One More Year!

[outsider]

Only one more year of Bush in office.

[BillyBobRedneck]

And then things stay exactly the same, if not even worse?
Yay!

[outsider]

I think that Hilary, Romney or Giuliani are the only ways it will get any worse. I think any other candidate would be an improvement even if only marginally and worst case would be as bad.

[HaloGuardian]

Candidates that would be worse: Hillary, Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee
Candidates for the status quo: Obama, McCain, Romney, Thompson
Candidates that would be better: Paul, Kucinich

and since the last 2 have no chance, and neither do Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee or Thompson really, it's either going to be Hillary, Obama, McCain or Romney. To be honest Romney is probably the most acceptable of those 4, with Obama following him, but I think it will be Hillary vs. McCain...

[outsider]

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2008-01-17.gif

[djangojazz]

Only one more year of Bush in office.

People will probably have out of Office parties when Bush leaves.

[EternallyIgnorant]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1248/990853495_06cae553cc_b.jpg

[Unreal Player]

I think that Hilary, Romney or Giuliani are the only ways it will get any worse. I think any other candidate would be an improvement even if only marginally and worst case would be as bad.

Well I think McCan would be worse too. Basically it's either going to be Clinton, McCain or Romney. I think our country is definitely going downhill.
This should have been a happy 1 year countdown, instead it is meaningless.

[outsider]

Giuliani thankfully won't be the President. He's easily my least favorite of the bunch.

If it isn't Ron Paul I'd settle for Obama but only remorsefully.

[Unreal Player]

People will probably have out of Office parties when Bush leaves. Not really :eyeroll:, the problem hasn't been solved. If you think a democrat is going to be any different you are mistaken. Both parties seem to be coming closer and closer together.

[Unreal Player]

Giuliani thankfully won't be the President. He's easily my least favorite of the bunch.

If it isn't Ron Paul I'd settle for Obama but only remorsefully.

Giulani is probably going to drop out after Florida. Looking like a 3rd place finish when he put all of his chips into it. That's pretty embarrassing.

Obama still has a chance to beat Hillary, although I don't think it is going to happen. However, Obama and hillary don't really differ too much on the actual issues. They both are going to increase the size of government, and raise taxes for an absurd UH program. I don't know how they are going to do this while they are pussyfooting around Iraq either, it doesn't seem like they are that adament about changing our foreign policy into a non-interventionist one.

Even though I definitely don't agree with Obama on the issues, I agree that I would rather have him than Hillary though.

[HaloGuardian]

I'm hoping and praying Hillary wins for the Democrats, McCain wins for the Republicans, and Ron Paul will run as a Libertarian. Both Hillary and McCain strongly support/supported the war in Iraq. Both are hated in their own parties.

I honestly think Paul could break 10% nationally and it would be a huge boost for the LP...

[mulattoman]

i think whats important to remember.
its not the president who runs the country.
its his advisers that he brings with him that does.

find the candidate with the smartest advisors, who will keep the most well educated men and women around him (economists, scientists, strategists, social scientists) and you will find the best president.

bush surrounded himself with fools and so our country was doomed. look for people who wont hire friends, they will hire brilliant yale graduates with 4.0s and 30 years of experience.

[GoodCitizenDan]

I'll be happy if we get a president that doesn't speak like a grammar school dropout. What we need is a someone who can inspire confidence in our economy more than anything else right now.

I honestly don't know who that would be out of the current lot, but thats going to be the deciding factor for me going into the election booth.

[djangojazz]

Candidates that would be worse: Hillary, Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee
Candidates for the status quo: Obama, McCain, Romney, Thompson
Candidates that would be better: Paul, Kucinich


Well I think McCan would be worse too. Basically it's either going to be Clinton, McCain or Romney. I think our country is definitely going downhill.
This should have been a happy 1 year countdown, instead it is meaningless.

Not really , the problem hasn't been solved. If you think a democrat is going to be any different you are mistaken. Both parties seem to be coming closer and closer together.


