I really have absolutely no interest in a single candidate for President.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Don't let his anti-abortion stance turn ya off too much. Any time I've heard him speak about the issue, he said his approach would be to leave it up to the states.

I've never heard him say anything about banning abortion on a federal level.

But (at the federal level) he wants to define life as beginning at conception. And I think one of the implications of this would be that abortion would then be defined as murder, so would that still be up to the states?

Too much doubletalk from Thompson to believe his states rights notions.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wouldn't it would be great if no one could register or campaign before March or April of the election year? A few months for primaries, have the conventions and 3-4 months for the parties' candidates to campaign, and then we're done for three and a half years.

So your solution would be to go beyond McCain-Feingold and complete piss on the 1st Amendment? You're talking about prior restraint - and how do you distinguish between regular politicking and running for president? You can't.

You infer quite a bit. Just looking (perhaps too hard) for something to bitch about?

How much clearer could you write "no one could campaign?"

Did you approve of McCain-Feingold's prohibitions too?

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

Don't let his anti-abortion stance turn ya off too much. Any time I've heard him speak about the issue, he said his approach would be to leave it up to the states.

I've never heard him say anything about banning abortion on a federal level.

But (at the federal level) he wants to define life as beginning at conception. And I think one of the implications of this would be that abortion would then be defined as murder, so would that still be up to the states?

I don't know. Honestly I think Ron Paul has bigger priorities in his mind than banning abortion. He's certainly not one of these holy roller types on a mission from Jayzus if that makes you feel any better.

My opinion is that he deserves the benefit of the doubt since he's a man of conviction, even from pro-choice folk like you and me.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wouldn't it would be great if no one could register or campaign before March or April of the election year? A few months for primaries, have the conventions and 3-4 months for the parties' candidates to campaign, and then we're done for three and a half years.

So your solution would be to go beyond McCain-Feingold and complete piss on the 1st Amendment? You're talking about prior restraint - and how do you distinguish between regular politicking and running for president? You can't.

You infer quite a bit. Just looking (perhaps too hard) for something to bitch about?

How much clearer could you write "no one could campaign?"

Did you approve of McCain-Feingold's prohibitions too?

I was just offering my opinion - that I would prefer to have an election cycle that only lasted seven or eight months. How is that going "beyond McCain-Feingold and complete piss on the 1st Amendment"?

Perhaps I should have said "would" instead of "could. I was just talking about how I'd like it to be, not about any hard and fast laws.

As far as McCain-Feingold is concerned, I don't buy into charge that placing limits on campaign finance is "pissing on the 1st Amendment". I mean, it's not like the candidates are prohibited from getting their message out. They just might have some limitations of over-saturating the public with that message. and let's be honest, most of their messages aren't about a given platform, they're about appealling to a base level of emotionalism.

Me - I'm fed up campaigns and debates going on for 12 months before the first primary vote is cast... and then going on for another 10 months.

These politicians remind me of the Door-to-Door Salesman on Pee Wee's Playhouse.

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

Do you also praise Mussolini for making the trains run on time?

What? Where did that come from? I guess you have to have a PhD to understand that one.

No you just have to think, and not edit out the context.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Do you also praise Mussolini for making the trains run on time?

What? Where did that come from? I guess you have to have a PhD to understand that one.

It's just a bit of remedial history about the "attractiveness" of certain aspects of his government; one of which was that the trains, did in fact, run on-time and was a point of pride. The Fascists also had quite a bit of culture going for them as well with art, poetry, music and whatnot. Ok, most of it was stolen, but still . . .

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AWL71 0]

In reality, it costs money to influence debate, and advocacy and political groups need to raise and spend money to pay for TV, radio and newspaper ads if they want to get their message heard. McCain-Feingold has stopped these messages from reaching as many people as possible. All the commercials during campaign time are trite but it is better than the alternative.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Amazon 7]

Well at least there are plenty of married ones running.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Me - I'm fed up campaigns and debates going on for 12 months before the first primary vote is cast... and then going on for another 10 months.

