<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 17 2006, 09:23 AM) [snapback]240930[/snapback]</div> OMG, don't tell me Condi and Rudy have gone to the dark side? :huh: McCain/Fallwell for 2008? loverly. How about "none of the above".
Aw, come on - I wanna vote, but these choices? Whew. Ok - Clinton v. McCain - McCain ('because there are some Democrats even I won't vote for ... actually, I probably wouldn't vote if these were the names on the ballot) Kerry v. Guliani - Kerry Gore v. Rice - Gore But you're missing some other very possible candidates, on both sides. Republicans: Frist, Romney, Allen, Pataki Democrats: Bayh, Edwards, Clark, Vilsack Guy I'd like to see run, and I think he's already working on it, is former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. My two cents.
What happened to people who use to show leadership qualities...I don't want to vote for any of these choices. :angry:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreenGene @ Apr 17 2006, 02:10 PM) [snapback]240990[/snapback]</div> Yeah, I was going to put Romney/Edwards... but I figured it could go on & On.. PATAKI?!?!?!? You must not have lived in NY.. Even Republicans can't see him for President. An adequate, but tired Gov... Maybe a Cabinet post, but never President
I won't vote for Hillary, but not for the reason that most voters would shun her. Hillary Clinton has been a supporter of the war in Iraq, one of the most misguided foreign adventures this country has ever undertaken. On virtually every issue of importance to progressives, she has moved to the right in order to capture the centrist vote. I will not vote for any candidate who supports pre-emptive war against other nations that did not threaten us. And why wasn't Russ Feingold included in the poll? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 17 2006, 08:29 PM) [snapback]241192[/snapback]</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 17 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]241230[/snapback]</div> I, too, will not vote for Hillary for pretty much the same reasons you gave. But I have a measure of respect and admiration for her. I still don't understand the vitriolic hatred many people share. Peace -- <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 17 2006, 09:31 PM) [snapback]241280[/snapback]</div> To continue -- I despise W probably as much as others hate Hillary. But I can give a dozen specific reasons why I feel the way I do. I wonder if I sound as irrational as Hillary haters. Peace --
There are a lot of people who have a visceral hatred for Hillary Clinton, and there's nothing rational about it. It has nothing to do with her politics- it's her personality. When a men is assertive, it's an admired trait. Let a woman behave the same way, and she's a "bitch." W, on the other hand; let's see, there's sending our troops to die in an unneccessary war in Iraq, rolling back years of environmental legislation, turning a record surplus into a record deficit, giving tax cuts to the rich at the expense of poor and working people, illegal spying on Americans, torture, etc., etc., etc., <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 17 2006, 10:35 PM) [snapback]241280[/snapback]</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 17 2006, 09:23 AM) [snapback]240930[/snapback]</div> That's the trouble with with owning a Prius. Everyone thinks you're a kommie. The only candidate that would remotely adhere to the Constitution (or know what it means) is Condi. The litmus test is the 2nd Amendment. Those that feel individual are important and have genuine trust in their fellow man to be different, believe in the individuality that this country was founded upon. The Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution) are about individual freedom from gummint interference. Only Condi can say the right words. What she will do when in power remains to be seen. Even W was eager to kill some individual rights. And he is from Texas! Those that lack that trust, feel the state will step in to help with laws and programs. They quickly forget how state programs have failed the individual throughout history. How many on this board secretly dream the gummint will pass a law about owning hybrids rather than letting the market decide? Note how adamant the liberal colleges are about limiting free speech when it is the other side that wants to say something with which they don't agree. [/rant off] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 17 2006, 05:29 PM) [snapback]241192[/snapback]</div> People know she has serious socialist tendencies Remember early in Clinton's first term when she wanted the single payer health care system? Ask anyone who has experience with Medicare or Social Security if they think that would be a great source of innovation? She would pass laws all over the place to control the people. And that just goes against the spirit of America. Every law that is passed has unintended consequences. And once passed, how often do they get repealed? The answer is not more laws.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Begreen @ Apr 17 2006, 12:25 PM) [snapback]241020[/snapback]</div> That idiot former Harvard roommate of Jim Cramer of thestreet.com who is heavily financed by the Hedge funds won't go after one of the largest stock frauds in our history: Naked Short Selling. Cramer's been supoened by the SEC along with a small batch of colluding front running "journalists." Instead of going after such miscreants who do what they want with us little guys' 401(k) plans, he chased down big bad HR Block for a few measly dollars. To all the Prius Progressives (how is that for alliteration?) on this board, please check out www.thesanitycheck.com or www.ncans.net to see how the average investor is getting screwed. That means just about everyone who has a 401k, IRA, etc. Spitzer has been bought out by the Hedge funds and stockbrokers and certainly shouldn't get any of our votes. Do the research for yourself. Good luck.
And here's some fun reading on why Spitzer is not taking any action against hedge funds in spite of their obvious impact on Wall Street and alarming penchant for larceny: http://www.nydailynews.com "Eliot hedges bets By DAVID SALTONSTALL DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT Sunday, April 23rd, 2006 Attorney General Eliot Spitzer may be known as the "sheriff of Wall Street," but there's at least one group of high rollers - hedge fund managers - that he's happy to ride sidesaddle with, records show. The Democrat's campaign for governor has collected nearly $1 million from hedge fund honchos in the past year, according to a Daily News review, drawing complaints from GOP foes that he is taking money from a rarefied Wall Street subset over which he has regulatory oversight. "An attorney has an ethical duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety," said Andrea Tantaros, a spokeswoman for Bill Weld, one of Spitzer's Republican rivals. "Revelations that Mr. Spitzer is raising money from firms that he is arguably regulating seems to raise serious issues about his ethics." There is more, but you should probably go to the site to read it... And you should also read this piece: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1209/072_print.html
