So who's everyone supporting for 2008?

[hoover_rc]

OK. Scientific facts aren't worth looking at. Thanks for making your position clear on that. You know the "campaign finance reform" movement is unconstitutional, right? Or should we just throw out the first amendment as well while we are making your changes?

Funny how the right-winger is a science guy all of a sudden. You give me a desired conclusion, and I'll design a study or a poll that will get you there. That's not science.

Yes, let's throw out the 1st amendment. What?! I'm saying the opposite. Let's amend the constitution again. There is no way the Founders could have comprehended the level of influence special interests would have on presidential campaigns. The current system has bred corruption so let's fix it.

Allowing a woman to vote was once unconstitutional too.

 

[6thGen]

First, where have I been against scientific evidence? Second, you are the one that made the claim that if more would have voted, Gore would have a larger percentage of the popular vote. I simply refuted it with scientific evidence. I'm open to you finding a reputable and researched study or poll to do the opposite, but I know you cannot do so.

You are advocating limiting individuals' rights to address their government. That's throwing out the first amendment. The fact that you don't understand or recognize that doesn't change anything. I did it before for someone else who didn't understand it, so I'll do the same for you. Here is the first amendment. I even bolded the important part so you don't have to read the rest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[hoover_rc]

First, where have I been against scientific evidence? Second, you are the one that made the claim that if more would have voted, Gore would have a larger percentage of the popular vote. I simply refuted it with scientific evidence. I'm open to you finding a reputable and researched study or poll to do the opposite, but I know you cannot do so.

You are advocating limiting individuals' rights to address their government. That's throwing out the first amendment. The fact that you don't understand or recognize that doesn't change anything. I did it before for someone else who didn't understand it, so I'll do the same for you. Here is the first amendment. I even bolded the important part so you don't have to read the rest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes, I know what it says. Strict constructionism is to rigid for my taste. Let's be a little more flexible and adapt...

?It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.?



I'm done here. off to the lounge..

 

[6thGen]

Yes, I know what it says. Strict constructionism is to rigid for my taste. Let's be a little more flexible and adapt...

?It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.?



I'm done here. off to the lounge..

Oh. Living Constitution. But you just told Bob "I agree whole-heartedly in your assessment of the genius of our form of govt." Did you change your mind? Regardless, I think you'll be better suited in The Lounge. TWCTITWA (That Whole Constitution Thingy Is Too Wordy Anyway). Maybe you can offer insight as to why L Squared got another DUI. Or who wins Dancing With the Starts. omg lol bff

 

[Miss Kitty]

John Edwards is the Eddie Haskel of American politics.

 

[30A Skunkape]

John Edwards is the Eddie Haskel of American politics.

And the worst on women's issues contrary to what you might have heard:roll:

 

[6thGen]

And the worst on women's issues contrary to what you might have heard:roll:

I'm hoping for an Edwards/Obama! ticket. According to some friends who have their finger on the DC pulse, HRC isn't dumb enough to put Obama! on the ticket, but Edwards is. I would really, really enjoy watching the debates if those two empty suits were on stage, although it will still be a letdown from watching Cheney gut, stuff and mount Edwards live on national television.

 

[hnooe]

VOTE CLINTON 2008. Please send money HERE>>> HillaryClinton.com - Welcome

Well she is now on a roll now...Obama is smart and will be a factor, but not in 2008. She is at the head of the pack.

The republicans are all too busy trying to look, talk, act (yea), and comb their hair like President Reagan (who, as a middle of the road Democrat, I really now appreciate now historically--especially compared to the last 7 years of disaster, if you get my drift!). also,....

"Mittens" Romney can't keep his stories straight yet.... McCain's fire is gone...Fred Thompson--who? President "Fred?" ...and then there Juliani-he will be the most formidable republican againts Clinton, but if Juliani is the candidate, the most conservative republicans will stay home and not vote at all since he is a social liberal...which won't help things for them...so Hill wins, and she can send Bill out world wide to patch up the U.S's negative image abroad. The US can be admired again, ie respected, i.e., then therefor SUPPORTED in their endeavors world wide.

 

[Smiling JOe]

If Hillary is elected, I may . I don't agree that Hillary being elected, will cause the US to be admired, nor respected by the rest of the world.

 

[30A Skunkape]

VOTE CLINTON 2008. Please send money HERE>>> HillaryClinton.com - Welcome

Well she is now on a roll now...Obama is smart and will be a factor, but not in 2008. She is at the head of the pack.

The republicans are all too busy trying to look, talk, act (yea), and comb their hair like President Reagan (who, as a middle of the road Democrat, I really now appreciate now historically--especially compared to the last 7 years of disaster, if you get my drift!). also,....

"Mittens" Romney can't keep his stories straight yet.... McCain's fire is gone...Fred Thompson--who? President "Fred?" ...and then there Juliani-he will be the most formidable republican againts Clinton, but if Juliani is the candidate, the most conservative republicans will stay home and not vote at all since he is a social liberal...which won't help things for them...so Hill wins, and she can send Bill out world wide to patch up the U.S's negative image abroad. The US can be admired again, ie respected, i.e., then therefor SUPPORTED in their endeavors world wide.

When the reality of HRC being one of the two choices crystallizes, I wouldn't count on a bunch of social conservatives staying home. And correct me if I am wrong, but the UN security council voted today to increase their involvement in Iraq, and as far as I know, WJC had no involvement.