That's just another example of the free market at work. You're not against market driven politics are you

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

No you just have to think, and not edit out the context.

Hello kettle.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As far as McCain-Feingold is concerned, I don't buy into charge that placing limits on campaign finance is "pissing on the 1st Amendment". I mean, it's not like the candidates are prohibited from getting their message out.

sheesh, if you don't even know what the bill is about....it's the ban on speech from organzations like the NRA that concerns me.

But I'm one of the few people here who believe in both the 1st and the 2nd, so go figure.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Me - I'm fed up campaigns and debates going on for 12 months before the first primary vote is cast... and then going on for another 10 months.

That's just another example of the free market at work. You're not against market driven politics are you

Yeah. Let's throw out all election laws. Just make it one giant free for all.

Campaign limits? Fuck that.

Lobbying Reform? Quit whining all you poor people.

Laizzes Faire politics should be decide.

and while we're at it, let's tell the courts to mind their own business and quit trying to decide what is or is not an unfair trade pratice.

DURRR

[rushmc 23]

Quote

In reality, it costs money to influence debate, and advocacy and political groups need to raise and spend money to pay for TV, radio and newspaper ads if they want to get their message heard. McCain-Feingold has stopped these messages from reaching as many people as possible. All the commercials during campaign time are trite but it is better than the alternative.

I agree with you for the most part. All McCain Feingold did was move where the money went and in effect (I think) put more power and money in the hands of politions. This is done indirectly of course but I once heard this bill called, the make sure the incombant gets elected again bill. It sure seems like that is how it works today

Just my two cents....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

sheesh, if you don't even know what the bill is about..

Well, since you seem to think you know all about it, explain how my voicing a preference for a shorter election cycle goes beyond McCain-Feingold and complete pisses on the 1st Amendment?

Quote

it's the ban on speech from organzations like the NRA that concerns me.

You mean they can't say anything during an election cycle?

Quote

But I'm one of the few people here who believe in both the 1st and the 2nd, so go figure.

How's the view up on that horse?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Yeah. Let's throw out all election laws. Just make it one giant free for all.

Not exactly. It would be free for all who can get on the ballot (method to be determined later). All candidate's campaigns would be publicly financed. All candidates would get the same amount of access time via the media, meaning Gravel and Paul would get the same airplay as Giuliani and Clinton.
All money donated to a candidate would be considered bribes and both the briber and the bribee would be thrown in jail.
That's my dream.

....but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.
-- Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

I'm gonna have to snope you on that one!

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, since you seem to think you know all about it, explain how my voicing a preference for a shorter election cycle goes beyond McCain-Feingold and complete pisses on the 1st Amendment?

How's the view up on that horse?

Always good. Daytona 1200, in buttercup yellow.

You proposed a ban on campaigning. That's a ban on speech. That's very different from merely compressing the date of the primaries.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Well at least there are plenty of married ones running.

Huh?

Hug me baby.

_________________________________________
Chris

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Me - I'm fed up campaigns and debates going on for 12 months before the first primary vote is cast... and then going on for another 10 months.

nonsense - since the campaigns now go for 48 months. starting at the end of the current election.

at least it can't get worse

or can it?

(I think the issue is that campaigning for the job takes priority over actually doing the job - every day of every week)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I'm gonna have to snope you on that one!

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp

Thanks for the link. Interesting discussion therein.

Nonetheless, for his time (& perhaps for today as well?), Lincoln was very supportive of free labor.
Lincoln's Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log)" sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis extremely well. Unfortunately, his time in the White House was short and we never really got to know if he would go down in history as a great president.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First off, I haven't posted here in a long time because most of the dissent I encounter, I believe is too hopeless and offensive. However, I always thought of you as one of the better ones, not because I agreed with you most of the time, but because I never saw you attack somebody's personal character.

Anyhow for that reason I am taking the time to tell you why I think you are dead wrong about Kennedy and the Cuban missle crisis. First of all the Cuban missle crisis was hardly about Cuba, as those were Soviet missles that Castro (He was the entire Cuban government) had no say in whatsovever with regards to those missles.

