mr.arrison wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:I think James Buchanan was gay

James or Pat?

Buchanan, however, enjoyed a 20-year intimate friendship with another bachelor, William Rufus de Vane King. The two men met as U.S. senators in 1834, when King was 57 and Buchanan, 43. They shared quarters in Washington, D.C., for many years, and Buchanan called their relationship a "communion

tommydski wrote:

A. Democrat. wrote:The Republicans have no appealing candidates.

Are you sure? Gulliani is a survivor. He also understands that all he has to do is run from a platform that says "If you vote Democrat, this country will return to the soft approach that caused the events that lead to 9/11. In my city, that I had to sort out because of that pansy Clintons negligence".

i agree...... i wouldn't completely count out the possibility for a tight race or republican leadership (particularly giuliani) yet again. a platform based on fear can be a very convincing one... not to mention he could easily market himself as a different sort of republican from the current administration. not only does he TCB, but when his marriage is on the rocks he'll crash with his gay friends.... "giuliani: he's down like that."

Minotaur029 wrote:The Republicans have no appealing candidates.

That doesn't matter. I know people who will vote for the least appealing candidate as long as they are Republican, before voting for any Democrat, and certainly before voting for Clinton.

NerblyBear wrote:I think it might end up being Edwards, though, unfortunately. He seems like another Clinton to me.

Yeah, it sure would suck to relive the greatest economic expansion in our history, low unemployment, an expanding middle class, government programs that work, good feelings, a surplus, rather than the largest deficit we've ever seen, accrued in the shortest period of time, and the biggest national scandal being the President having been fellated by a chubby, strange woman.

I don't know how I could get out of bed in the morning if we got another Bill Clinton.

-A

The economic expansion for which Clinton is lauded was mainly centered around profits for the wealthy. Wages continued to stagnate, and workers had to work more hours. Gauging real economic benefits by looking at the stock market or at hi-tech expansion will get you nowhere.

"Government programs that work"? Are you talking about welfare and health care? Those two staples of any healthy society? Because Clinton either ignored or actively destroyed both of them.

And the "low unemployment" was not Clinton's doing. It had to do with the expansion of the service economy and the concomitant dispersal of industrial jobs overseas ("outsourcing").

Clinton's legacy can be summed up by pointing out the endless promises he provided and the paltry efforts he made to follow through on those promises. Calling him a good president by comparing him to George Bush is a bit like calling Alice in Chains a decent rock band if you compare them to Poison.

Alex M., there are two things you need to do. First, go change your avatar. Second, go read up on Clinton's presidency.

Yeah. From what I understand, Clinton had little if anything to personally do with the economic growth in the 90's. He benefited by being in the right place at the right time.

Obama is far, far more preferable to Hillary.

He's actually taken chances and - as far as I know - been mostly honest, which is just about all I can ask for from a politician. Though I fear shithead racist wingnuts will try to assassinate him if he gets elected, this country should have elected a black president decades ago. The reason the U.S. has not elected a black president is because of ingrained racism and bias in our country. The trailblazing '60's civil rights movement did do a lot, but it never came close to eliminating racism on a country-wide level. (How could it? That's a process that takes an untold amount of time.) Electing Obama - a rookie, but already a great politician and leader - would be a true sign of progress for the United States.

However, I believe Hillary would be the type to piss down my back and tell me it was raining. She's a power-hungry panderer. She has crossed over to the right on far too many key issues. I stopped believing any of the shit that came out of Hillary Clinton's mouth the day she crossed over on Terri Schiavo. I freely admit that I am biased on this matter, but I still think that anything that comes of Hillary Clinton's mouth nowadays smacks of dishonesty and spin - and didn't we have enough of that during her husband's administration? (I realize how right-wing that sounds, and I apologize profusely. I really am sorry. It sounds like something that would come out of Newt "Damned-For-All-Time" Gingrich's slimy maw. But do we really want another four or eight years of a Clinton?)

I support Obama.

SecondEdition wrote:
However, I believe Hillary would be the type to piss down my back and tell me it was raining. She's a power-hungry panderer. She has crossed over to the right on far too many key issues. I stopped believing any of the shit that came out of Hillary Clinton's mouth the day she crossed over on Terri Schiavo. I freely admit that I am biased on this matter, but I still think that anything that comes of Hillary Clinton's mouth nowadays smacks of dishonesty and spin - and didn't we have enough of that during her husband's administration.

No, you're absolutely right. No need to apologize for anything. Hillary Clinton is a political opportunist, pure and simple. She (like her husband) will say anything that will gain her power.

She is not to be trusted.

My first topic has made five pages, cool. I didn't even have to insult anybody.

Minotaur029 wrote:
Giuliani is a social liberal. This does NOT play well with the Republican base. This "the Democrats will cause another 9/11" talk has been done before...Bush, Cheney. Americans have largely wised up to such bullshit. Remember what Germ War was saying about the short American attention span? 9/11 was practically 6 years ago now...that's like 100 years in America.

Mino - your point about Giulani being a social liberal is correct. Which is a reason why I wouldn't be totally gutted if he won. I'd still be gutted, but I'd at least feel like someone with a brain was being elected instead of a religious protofascist with a lower functioning IQ than that of a rotten avocado.