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

You mean, he educates them on how its ok for him to learn from his mistakes privately... but he'll still lock you up if he suspects you've got a couple pot plants in the basement. :blink:

If the Democrats stuck to their moral beliefs, which they never do, they'd push for legalizing all drugs and stop the spending of billions of dollars that fizzle up in smoke.

And Obama's problem was more a coke thing then pot, but hey, this is politics, he'd still lock your ass up for grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feminism isn't about voting for people because of their gender. If you think that, you don't know anything about feminism. Period.

.....not true feminism anyway.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see Ron Paul is pulling up in the poll thanks to TinBlimp's 50 votes.

haha, in case your wondering, i haven't even voted in the poll yet...so im pleasantly surprised with the outcome so far!

spam0rz unitE!!

Second, Obama never, EVER said he had a drug problem. He said he used drugs and could have wound up a junkie IF he wouldn't have taken a different path.

but thats the point... if we acknowledge that people are capable of experimenting with illegal drugs without messing up their life, and that someone who once used cocaine can even be qualified to become president...why the fuck do we still insist on continuing this War on Drugs? Obama is living proof of how ridiculous these laws are, and his hypocrisy to stand up there as a respected politician (with no rap sheet) and talk about his past when there are thousands of people rotting in prison for doing the same exact thing is absolutely disgusting.

As we all know here on the old Led Zeppelin board, where many of us have colorful histories indeed, not everyone who used drugs in their youth developed a "drug problem." Some people did, some didn't.
hell, i used to smoke pot every day when i was 17... and now im playing a gig tomorrow with Jon Faddis! i know the drug culture first hand, and i also know that sometimes the most fucked up people are the ones drinking vodka at 11 in the morning, not smoking a j. these laws dont make any sense.. and i get really pissed whenever i hear another self righteous hypocrite play politics with people's lives. you want to help out the poor and minorities? you want to stop inner city crime? end the war on drugs!

(btw, i wasnt trying to attack you, just obama's stance :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haha, in case your wondering, i haven't even voted in the poll yet...so im pleasantly surprised with the outcome so far!

spam0rz unitE!!

but thats the point... if we acknowledge that people are capable of experimenting with illegal drugs without messing up their life, and that someone who once used cocaine can even be qualified to become president...why the fuck do we still insist on continuing this War on Drugs? Obama is living proof of how ridiculous these laws are, and his hypocrisy to stand up there as a respected politician (with no rap sheet) and talk about his past when there are thousands of people rotting in prison for doing the same exact thing is absolutely disgusting.

hell, i used to smoke pot every day when i was 17... and now im playing a gig tomorrow with Jon Faddis! i know the drug culture first hand, and i also know that sometimes the most fucked up people are the ones drinking vodka at 11 in the morning, not smoking a j. these laws dont make any sense.. and i get really pissed whenever i hear another self righteous hypocrite play politics with people's lives. you want to help out the poor and minorities? you want to stop inner city crime? end the war on drugs!

(btw, i wasnt trying to attack you, just obama's stance :D )

Points very well taken. We are in complete agreement on this issue. The war on drugs is futile and hypocritical, and perpetuates institutional racism and classism.

P.S. I had the great fortune to see Jon Faddis recently! What a wonderful individual. You are privileged to share the stage with him. Have fun!

Edited by tangerinedream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mitt.NR.jpg

One of the most influential conservative magazines has endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

Romney for President

By The Editors

Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year’s amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.

Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chameleon.jpg

One of the most influential conservative magazines has endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

We'll he certainly is...uhh.. adaptable.

I'll give him that much. :P

Romney's principles are.. in the eye of the beholder.

..aint that right, TUled? :rolleyes:

:hysterical:

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see Ron Paul is pulling up in the poll thanks to TinBlimp's 50 votes.

Feminism isn't about voting for people because of their gender. If you think that, you don't know anything about feminism. Period.

Second, Obama never, EVER said he had a drug problem. He said he used drugs and could have wound up a junkie IF he wouldn't have taken a different path.

As we all know here on the old Led Zeppelin board, where many of us have colorful histories indeed, not everyone who used drugs in their youth developed a "drug problem." Some people did, some didn't.

Feminism in America has gotten to the point where the idea is women should always be viewed as better than men.

Think I'm wrong? Turn on the TV. Find a commercial where the woman doesn't beat the guy in a game or something, or doesn't seem like the more macho of the two.

