Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TULedHead

The Next President of the USA will be?

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

Do you mean Six degrees of Kevin Bacon. well here goes nothing

Led Zeppelin was portrayed in the Tv documentry Video on Trail episode 2.5 with Sharon Stone

Sharon Stone was in "Casino" directed by Martin Scorsese

Martin Scorsese also directed "New York Stories" with Chris Elliott

Chris Elliott was in the Movie "Home for Christmas" with Marcia Gay Harden

Marcia Gay Harden was in the movie "Mystic River" with Kevin Bacon

Kevin Bacon was the only actor not to be on the Jerry lewis Telethon.

Thats the connection.

I already did the six degrees of Kevin Bacon on the Jerry Lewis Telethon thread. Tahnk you very much.

I really hate the idea of voting for Mcain. I may sit out a this year or i may throw my vote away and vote for a independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lzatlanta73 @ Feb 7 2008, 10:24 PM)

it doesn't really matter anyway -- big business runs the country and the president is just a figure head.

In what aspect does big business run the country?

I'd rather they run it than some of the jokers in this so-called thing we calla government

Oil companies, haliburton, Vietnam, both gulf wars, need more?

No matter who is elected, they are just a figure head for all their cronies. This has been going on for most of the last 100 years (probably more) but more so in the last 50. Yes, I am very cynical but I've seen too much corruption over the years. But nevertheless I vote because I can. And for that I am forever thankful.

That felt good :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama is qualified to be President, without ever even finishing a single term in Congress? :huh:

Ted Kennedy has been a congressman for 44 years; he's served under JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. He says Barack Obama is qualified to serve as POTUS, so I'd tend to think he is. ..ya know? B)

John Kerry has been a congressman for 24 years. He's served under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. He's been the party nominee for POTUS. He says Barack Obama is qualified to serve as POTUS, so I'd tend to think he is. ..ya know? B)

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds so much like Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Gore and George McGovern. We've head the same "the times they are a changig" song many times. But then when it comes down to brass tacks the Dems step on their own dicks when they present to the American people canidates who do not share their core values. And I'm not talking about 'Ozzie & Harriet' style realities. I'm talking about the politics of the far left that do not sell to most Americans. The campaigns of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were the exeption.

The democratic party puts forth candidates that share the core values of many Americans, Del. Maybe not enough to win in some years, but that doesn't mean the values they espouse aren't worthy values, it simply means that the majority of the American populace wasn't ready to embrace those values.. yet. Sure, change is slow in coming sometimes, but eventually that does happen and those values.. the ones put forth by democrats.. progressives.. or "liberals", if you prefer.. do get embraced by the majority of Americans.

Progressives have pushed American culture forward.. despite the resistance put forth by conservatives. It was progressives who pushed for gender equality, and it was conservatives who opposed gender equality. Progressive values won that battle eventually. It was progressives who pushed for racial equality and it was conservatives who opposed racial equality. Progressive values won out eventually. And it was the bold vision of a progressive POTUS that lead to the landing of an American astronaut on the moon.

Today it's progressives who are pushing for sexual orientation equality.. and for universal health care.. and for the promotion of human rights.. and for the protection of the environment.. and for an energy revolution. Conservatives are opposing the progressive movement on these issues, but just like the gender and racial equality issues, the progressive values will win out eventually because they're values that promote human development... they're values that promote and encourage human cultural evolution... they're values that support America continuing to be on the cutting edge of human socio-cultural-scientific innovation and evolution.

Americans want America to LEAD THE WAY, not follow behind. Progressives do lead the way.. they push forward.. they embrace change. Conservatives, on the other hand, lag behind and resist change. I ask you: what in your opinion is more "American", leading the way or following?

B)

I don't think things change as much as you feel they do.

The fact that there are gays openly serving in Congress, and the fact that a woman and/or an African American will be the democratic party nominee for POTUS in 2008 is evidence that things are in fact changing... rather significantly.

How wondrous! How progressive! How American! :cheer:

Get on the bus.. get out of the way.. or get run over, Del.

CHANGE is coming, and you and your fellow conservatives can't stop it.

:beer:

*Del decides to board the bus*

t1home.thompsonbus.ap.jpg

Oh for cryin out loud!.. wrong bus, Del! slapface.gif

:P

:D

:hippy:

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do we need another pasty-faced white guy to lead our nation? Can't we find someone else for once?

This is a very racist comment.

Very.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very racist comment.

Very.

Uptight much?

I didn't see anything racist about it. Just honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do we need another pasty-faced white guy to lead our nation? Can't we find someone else for once?

Skin color has nothing to do with it. I don't agree with Shemales or Baracks policies. If you want a woman or black guy in office, fine. But no one should vote based on the color of skin or gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uptight much?

I didn't see anything racist about it. Just honest.

Let me change the sentence around just a teensy bit.

*ahem*

We don't need another chocolate colored black guy telling us what do. Can't we follow a regular person for once?

The above sentences would offend probably 99% of the population for some reason...but the original one would not. Double Standard no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you're gonna put it that way.

I think he might "can't we have a change for president and for once it not be some middle-aged white guy?"