No offense to anyone but let's see some statistics on the economy under Socialistic/Horrid/Hillicare's husband compared to current president based on the Dow Jones which is a culmination of the 30 biggest blue chip companies in America. I also like hearing how the DNC is actually the same is coming from the GOP or hearsay that can't be shown with examples which I don't get. In news events that actually happened in reality and not some rhetorical speech or oped there are 3 huge things that separate the parties:

1. the DNC is against the war almost universally the GOP will continue to fund it forever. You may argue on what they should do better but the GOP won't do anything to end it, it will continue indefinitely under their control. That's a pretty big difference.

2. the DNC is pretty much for universal healthcare the GOP is not. The DNC plans to have USA become part of the world, to the GOP anything for democracy and individual choice is communistic so it's better to just give all the money to corporations and let them have voluntary methods of changing things. If someone gets denied care, let them die, I say that's good national healthcare under a competitive system. If someone is sick they should die and paid money too, if they are healthy and rich they should live. Actually it would be pretty easy to pay for a universal system wants the leeches sucking the money out for themselves were removed, FICA and other taxes where for the one system and the war was ended. How does the GOP currently pay for the war? It doesn't, it just pretends funds for war don't need to be justified and DNC plans on national issues do.

3. the DNC is pro science in cases like stem cell research, joining world treaties on conservation, and on smarter renewable energy the GOP is rooted in energy and defense in current trends and not a single one talks of change. According to the GOP global warming is a myth, smog is great for the body, ANWR should be drilled to provide maybe a few months more oil, and any ideas to look at a global focus on green trends is stupid hippie crap let's make bigger cars!

And you know what prooves these things? The first vetoes president Bush ever made were against all these things under a DNC congress. If they were both the same why would that happen?

I suggest people read a little bit more on current events in relation to the past before suggesting they are the same. If anything I see disenchantment with the young for both parties but that doesn't make them the same just by saying it. If you want a green, constitutional party, or libertarian party by all means vote for it. But if you are to say the Congress of 2004 is the same as 2006 I suggest you come up with examples before believing that. I also heard for a while in 2003 to 2005 that Bush was a moderate and that he was actually smart probably from the same people saying the DNC and GOP are the same. As for Hillary being worse than Bush I don't think so economically that has any basis in reality:

As Bill would say himself in 1992, "It's the economy stupid." (http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/?event=showAverages)

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d200/djangojazz/Home/ClintonvsBush.jpg

[HaloGuardian]

Just so you know Bush was sworn in in 2001 so the beginning of the downfall started under Clinton.

I found an interesting, although not very well written or source backed, article on the similarities between Bush and Clinton which to me sounds written from a liberal viewpoint. It discusses specific legislation signed by Clinton and I think it's something you should read more into as should I.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Clinton.html

[djangojazz]

Just so you know Bush was sworn in in 2001 so the beginning of the downfall started under Clinton.

Halo just so you know, no other president created as many jobs or had the DOW grow that much, EVER, no one. That is not the period of a downfall, in 1998 Bill Clinton said: "The state of the state is great!". No one could argue that, now you are saying that when he is out of office, had successes and Bush has failed at everything possible, Clinton was to blame? I know 9/11, the economy, the war on terror and everything else is all Clinton's fault that's why the more interesting parallel is that when Bush Sr. had just left not but a few months later was a first attempt on the Trade Centers tried, Clinton had surpluses and part of that money was pulled to Social Security(Bush just spent it then offered to privatize SS), and of course ignoring memos and linking Saddam to Al Queada was indicative of Clinton and not Bush. Not to mention the Bin Laden group is linked to the Bush family as are other oil interests in the Mid East.

Two things War and spending increase with increased costs without wages and jobs equals fucked. Any president that doesn't create jobs is going to make things worse, Bush did that, Clinton created them. No parallel, end of discussion on economics, polar opposites. Especially when Bush has the belief an economy fostering investment by the richest in preexisting systems made to squeeze everyone else without providing new capital or markets will grow magically. You can't sell to people that barely have money to live when you squeeze their insurance, healthcare, and bills by favoring companies to raise rates for no real reason when the wages aren't their. I'm the first generation I can think of that can be paid near the same as people 10 years ago but have to budget better because things cost more and the current government let that happen.