Those missles were a Soviet response to the U.S. placing Jupiter missles in Turkey. With the help of the Kennedy freindly media and the Soviet Union staying quiet (knowing they really won that dispute), Kennedy was able to appear like a hero, when in reality he was weak on Communism.

Kennedy's agreement with the Soviets involved taking out the Jupiter missles from Turkey and having the Soviets take out their missles from Cuba. However, for the official (Kennedy freindly) newspapers, Kennedy was the tough guy who made the Soviets back down, by ONLY agreeing to let Cuba go to shit, that is agreeing never to use the Platt amendment of 1901, which gave the U.S. the right to restore law and order, when the Cuban Constitution was not being followed and mass murder was taking place. (Pretty much the conditions that never really stopped since Castro assumed control in January,1959.

If you believe that Cuban life and Cuba is worthless, then you can say that Kennedy had and even swap with the Soviets, ie.. they took out their missles we took out ours. If you believe there was any value in Cuba, then the Soviets won. But there is no possible way that anybody, who is objectively looking at the facts, could say that because of Kennedy the U.S. came out on top.

Many alarmists will have you believe that taking this loss was the only way that Kennedy had to avoid World war 3 and there is no absolute proof supporting or contradicting this. I don't believe that to be the case and I will state that these same alarmists also were quick to suggest that Reagan was taking us into World War 3 by his actions in the Reykjavik Summit in 1986. As much as dissenters may try to rewrite history, we know for a fact what actually did occur in the following years due the the response of a president who was not weak on communism.

If you or somebody else has a meaningful question that is not answered in these 5 or 6 paragraphs, I will reply. "Well disguised" attacks or spin I will ignore.

Hey Steel,

Good to see you. I will submit that you are probably a lot more learned on this topic than I am. Hell, I wasn't even alive then, but that's not an excuse for not learning history.

Yes, JFK was a media sensation as was his wife. It was kind of the opposite of today where the media wants to lynch whoever occupies the oval office. I always say that Clinton or GWB could end hunger in Africa and they still would have been hated by 50% of the country.

Anyway, I'm aware of some of the things where JFK definitely fell short of 'greatness'. My point was that the end result was a good one in regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'm aware of the horrible conditions under the Castro regime, but the bigger picture was the Soviet Union and the threat of Communism. Their plan was to clearly spread communism throughout the world and if they could in some way weaken the USA, well that would have been a huge win for them. It was truly an ugly situation for the entire world and unfortunately, the Cubans have been paying the price.

_________________________________________
Chris

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

You proposed a ban on campaigning.

I did? Where?

Quote

That's a ban on speech.

Streeeetch!!!

Quote

That's very different from merely compressing the date of the primaries.

Funny, I was just talking about "compressing" the primary and general election cycles. And I was just voicing my preference, not proposing laws requiring it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How about election reform?

Wouldn't it would be great if no one could register or campaign before March or April of the election year? A few months for primaries, have the conventions and 3-4 months for the parties' candidates to campaign, and then we're done for three and a half years.

Here you go. Your own words.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Waht do you think of Duncan Hunter?

I like him, but I think he would be better as SecDef in Fred Thompson's administration.

Gut feel or ?

Thoughts on Giuliani?

On the Democratic side, my bet is if Senator Clinton gets elected she'll go with General Wes Clark; if Senator Obama is elected my bet for SecDef is Richard Danzig (former Secretary of the Navy).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Don't let his anti-abortion stance turn ya off too much. Any time I've heard him speak about the issue, he said his approach would be to leave it up to the states.

I've never heard him say anything about banning abortion on a federal level.

But (at the federal level) he wants to define life as beginning at conception. And I think one of the implications of this would be that abortion would then be defined as murder, so would that still be up to the states?

Too much doubletalk from Thompson to believe his states rights notions.

Double talk?

You might wanna back that up with some facts.

I am of the belief you are dead wrong