That may seem racist to some, but the point of it is simple... we have had the same kind of President (physically, at least) since George Washington. And with this trend one does tend to wonder if all the way through (until, finally, now) one of the unwritten qualifications was being a white male (and Christian or Catholic, too... though that isn't set to change anytime soon). Time for a change. Not racist... just looking to end the trend.

Do I agree with that? I couldn't care less. IMO, Ron Paul is who I support, and he is a "pasty-faced white guy." Now if McCain gets it, and I think he will, I'm gonna pull for Obama because he's a much better candidate than McCain. Of course, if it's Clinton vs. McCain...

...

...

...

God help us all...

Let me change the sentence around just a teensy bit.

*ahem*

We don't need another chocolate colored black guy telling us what do. Can't we follow a regular person for once?

The above sentences would offend probably 99% of the population for some reason...but the original one would not. Double Standard no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Progressives have pushed American culture forward.. despite the resistance put forth by conservatives.

Yeah, progressives like FDR, whose fabulous New Deal program gave us the paternalistic Social Security System we have today. And now they would have us apply that same kind of cradle to grave mentality to our health care system. :rolleyes:

Bend over taxpayers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, progressives like FDR, whose fabulous New Deal program gave us the paternalistic Social Security System we have today. And now they would have us apply that same kind of cradle to grave mentality to our health care system. :rolleyes:

Bend over taxpayers...

Oh you're right, laissez faire capitalism and plutocracy is so much better. Privatize everything, privatizing ALWAYS provides the best in service, just ask the Californians about their privatized energy!

Well, if you can get one on the phone between rolling blackouts anyway.

Conservatives are still drinking the kool-aid about privatization. This country will be a lot better off when it realizes that public service is most often better performed when the service itself is the motivation and not profit margin.

And one more thing: there's not a republican president since Lincoln fit to tighten the screw on FDR's wheelchair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time we didn't have a pasty faced white guy in the the office. He stuck his dick in everthing that moved and got shot in dallas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a cell phone picture I took today at the Obama rally here in Seattle. :cheer:

Obama2.gif

18,000 supporters packed KeyArena and it was reported that

there were another 3,000 people outside who couldn't get in.

It was fun seeing/hearing Obama give his stump speech in person.

There was definitely a feeling of witnessing history in the making!

Before Barack Obama spoke, Matt Cameron (former Soundgarden and

Pearl Jam drummer) took the stage in a show of support for Obama.

[Yesterday Hillary drew a mere 5,000 for her rally. :whistling: ]

I'd caucus tomorrow.. but I'm working. icon2.gif

Thousands pack KeyArena to see Obama

February 8, 2008

SEATTLE- The fervor surrounding the candidacy or Barack Obama hit Seattle today as about 18,000 people jammed KeyArena to hear the presidential candidate say it was time to move beyond the Bush era and restore America's stature around the world.

Saying America was "hungry for a different kind of politics," Barack Obama addressed a capacity crowd at KeyArena Friday that had waited hours for the chance to hear the Democratic presidential candidate.

"This crowd is extraordinary," Obama told his cheering supporters when he took the stage just after 1 p.m. "As big as any crowd we've gotten anywhere in the country." :beer:

usa-politics-obama.jpg

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh you're right, laissez faire capitalism and plutocracy is so much better. Privatize everything, privatizing ALWAYS provides the best in service, just ask the Californians about their privatized energy!

Well, if you can get one on the phone between rolling blackouts anyway.

Conservatives are still drinking the kool-aid about privatization. This country will be a lot better off when it realizes that public service is most often better performed when the service itself is the motivation and not profit margin.

And one more thing: there's not a republican president since Lincoln fit to tighten the screw on FDR's wheelchair.

Public service is "most often better"? Yeah thats been working real well for education...and Social Security...and Health Care...and roads...shall we continue?

There hasn't been a whole lot that the government hasn't screwed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Public service is "most often better"? Yeah thats been working real well for education...and Social Security...and Health Care...and roads...shall we continue?

There hasn't been a whole lot that the government hasn't screwed up

Granted, to a certain extent. But the solution is reform, not privatization. Privatization in education? That will mean that the poorest of communities will not have schools that reflect their values; Republicans want the poor kids to come to private schools and learn conservative values, fancy that. Privatization of Social Security? W came knocking with that one straight out of the gate and NO ONE was answering. Privatization of Health care? It works in Canada and Europe, why not here? The roads are pretty good where I live, which happens to be bluest state in the Union.

Continue if you like, but you'll never convince me that public service will be better when dollars are the bottom line instead of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted, to a certain extent. But the solution is reform, not privatization. Privatization in education? That will mean that the poorest of communities will not have schools that reflect their values; Republicans want the poor kids to come to private schools and learn conservative values, fancy that. Privatization of Social Security? W came knocking with that one straight out of the gate and NO ONE was answering. Privatization of Health care? It works in Canada and Europe, why not here? The roads are pretty good where I live, which happens to be bluest state in the Union.

Continue if you like, but you'll never convince me that public service will be better when dollars are the bottom line instead of people.