When you look at the DOW, Ford and General Motors, outsourcing, and lenders loosing jobs because of the housing crisis you tend to see a pattern forming of ineptitude of government of just believing this fairy tale the GOP believes that one day the war will just be won for no reason and people will act as they did 30 or 40 years ago. People will start spending without new jobs in emerging technologies and the US making inferior old technology products related to oil and gas when the rest of the whole planet is going away from those things. Why do you think the rest of the world doesn't use oil and gas as much and doesn't have huge SUV's? Is it dumb of them to save money and have magnetic rail trains and foster massive public transportation between countries versus favor a system that is already geting more expensive. I think not. It's not like I'm buying a 486 PC and loading Windows 3.1 and telling everyone how great my computing is on Lotus notes and that my lost productivity is actually Bob's fault because before me he had a Core 2 Duo and Vista with Sharepoint 3.0 and Office 2007 and Open Office 2.3 and knew how to platform with many environments. I just happened to have come in after him, it must have been his fault.

I think some people don't know anything of how economics function so they just will loosely say anything around a year or so relates to something convenient for them. I could also say: "Because of Bush Sr.'s amazing 1,000 points of light speeches and increasing taxes when he said he would not that the 8 years of Clinton growth were actually from the GOP and when Clinton left all the bad things we had now are a result of that." I mean it just sounds stupid even reading that and seeing that devoid of any sort of logic whatsoever. Which is like what is hearing some of the arguments against the DNC, they have not been failing the GOP has. By some arguments you would have thought all the successes of the 90's was from the GOP and all the trouble lately was the DNC. It's convenient but unforunately whose in office seems to not correlate to those things.



I found an interesting, although not very well written or source backed, article on the similarities between Bush and Clinton which to me sounds written from a liberal viewpoint. It discusses specific legislation signed by Clinton and I think it's something you should read more into as should I.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Clinton.html

Your link does not work.

[Unreal Player]

I'm hoping and praying Hillary wins for the Democrats, McCain wins for the Republicans, and Ron Paul will run as a Libertarian. Both Hillary and McCain strongly support/supported the war in Iraq. Both are hated in their own parties.

I honestly think Paul could break 10% nationally and it would be a huge boost for the LP...

I do hope Paul runs third party too, for sure he won't win but he definitely has the popularity to spark some attention at whatever 3rd party he chooses...Libertarian or Constitution Parties.
I think I'm going to vote for him regardless. I get the feeling he is tired for standing up to all of these masses of idiots and wants to spend the rest of his years quietly with his family. I can't blame him, look at all of the times he was alone - voting for the constitution against everyone else in congress. Look at the videos of him in 88 - predicting EVERYTHING that is happening now. Saying the war on drugs is extremely inefficient and counter-productive. He gets chastised for this and people mock him. Well he was right. Youtube a video of what he says after September 11th or about the War in Iraq. He says now the government is going to get bigger, it will use this tragady to their advantage. He voted against the war in Iraq, he knew it was an illegal war faught for the wrong intentions. That has to get tiring.

I'll just ignore Django's drivel. He posts the longest posts out of anyone that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Django, halo and I never said we supporterd Bush. We don't agree with defecit spending and we sure as hell do not agree with the war in Iraq. These have been problems in the economy, and we realize that. Ron Paul certainly doesn't endorse the things Bush has done over the yeras. He has been big government, anti-civil liberties, most things that we disagree with. So why on earth did you bring him into the equation? It makes no sense. And I hope you are comfortable with yourself going to vote for someone who did not commit herself to having the troops out before 2013 (she voted FOR the war), and supports the patriot act and big government. I hope your hardon for the DNC remains through thick and thin, even when it becomes your worst enemy. Because a government that has out of control spending, takes your civil liberties away, has an interventionist foreign policy, etc is your enemy right? Or is that what the DNC is becoming? I'm confused.
The very fact that you turn every political argument into Right Wing vs Left Wing shows that you are disgustingly partisan, that's all i have to say about that.

[TheZenMan]

I'm hoping and praying Hillary wins for the Democrats, McCain wins for the Republicans, and Ron Paul will run as a Libertarian. Both Hillary and McCain strongly support/supported the war in Iraq. Both are hated in their own parties.

I honestly think Paul could break 10% nationally and it would be a huge boost for the LP...

Really?

You'd take "a huge boost" for the LP at the cost of a Hillary presidency?

Come on.

[EternallyIgnorant]

Really?

You'd take "a huge boost" for the LP at the cost of a Hillary presidency?

Come on.

I would, in a heart beat.