Hell find me a modern show where the husband is as smart as the wife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feminism in America has gotten to the point where the idea is women should always be viewed as better than men.

Think I'm wrong? Turn on the TV. Find a commercial where the woman doesn't beat the guy in a game or something, or doesn't seem like the more macho of the two.

Hell find me a modern show where the husband is as smart as the wife

you want an anti-feminism candidate, wanna be?

..then it seems Huckabee's your manly man. :P

"a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband."

~ Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee

Huckabee Agrees That Wives Should 'Submit Graciously' to Their Husbands. What Does He Mean?

Poor Mike Huckabee. He can't catch a break these days--at least not with the press. (The polls: different story.)

First it's ethics complaints. Then AIDS. Then the parole of a once (and future) rapist/murderer. Then alleged payoffs from Big Tobacco. All while sustaining attacks from his Republican rivals on immigration, taxes and crime. It's almost enough to get a guy eating corndogs again.

The latest fuel on the fire: his views on marriage. In June 1998, the Southern Baptist convention amended its official statement of beliefs for the first time in 35 years to declare that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." And Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister then serving as governor of Arkansas, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement (along with 129 other evangelical leaders).

*link to full article*

:whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hermit, I'm not anti-feministic at all.

I just hate what it's become.

why do you think women are inferior, wanna be? :unsure:

just kidding. ;)

seriously though..

do you think a woman can be an effective "leader of the free world"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feminism in America has gotten to the point where the idea is women should always be viewed as better than men.

Hell find me a modern show where the husband is as smart as the wife

Females need more positive role models than men.

We've already ruled everything since the dawn of....well....man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitt.NR.jpg

One of the most influential conservative magazines has endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

Romney for President

By The Editors

Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year’s amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.

Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

Good luck finding such a rosy assessment from Mitt's former constituents. But no, conservatives know better for us than we know for ourselves, he did a good job, a goooood job.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Females need more positive role models than men.

We've already ruled everything since the dawn of....well....man.

And the female role models are much better? You mean the people in the media like Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney, hell even a high school music star , a show for kids, Vanessa Hudgens

Come on man, women aren't that much better than men are they?

And yes Hermit, I think a woman could be a decent world leader. I do not believe, however, that Hillary Clinton would be

Edited by wanna be drummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yes Hermit, I think a woman could be a decent world leader. I do not believe, however, that Hillary Clinton would be

why not?

she not smart enough?

.. not even-tempered enough?

.. not rational enough?

.. not informed enough?

.. not a good enough communicator?

.. not tough enough?

what characteristics does Hillary have (or lack) that

make you think she wouldn't be a decent world leader?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why not?

she not smart enough?

No she's not

.. not even-tempered enough?

Maybe, she took Bill's affair pretty well :rolleyes:

.. not rational enough?

She may be

.. not informed enough?

She's in Congress, she's probably informed pretty well

.. not a good enough communicator?

After Bush for 8 years, I doubt anybody could be worse at this than he was

.. not tough enough?

Not necessarily. Women in high jobs have been known to be very tough in punishment and war, but will Hillary? I doubt it

what characteristics does Hillary have (or lack) that

make you think she wouldn't be a decent world leader?

I'ts mostly her political positions I hate her for.

Oh yeah, and nobody likes her personally. She's a very unlikable person...

Edited by wanna be drummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Ken Burns Compares Obama to Lincoln

PH2007121801549.jpg

Dec 18, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. -- If Barack Obama does win the Democratic presidential nomination, don't be surprised if there is a 10-part black-and-white documentary television series with a an alternately lugubrious and folksy soundtrack chronicling it all a few years from now. Filmmaker Ken Burns -- maker of the "Civil War," "Baseball" and other series -- today jumped into the fray to endorse Obama, hailing him for his "moral courage" and "unironic posture" and comparing him at one point to another Illinois politician Burns knows a bit about, Abraham Lincoln.

"While others find themselves mired in their past actions, he is presenting a vision for the future that is not only possible but essential to our survival as a nation," Burns said, in a conference call with reporters that took on a loftier tone than is typical of most endorsements. "We need someone who is authentic, someone who will inevitably make mistakes just like every president going back to George Washington, but someone who is themselves and authentic....Someone who is able to dream, someone who is able to suggest a future that isn't so completely tied to the past."