I agree that privatization of schools is just not a thing we should do. America has had "common schools" for centuries. We live in a civilized country, therefore, we offer free, appropriate public education, which no child can be denied (which is actually part of our country's special education laws). This is a cornerstone of industrialized countries' education philosophy. It is the LAW that children recieve education from the ages of 5-16. Imagine telling the single parents of America that they need to come up with tuition money for their children. These people are the people that we need to guarantee education for because the lower classes need education more than any other class--where would many of our great Americans be without free education? We'd have a lot of self-made people out there who would not be able to be successful.

Blasphemy.

Hermit--awesome! I wish I would have taken cell phone pictures. :lol: They told us no cameras, but then they allowed them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted, to a certain extent. But the solution is reform, not privatization. Privatization in education? That will mean that the poorest of communities will not have schools that reflect their values; Republicans want the poor kids to come to private schools and learn conservative values, fancy that. Privatization of Social Security? W came knocking with that one straight out of the gate and NO ONE was answering. Privatization of Health care? It works in Canada and Europe, why not here? The roads are pretty good where I live, which happens to be bluest state in the Union.

Continue if you like, but you'll never convince me that public service will be better when dollars are the bottom line instead of people.

I'm with you in that Education should not be entirely privatized, but I do suggest it to anybody with the money. I went to a Catholic grade school and I can assure you, I was ahead of all the public schools, as evidenced when I switched to public high school (private high school was too far away and too much money) and I was (along with my Catholic school transfers as well) ahead of everyone in English and Math, not to mention I had a better understanding of history and biology. Now granted this is only one example out of many, but I'm just saying. How about we give tax breaks to people who send their kids to private schools (why should my parents pay for other kids when no one is paying for theirs but them?).

Also, not advocating complete privatization of Social Security nor Health Care (universal coverage for children in a philosophy of mine). However, I will disagree with you that "it works in Canada". As for roads, well that's just a local problem with me. Michigan is a pretty Democratic state right now and yet our roads are shiiiiiiiit. It's probably because we use so much salt to get rid of ice in the roads, which then gets in cracks, and erodes the cement when the summer comes. Seriously, I can't drive ten minutes without seeing a pothole or big crack in the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I agree that privatization of schools is just not a thing we should do. America has had "common schools" for centuries. We live in a civilized country, therefore, we offer free, appropriate public education, which no child can be denied (which is actually part of our country's special education laws). This is a cornerstone of industrialized countries' education philosophy. It is the LAW that children recieve education from the ages of 5-16. Imagine telling the single parents of America that they need to come up with tuition money for their children. These people are the people that we need to guarantee education for because the lower classes need education more than any other class--where would many of our great Americans be without free education? We'd have a lot of self-made people out there who would not be able to be successful.

Blasphemy.

We live in a civilzed country? :blink: Reading the news today,you coud have fooled me,but that's easy,...

Well Manders,not to take anything away from your excellent work,but public schools are failing in some way,hence the result of private ,charter and home-based education.Even in public schools,one has too pay for a child to be in band,play sports,art classes and all the other supposed 'non-educational' activities that have been shown time and time again to produce well rounded students and citizens,...

Sorry for the rant.

KB (Obama or McCain?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted, to a certain extent. But the solution is reform, not privatization. Privatization in education? That will mean that the poorest of communities will not have schools that reflect their values; Republicans want the poor kids to come to private schools and learn conservative values, fancy that. Privatization of Social Security? W came knocking with that one straight out of the gate and NO ONE was answering. Privatization of Health care? It works in Canada and Europe, why not here? The roads are pretty good where I live, which happens to be bluest state in the Union.

Continue if you like, but you'll never convince me that public service will be better when dollars are the bottom line instead of people.

SS is scheduled to go broke by 2041. Other than privatization, nothing can save it except higher taxes or reduced benefits. Believe me, I am not counting on SS in its present form for my retirement. Anybody that is needs to have their head examined. It looks to me like just another government sponsored pie-in-the-sky fantasy program that the public bought hook, line and sinker. Forgive me if I view the current universal health care proposals the dems are offering with equal suspicion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh you're right, laissez faire capitalism and plutocracy is so much better. Privatize everything, privatizing ALWAYS provides the best in service, just ask the Californians about their privatized energy!

Well, if you can get one on the phone between rolling blackouts anyway.

Conservatives are still drinking the kool-aid about privatization. This country will be a lot better off when it realizes that public service is most often better performed when the service itself is the motivation and not profit margin.

And one more thing: there's not a republican president since Lincoln fit to tighten the screw on FDR's wheelchair.

Well Said :cheer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do we need another pasty-faced white guy to lead our nation? Can't we find someone else for once?

This comment is very racist and offensive. Do you think it would be appropriate if somebody had said, "why would we want a shiney faced black guy" to be President?

No, I don't think you would. And neither would most people, including me.

You are such a hypocrite Electrophile. And Barrack Obama would be the first to tell you that this election is not about race or gender but about who should be the most qualified to be the President of our nation. And I commend Obama for running a campaign that is above the type of racial commentary that you find to be acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...