so that we don't have to elect corruptible idiots like the kind that need to pass laws like this.And get rid of the pork that brings the corrupt money to politics in the first place.

[PillyPill 0]

That's patently retarded. Where do people get this garbage?

From all the lawsuits brought from people waking up in the morning trying to get offended. Why should I not be able to have a manger in my lawn and then we should have to make room for (insert religion)'s customs?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

From all the lawsuits brought from people waking up in the morning trying to get offended. Why should I not be able to have a manger in my lawn and then we should have to make room for (insert religion)'s customs?

yeah, 'cause Hilary and Obama are running on a Manger snatching platform. The reason you are retarded is you equate the ACLU's agenda with Clinton and Obama's.

[PillyPill 0]

yeah, 'cause Hilary and Obama are running on a Manger snatching platform. The reason you are retarded is you equate the ACLU's agenda with Clinton and Obama's.

Shouldn't you be uniting us, not dividing us? I mean, come on, let's Change.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

By "people on both the right and left", I assume you mean "corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle". Basically the politicians are saying "we have such low morals and are so easily corrupted that we need to ignore the Constitutional right of challengers to have their message heard." Under McCain's idea of campaign finance reform who gets heard? Let's see, those who can get on the news whenever they want.... and that would be, oh yeah, incumbents. His bill should be called "The Incumbent Protection Act", because any group that gets organized and raises money to campaign against the entrenched bureaucrats is shut down. Only people who can call a press conference on Capitol Hill get coverage. And that's free speech?I have a better idea: let us hear all sides of the story so that we don't have to elect corruptible idiots like the kind that need to pass laws like this.And get rid of the pork that brings the corrupt money to politics in the first place.

Well, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are two people who think it should be overturned. Buckley v. Valeo is not about the equal time provisions, which you seem to be referring to here. It's a decision that explicitly held that money is the functional equivalent of speech in the political process. The left has wanted to get rid of soft money, because it's unaccountable and much of it goes to Republicans. The right, like Scalia and Thomas, who have no political power stake in the matter since they're presumably not corrupt and never run for election at all, want it overturned because they think that "money = speech" is a lousy legal definition.You may be speaking of a different bill, or McCain may be referring to something other than that court case. Without more information, it's impossible to tell. I assumed it was that case because it's the only case in which campaign finance was held to be a First Amendment issue.

[PillyPill 0]

Well, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are two people who think it should be overturned. Buckley v. Valeo is not about the equal time provisions, which you seem to be referring to here. It's a decision that explicitly held that money is the functional equivalent of speech in the political process. The left has wanted to get rid of soft money, because it's unaccountable and much of it goes to Republicans. The right, like Scalia and Thomas, who have no political power stake in the matter since they're presumably not corrupt and never run for election at all, want it overturned because they think that "money = speech" is a lousy legal definition.You may be speaking of a different bill, or McCain may be referring to something other than that court case. Without more information, it's impossible to tell. I assumed it was that case because it's the only case in which campaign finance was held to be a First Amendment issue.

I have not read all your dialogue here on this, but if it has to do with McCain and campaign finance reform, it was a bill. McCain Feingold (sp?) was a bill that limited how much a single person or single group can donate to a political reason.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Shouldn't you be uniting us, not dividing us? I mean, come on, let's Change.

You confuse my agenda with Obama's also. I don't give a shit about unity. I do like mocking the retarded, however. Call me a sadist, call me an azzhole... it's the simple pleasures that get me through.

[PillyPill 0]

You confuse my agenda with Obama's also. I don't give a shit about unity. I do like mocking the retarded, however. Call me a sadist, call me an azzhole... it's the simple pleasures that get me through.

ok/ignore

[Southern Buddhist 1]

From all the lawsuits brought from people waking up in the morning trying to get offended. Why should I not be able to have a manger in my lawn and then we should have to make room for (insert religion)'s customs?

So is your lawn public property, like, say, the front of town hall which allegedly represents citizens of all faiths (or none at all)?I don't know why I'm bothering.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

ok/ignore

that breaks my heart, believe me, dialogging with a lying Micheal Savage regurgitator would have made my night, believe me.

[drcossack 0]

Alright. I read the beginning, got angry, and here I am. Those of you in the Church of Obama, please once again tell me his "change" from the record of Ted Kennedy, who is not the most "change" oriented person. Also, since Obama wants to "unite us, not divide us", shouldn't he atleast have to show that he can agree with Conservatives on something? In case you don't know, Obama has the most left voting record in the entire Senate. So his uniting is basically for all of us to agree with him. Hmmm...sounds kinda forceful...In regards to separation of church and state and how it employs free speech, the ACLU and Hillary and Obama certainly don't want you to be able to celebrate your own religion. God forbid you have a manger scene in your lawn! ACLU=Fight for everyone against white, Christian, males.