Burns, who lives in Walpole, N.H., and supported Al Gore and John Kerry in the past two New Hampshire primaries, said he was planning to remain officially neutral this time around but was "compelled" to come out for Obama after being upset by what he saw as the negative turn taken by the campaign of Hillary Clinton last week, when a Clinton adviser in New Hampshire raised questions about Obama's past drug use and Clinton noted in her favor that she would have "no surprises" as a Democratic nominee. "I'm really disappointed in the tone the campaign has taken on their part," said Burns, who noted that he has been friendly with the Clintons for several decades. "I'm sure she's getting some bad advice and will clean up her act."

A reporter asked Burns whether his praise for Obama's appealing to voters' "better angels" instead of their "baser" instincts was undermined by the Obama campaign's mailing of a flier in New Hampshire this week criticizing Clinton for her attacks on his health care plan. Burns said he was not aware of the flier, and Dayton Duncan, a New Hampshire author supporting Obama who was also on the call, said the flier was a legitimate rebuttal to an unfair attack.

To rebut concerns about Obama's lack of experience -- which were raised explicitly by Bill Clinton last week -- Burns noted that Lincoln had come into the White House with much less Washington experience than other leading politicians of the 1850s. With the country in such a perilous state at the time, he said, one might have thought it needed an "old pro" like William Seward, when in fact, Burns said, "what the country really needed was a wiry, relatively inexperienced" person, Abe Lincoln. In this regard, he argued, history may be repeating itself.

*source*

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

Given that Ken Burns has no axe to grind, nothing in particular to gain, is

widely respected, and.. knows 'a thing or two' about US/presidential history..

..I'd say this is no garden variety endorsement. B)

barak_obama.jpg

ya think John McCain would trade his Joe Lieberman

endorsement for a Ken Burns endorsement?

:whistling:

naaahh.

:hysterical:

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodd Filibuster Threat Wins

Spying Bill Postponed to Next Year

December 17, 2007

Connecticut senator Christopher Dodd's threatened filibuster of a bill giving immunity to telecoms that helped the government spy on Americans unexpectedly carried the day Monday, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to postpone the vote on the measure until after the winter break.

The announcement was an unexpected victory for civil liberties groups, whose anti-immunity fortunes looked grim this morning as the Senate looked primed to pass an expansive spying bill that would free telecoms like AT&T and Verizon from privacy lawsuits.

Dodd showed his moxie and determination all day, as he held the floor for long stretches, railing against an administration-backed bill that would have freed telecoms from 40-odd lawsuits pending against them in federal court.

The presidential candidate threatened to filibuster and hold the Senate floor if the Senate shot down his amendment to strip immunity from the bill. That threat moved Reid to postpone a vote on the bill, so that the Senate could take up war funding bills, a massive domestic spending bill and changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax before the winter break.

Dodd's determination to fight telecom immunity also boosted his lagging presidential campaign.

*source

060530_dodd_vmed_4p.widec.jpg*

Kudos to Senator Todd! :thumbsup:

No immunity for the telecoms. If they violated FISA law, they ought to be held accountable and those who directed them to break the law [bush, Cheney, Alberto Guantanamozales] should be held accountable.

If they didn't violate laws.. what do they need immunity for?

That Chris Dodd was the lone candidate to stand up

on this issue kinda makes me wanna vote for him.

Kinda.

Afaic,.. he's hero for a day, anyway. :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Edwards the fighter in Iowa homestretch

Democrat rails against special interests as he seeks support

071218-john-edwards-hmed-8p.rp350x350.jpg

OTTUMWA, Iowa - More than 150 Iowans were rustling in their chairs at a community college here the other night, waiting for John Edwards. Mr. Edwards’s bus was parked and running outside the door, but it was nearly 45 minutes before he finally made his characteristically late entrance.

When he did appear, Mr. Edwards strode in as if he were climbing into a boxing ring. For half an hour, he talked about fighting special interests and battling corporations. He urged his audience to “rise up” against health care companies and insurance executives. Pugilistic until the end, he loudly told a story of how his father ordered him to go out and “kick that guy’s butt” after he came home from school with a bloodied nose, suggesting that was a lesson he would carry into the White House as well.

“We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that’s not true is living in a fantasy world,” Mr. Edwards said. “How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action.”

*full article*

John Edwards will fight big corporations and special interest groups.

and he'll win.

:beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy Chong for president

Up_in_Smoke.jpg

Edited by MOJO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote for Hillary because I am a woman and i always vote for woman whenever i voted last time a few years ago.

But i like John Edwards,too.

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...