2008 Presidential Hopefuls

[softwareNerd]

I would have been for Gingrich, despite his passionate defense of religion and faith.

In the "Contract with America" days, I thought Gingrich was a good guy. Haven't followed him since, except to note that his last two books were:

• Rediscovering God in America; and,
  
• A Contract with the Earth
  

From those titles alone, I would guess that he has really moved significantly toward a religious/environmentalist position. (Or, perhaps he always was, but was not explicit about it.)

[Robert J. Kolker]

In the "Contract with America" days, I thought Gingrich was a good guy. Haven't followed him since, except to note that his last two books were:

• Rediscovering God in America; and,
  
• A Contract with the Earth
  

From those titles alone, I would guess that he has really moved significantly toward a religious/environmentalist position. (Or, perhaps he always was, but was not explicit about it.)

He was never that far away, particularly from a religious position.

Let us face it, we are under control of the Gentile Occupation Government, also know as the GOG.

Bob Kolker

[Marty McFly]

This Bloomberg guy is very interesting... would any of you vote for him if Huckebee wins the primaries and Bloomberg runs as a third party?

he is an incredibaly good "diplomatic" mayor. you know, the type that is 'so nice' to everyone, and no one really hates him...

he did raise property tax (after giuliani lowered it) but then gave home owners the tax back in tax returns... (not all of it, though)

he is strickter with gun laws, and he is totally a dictator when it comes to smoking, trans-fat etc.

ok, so whadaya say? he is still a great capitalist and all...

[Toolboxnj]

If Huckabee was the GOP nominee I would vote for the Democratic nominee. If Bloomy jumped into the race, eh, that would be a difficult choice. Even though I disagree with him on most issues, I would rather have a business man in the White House than not.

On Gingrich, it's not a violent passion for God that drives him. He's just as bad in that area as most politicians that need to pander to some people to get money, support and votes.

[DarkWaters]

If Bloomy jumped into the race, eh, that would be a difficult choice.

Even if a third party candidate is a better candidate than both the Democratic and the Republican nominees, it still might not be in one's best interest to vote for him in a general election. If you are voting in a swing-state, and one of the major party nominees is significantly worse than the other, then I think you are better off voting for the lesser of two evils than to vote for a third party candidate. Of course, this would be different from supporting the third party candidate during the regular election.

If you are living in a state where the outcome of the election is predictable, then you might as well vote for whoever interests you the most, or not vote at all.

Even though I disagree with him on most issues, I would rather have a business man in the White House than not.

A productive businessmen probably will make a better leader than a career politician. However, A businessman today is not necessarily devoid of dangerous altruistic premises when it comes to domestic issues. I do not know much about Michael Bloomberg. But, a quick scan of his "issues" website suggests that he embraces the idea that the government should take a more active role in creating affordable housing, eliminating poverty and creating jobs.

Given the other Presidential possibilities, this does not necessarily make him worse.

[fletch]

Slick Romney?

Where Bill Clinton took us to the definition of "is" Romney takes us to the definition of the word "saw."

Why do these politicians have such a mighty struggle with the truth? What is so hard about saying: "I misspoke. Let me correct the record."

Edited December 25, 2007 by fletch

[shaitan]

I live in NYC and I have a gun. It's OK, even Bloomberg, with his MUCH strickter gun laws didn't completely take away our right to own a gun (like in DC where you're not allowed to have one at all)

All Giuliani did was make it harder for criminals to buy a gun. before he enforced those gun laws, we never dreamed of buying a gun, but because he made those laws - we decided to get a lisence and buy a gun. so there you have it. regular citizens DO have guns in NYC.

I didn't say people don't own guns there now, I said they won't if rudy wins and goes nuts .

The mere fact that he'll have sponsored a mechanism whereby people can be prevented from buying guns will establish a greater difficulty in getting guns if we have to resort to that check on his power.

If a revolution due to expansion of government crap is called for, the "criminals" (i.e. whoever disagrees with the expansion of crap) will be precisely the ones we want having guns, and Rudy will have made sure (assuming he's competent) that the people we need to revolt won't have guns.

I always saw her as Ivy Starnes, you know, from Starnesville, where 20th Century Motors used to be?

Hillary Clinton read Atlas Shrugged, and said she "grew up" after initially agreeing with it, without raising any rational objection to any of its content. Translation: she agrees with Objectivism and still rejects it. I don't think Ivy Starnes was quite so sophisticated in her evil, but Ellsworth Toohey definitely is, which is why I compare her with Ellsworth Toohey.

Joseph Stalin might be a good comparison too, if ya read some of the stuff he said

Edited December 25, 2007 by shaitan

[athena glaukopis]

[gags]

Si se puede!

[IchorFigure]

I am still having a hard time deciding who to vote for between Obama and McCain. For me right now one of the biggest issues is Science. On both sides I see attempts to use science to their own ends. On the left to impose environmental fascism, and on the right to attempt to prove God should be taught in school. Not only that but McCain even buys into global warming. Either way, as I vote I will be clutching my stomach the entire time.