Except that's not what it was originally intended for.The original idea behind it was to keep the church from becoming too active in politics, unlike England. The Anglican Church had a lot of influence in the British government. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the same thing from happening here. It's also why the churches are tax-free.I'm not sure when it "evolved" to what it is now, but separation of church and state is complete bullshit in its current form. The restriction of religious expression is a Constitutional violation of the freedoms of speech and religion, all because there's people who get offended by displays of religion (ie the manger at Christmas time)

[PillyPill 0]

So is your lawn public property, like, say, the front of town hall which allegedly represents citizens of all faiths (or none at all)?I don't know why I'm bothering.

My point is why should a majority of a community's belief be forced to the will of the minorities? I take it you were referencing the Wisconsin situation. The large majority of that community supported the right for the manger to be up. But a handful of people were offended and then drama ensued. Why would someone be offended by a manger? And better yet, why are some people offended by Merry Christmas? I don't understand this mentality that the minority should have the power over the majority.

[PillyPill 0]

Except that's not what it was originally intended for.The original idea behind it was to keep the church from becoming too active in politics, unlike England. The Anglican Church had a lot of influence in the British government. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the same thing from happening here. It's also why the churches are tax-free.I'm not sure when it "evolved" to what it is now, but separation of church and state is complete bullshit in its current form. The restriction of religious expression is a Constitutional violation of the freedoms of speech and religion, all because there's people who get offended by displays of religion (ie the manger at Christmas time)

Agreed

[JustDoIt 10]

I'm not mad, but not entirely kidding, either, because it is part and parcel of sexism. But no kidding, feminists call other women a$$hole ALL the time when we disagree.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...17218&st=20Wednesday, February 6th, 2008, 6:24 PM I know dozens and dozens of deeply conservative Republican rednecks around here with their "god, guns, and guts" t-shirts and their beer, and they don't exactly seem awash in the entrepreneurial spirit. [They don't exactly seem washed, either, but that's another story.]I mean, face it, the rednecks wail and whine about the "white man" being laid off when the factory closes and the only reason they do is because deep down (or not so deep down at all) they believe that their skin and their penis should entitle them to special privileges.What is worse sexism or being a Bigot?

[PillyPill 0]

that breaks my heart, believe me, dialogging with a lying Micheal Savage regurgitator would have made my night, believe me.

Lying? I may have been overexaggerating, but I was not lying. Tell you what. Ask me a question and I will answer it calmly this time. And also, I do not listen to Michael Savage (and before you say it, neither do I listen to Hannity or Rush), but he can atleast spell the words somewhat correctly while he is lying. So anyways, ask me something and we will start a real dialogue...to make your night.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

My point is why should a majority of a community's belief be forced to the will of the minorities? I take it you were referencing the Wisconsin situation. The large majority of that community supported the right for the manger to be up. But a handful of people were offended and then drama ensued. Why would someone be offended by a manger? And better yet, why are some people offended by Merry Christmas? I don't understand this mentality that the minority should have the power over the majority.

I'll take up, very briefly, where BigD gave up:1) so if the majority of the nation decides that gay marriage is great and socialized medicine is great and that signing the Kyoto Accord is great, then you'll just sit back quietly and shut up, saying, "well, I guess the majority's wishes should silence mine"?2) public property belongs to ALL the people in a community, not just the Christians. There's something in the phrase "representing everyone" that you're just not getting.3) if they shouldn't be offended by a manger, why are you offended that other displays sit beside that manger?

[PillyPill 0]

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...17218&st=20Wednesday, February 6th, 2008, 6:24 PM I know dozens and dozens of deeply conservative Republican rednecks around here with their "god, guns, and guts" t-shirts and their beer, and they don't exactly seem awash in the entrepreneurial spirit. [They don't exactly seem washed, either, but that's another story.]I mean, face it, the rednecks wail and whine about the "white man" being laid off when the factory closes and the only reason they do is because deep down (or not so deep down at all) they believe that their skin and their penis should entitle them to special privileges.What is worse sexism or being a Bigot?

That is a great question. The media and all the debates have really put Democrats in a bundle. When they vote in the primaries, do they vote as a sexist or a racist? Because both sides keep saying they are over the "race" or "gender" debate, but then they emphasize how important that trait is. I think it is great that both a black man and a woman are in contention for President, but are you a sexist or a racist?