O.K. -Call Out Your Presidential Candidate

I have drank entirly too much whisky , but the dems are bad for our cause. I d hope Huckabee wins, but I have a brain so, I hope Mcain beats BorCK.- tHAT turdmonkey is bad for our cuase, I hope he loses
Mcain is our only hope, Unofortunatley>>>>>
 
I am either going to vote for whoever is the Libertarian candidate or I will write in Ron Paul's name.

For me it's not a matter of who (McCain, Clinton, or Obama) will do the LEAST harm...it is the fact that they all will do harm. I won't support any of them.
 
hogdogs said:
4 Years of Mccain is wayyyy better than 4 of Osama... I mean Obama or hitlery and their EVIL intentions to spend this nation into NWO servitude...
Click to expand...

But with a Clinton to fight, Republicans in Congress seem less willing to spend. Dems in Congress seem ever-willing to spend.

Annual federal spending:

1992 $1,381.6 billion GHW Bush's last budget. 238 billion higher than his first
1993 1,409.5 Clinton's first budget
1994 1,461.9
1995 1,515.9
1996 1,560.6
1997 1,601.3
1998 1,652.7
1999 1,702.0
2000 1,789.2 Clinton's last, 380 billion higher than his first
2001 1,863.2 GW Bush's first
2002 2,011.2
2003 2,160.1
2004 2,293.0
2005 2,472.2
2006 2,655.4
2007 2,784.3
2008 2,901.9 (est) GW's last, a bit over a trillion higher than his first.:eek:

Presidents don't spend us into NWO servitude, Congress does, and they seem to do it more when we have a Republican President. When Newt and the radicals took over, they "only" grew the government by 40 or 50 billion per year for a while.

As for me, I'll find or write someone on my ballot who supports actually reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
 
I had a nightmare last night that Hillary was getting the nomination..:eek:, I guess I'll just gear up now and vote for Obama which is scary in itself, but 4 years of McCain sounds just about as scary just in a different way so what are you gonna do..:confused:
 
Don’t think for a minute that if the democratic congress presents John McCain with another assault weapons ban or other anti 2A legislation that he will not sign it. He will have to give them something big so they will keep funding and helping him to escalate wars.
 
McCain is self destructing now, so it may well be either Huckabee or Romney (remember, he only suspended his campaign) that are next in line. Looks like a brokered convention too.

Unless they draft Ron Paul, I won't be voting for any Republican or Democrat next November.
 
I might write in Ted Nugent at the rate things are going. At least the inaugural ball will be memorable. Where is Jesse Ventura when we need him?
 
I cannot in good conscience vote for any of the "big three" so I have two
choices in over 40 years of voting either not vote or write someone in.:barf:
 
If either Democrat get's in, I'm gonna max out my credit cards and get as many firearms as I can before they screw up the second amendment. Meanwhile, back in reality, it will be McCain I vote for. Have fun folks.
 
Last edited:
tI might write in Ted Nugent at the rate things are going. At least the inaugural ball will be memorable.
Click to expand...

Nugent cracks me up. Here is his recent translation of part of the 2nd amendment. It is not "Art's grammaw" approved, but still funny.
 
Unregistered, I may not sway yer vote... but I must say that I never called you any names fer supporting RP... i will say we (americans against socialist leadership... Like me) need your vote. I cannot try scare tactics cuz it ain't my style... but you must be aware that neither of the dem options are at all pro 2A. This is only one case in point and socialist type ideals is but another... This election is one of the most important of our nations short history. While I agree the republican party has made mistakes in the last 8 years, the monumental irreversible errors of either Dem offering is not to be overlooked... I am not so happy with my options but feel in my heart that McCain cannot do as much harm as either the gun grabber dems and Hitlery has promised to make us a socialist nation...
Brent
Click to expand...


+++1
 
More than likely I'll be voting Democratic. Based on the entirety of issues, I see either Democratic candidate doing less damage than McCain (who seems to be the obvious Republican nominee at this point).

As the time draws closer, a few things will likely affect that decision. The outcome of Heller in the Supreme Court being one, and the likely makeup of the House/Senate being the other. I'd prefer to not hand the White House to a Democrat with the Democrats still controlling both chambers of Congress, and I don't think I could do it if the Democrats were likely to pick up any more Senate seats (thus ensuring a stronger majority).

And yeah, I'll probably be racking up at least a little bit of debt buying some select firearms and accessories beforehand as well. Though if my career takes me to California (which is a definite possibility), that probably won't help me anyway.
 
publius42,

I am pretty sure you posted those budget comparisons before. Could you please take out the War on Terror to make them more comparative? That alone would make it more realistic, apples and oranges as they stand now.
 
There are lots of interesting numbers in the Economic Report of the President, which is where I got those.

To answer your question, Clinton's first military budget was 291 billion in 1993, and he had slashed it to 294 billion by the time he left in 2000. (Remember that this is Washington DC, and a small rate of growth is considered a dramatic cut.)

GW's first defense budget in 2001 was 304 billion, and 2008 is projected to be 606 billion.

So, the entire defense budget increase of 300 billion accounts for about 30% of the total annual budget increase of 1 trillion.
 
I'm afraid the "Wahr on Terra" is a valid part of the budget. It was elective, therefore should not be considered separately from the remaining budget.
 
Last edited:
I will be selecting the candidate that best represents me. As far as I can tell none of the current candidates qualify, so I will be submitting a blank ballot. Inevitably, someone that I didn't select is still going to get elected, so I have every right to complain about it for four years - and I'm looking forward to it.
 
I will be selecting the candidate that best represents me. As far as I can tell none of the current candidates qualify, so I will be submitting a blank ballot. Inevitably, someone that I didn't select is still going to get elected, so I have every right to complain about it for four years - and I'm looking forward to it.
Click to expand...

That bolded phrase, due to the use of "best" suggests that we're talking about degrees (instead of, for instance, if you had said the "candidate that represents you" as a simple absolute). Unless you can honestly say that neither candidate, across the entire range of issues, represents you more than the other (we'll go ahead and fast-forward until after the nomination process) then your not really making a valid choice. Of two candidates, one of which you agree with only 5% of the time and the other 10%, the latter "best" represents you.

The only candidate that can "best" represent you in the absolute sense that you're implying is...well, you.

Of course, I'm the kind of person who thinks it's perfectly valid to complain about the guy you actually did vote for, if neither candidate was a good fit for them (but one was merely "better"). But the odds that two candidates will actually be equally bad is pretty much zero.
 
Of two candidates, one of which you agree with only 5% of the time and the other 10%, the latter "best" represents you.
Click to expand...

That is only if agreement is the only standard you are using. When it comes to politicians I am skeptical of everything they say because I know quite a few politicians only say the things that people want to hear. Picking a candidate simply by how much I agree with them could take years of research to see if the candidate has a history of contradicting themselves - in which case I will probably not vote anyway because of being too wrapped up in research to participate.

The only candidate that can "best" represent you in the absolute sense that you're implying is...well, you.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. That is why I'm encouraging everyone that does not think they are adequately represented to not vote. Only the individual voter can define adequate for themselves.

But the odds that two candidates will actually be equally bad is pretty much zero.
Click to expand...

EQUALLY is another absolute. I prefer to go by "approximately". I start with the premise that one candidate is approximately as bad as the other, then I sit back and wait for one of them to really "WOW" me and change my mind. That IS the entire point of any political campaign, and if neither candidate can complete the task - it is not my fault. After that, choosing not to choose is still a valid choice and is more responsible than picking a candidate because I have been tricked into believing that if I don't pick a candidate I will have let the country down in some way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top