Exactly. When I found out what the Bush camp did to McCain during the 2000 primaries it was the end of the road for me with Bush. To paint a guy who was a POW for his country out to be a traitor, that was the last straw. Course I didn't find this out until after the election. I think the only reason McCain went out on the road for Bush during this last election was to build political "capital" so he could run in 2008. I think McCain sees Bush for who he really is and if it weren't for the need he wouldn't have anything to do with the man.heyjoeo said:I like him too. He knows what he's doing. He's a REAL republican. Not one of these "neo" republicans like Bush. Plus, any person man enough to survive as a POW in those conditions is a real man.
I think Obama is very impressive. But I'll lay you 20-1 odds that way before he ever gets in a position where he could possibly make a run at the White House the "Right" will begin to systematically dismantle him. By the time their through 60-70% of the country will honestly believe he's a nut job. Wanna bet?heyjoeo said:Obama is the man. He'll run in 1-3 terms depending.
It use to be said that the moral majority was neither, alas now they're simply not moral.heyjoeo said:Of course, the republican party in the past 5 years after Clinton have ran campaigns of dirt-throwing and rumor-mongering. I have NO IDEA how people associate morals with this party.
Interesting, because I keep thinking just the opposite. The dems allowed President Clinton to lie in front of a grand jury and get away with it. What is so remarkable is the man and MANY Americans think the reason he was impeeched is because of "the act" with Monica. Most Republicans could care less what he actually did with her.heyjoeo said:Of course, the republican party in the past 5 years after Clinton have ran campaigns of dirt-throwing and rumor-mongering. I have NO IDEA how people associate morals with this party.
Yeah, remember the good ole days when guys like Falwell, Robertson and Ralph Reed were "out-there" bible-thumpers and it was acceptable to think they were irrelevant but still good for a few laughs while you were waiting for the 11:00 pm re-runs of Soap to come on? I miss those days.Pacridge said:It use to be said that the moral majority was neither, alas now they're simply not moral.
vauge said:Interesting, because I keep thinking just the opposite. The dems allowed President Clinton to lie in front of a grand jury and get away with it. What is so remarkable is the man and MANY Americans think the reason he was impeeched is because of "the act" with Monica. Most Republicans could care less what he actually did with her.
Pacridge said:Personally I'd like the guy with his finger that close to the "button" to be getting all the oral sex he wants. That's why I blame Hillary.
How quickly you liberals forget.Pacridge said:If the GOP "could care less what he actually did with her," as you put it, then why in the world did they drag him to grand jury over it in the first place? I'm not sure I can follow that logic.
How exactly are you defining "Gun Show Loophole?" I know here in Oregon up until 2000 you were able to go to a gun show and purchase any firearm you wanted without any background check. To me that is the "loophole." Here in Oregon the voters closed it in the 2000 general election. According to the Americans for Gun Saftey that "loophole" Still exists in 32 states.CSA_TX said:the issue I have with McCain has to do with bills he has sponsered.
1) the capaign finance reform bill that is now law. This law unfortinately subverts the constitution in freedom of speech. Political disent and discussion is regulated before an election. I have an issue with that. I was also very dissapointed in Bush for signing the bill into law and had me looking into other candidates this past election.
2) the gun show loophole bill. There is no gun show loophole. If you buy a gun at a gun show you still have to go through the same procedure as buying a gun at a gun store. If you buy a gun from an individual it is a private purchase.
So I am not a fan of McCain.
How exactly are you defining "Gun Show Loophole?" I know here in Oregon up until 2000 you were able to go to a gun show and purchase any firearm you wanted without any background check. To me that is the "loophole." Here in Oregon the voters closed it in the 2000 general election. According to the Americans for Gun Saftey that "loophole" Still exists in 32 states.CSA_TX said:the issue I have with McCain has to do with bills he has sponsered.
1) the capaign finance reform bill that is now law. This law unfortinately subverts the constitution in freedom of speech. Political disent and discussion is regulated before an election. I have an issue with that. I was also very dissapointed in Bush for signing the bill into law and had me looking into other candidates this past election.
2) the gun show loophole bill. There is no gun show loophole. If you buy a gun at a gun show you still have to go through the same procedure as buying a gun at a gun store. If you buy a gun from an individual it is a private purchase.
So I am not a fan of McCain.
vauge said:but if the president is under oath - he needs to tell the truth. Period.
Might wanna recheck those facts.Hoot said:I am not condoning Clinton's behavior, but the last time I checked, sex between two consenting adults was not yet a crime in this nation.
There is a big difference.mixedmedia said:Hmmm...interesting. As long as they're not under oath its okay to lie?
We can ignore the difference between Bill Clinton's lying about his messy affairs and George Bush lying to promote a war that has caused the deaths of (at the very disputed least) 20,000 people?
I guess George Bush is just one oath away from the media lynching he deserves, right? Yeah, right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?