Next Us President

[ssullivan]

They only care about seeing two dudes kissing. That was the major issue this campaign, although only the GOP saw it because they were working the churches.

Imagine - a country full of Houston Jacks. shudder

Yes, I'm convinced the Republican Party and Bush want to turn this into a theocracy, if they haven't done so already. So much for the third amendment.

[dbigtex56]

Article the third = First Amendment.

Third Amendment:"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

But I agree with what you're saying.

[bachanon]

Iraq is a terrorist haven now (much to the chagrin of the country's population), but it wasn't before. You do not sound very concerned about the well-being of the Iraqis. After all, that is the only justification your side could grasp at once the WMD and Al Qaeda claims didn't pan out.

iraq wasn't a terrorist haven? much of the country's population are breathing a sigh of relief from decades of abuse and terror from a madman. the dictatorship of saddam hussein wasn't a terrorist regime? it is only in fallujah and certain "strongholds" that the people are suffering from being in a war zone. the majority of the populace are better of now

i didn't say that ALL terrorists were in iraq. i said that "terrorists are making their way" to take a stand in iraq. this is fact. the soldiers are witness to it.

[ssullivan]

Article the third = First Amendment.

Third Amendment:"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

But I agree with what you're saying.

That's what I meant. Thansk for the correction.

[dbigtex56]

And this is the terrible part; perfectly nice, intelligent people have such different views about the world. And there's so little encouragement for people to be civil.

buchanan, we fundamentally disagree on what we view as facts. I think you're mistaken. Iraq is not, was not responsible for the terrible events of September 11th. The justification for the war has been unsteady, blurry. The potential for corruption is apparent. I'm not calling Bush a liar, I'm just saying he didn't tell the truth. Terrorism (I think that's a better term than "the war on terror" ...as if...) cannot be confined to a convenient battleplace.

Terrorists are and always will be a reality. Don't you remember the attack at the 1996 Olympics? Or Oklahoma City? Who knew? I remember seeing reports about the OK City attacks live, and initially atthorities were looking for some Middle Eastern men. Gee. Good guess but they were wrong. As an Irish-Catholic white boi from western New York State, I ought to be a prime suspect - look at Timothy McVeigh.

Of course America needs to (and can) protect herself. We also have a role in how the rest of the world views us. I hope America will prevail because we're admired, not feared. Let's create no new terrorists.

[YakuzaIce]

There is also no basis for the assumption that all terrorists are in Iraq, and that none are elsewhere. The last terrorist attack from Al Qaeda or from a proto-Al Qaeda group was in 1993. They were dormant for more than 8 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about the attack on the USS Cole in 2000? That was done by Al-Qaida.

[ricco67]

don't forget about the dual bombings of the embassies in Africa.

Ricco

[UrbanLandscape]

What about the attack on the USS Cole in 2000?  That was done by Al-Qaida.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And after all, they are the only terrorist group out there, of course. There are no terrorists outside of Al Quaeda.

[ricco67]

Actually, Urban, there were at least 20 or so terrorist groups in the middle east region up until the late 80's.

Back in the 90's, intelligence noticed that Osama started HIS organization and began to 'acquire' other organizations that shared his political views or served a common interest (i.e. dislike for americans and isreal). This came to light sometime in 1994 after a beirut faction started showing the beginings of ties towards Osama.

The CIA has a VERY elaborate chart as to who reports to whom and in what circles and philosphies.

Think of Al Qaeda as a Major Corporation and the various factions as it's subsidiaries and brancha and Voila! You have a larger organization that's able to pool it's resources and gather intelligence in a much more timely fashion.

Ricco

[bachanon]

I think you're mistaken. Iraq is not, was not responsible for the terrible events of September 11th.

dbigtex,

i simply said that the battlefield in the war on terror has not been here on our soil since 9/11. i did not say, nor do i think, that iraq was responsible for 9/11.

[debmartin]

well the american public have spoken. or have they? no, i cannot succumb to paranoia about electronic voting (even mine). well, i can tell you about the streets of downtown houston, wed. nov. 3rd - not a single bush victory celebration in sight. they must be scheduled for midland/odessa or in the permian basin. mostly people riding the rail with long faces, shaking their heads. found a website, chicken soup for the walking wounded (democrats) and printed some things out for my kids because they're devastated that bush has been re-elected. one of them had to take a mental health day and skip school. all i could say in consolation is that at age 14 he will be able to vote in 2008. the older one asked me why we still use the electoral college as it seems outdated. tell you the truth i cannot think for the life of me why. we "freed" afghanastan and helped them set up polls for their first election yet did not help them set up an electoral college. if its so good for america why do we not recommend it for these "new" democratic countries? oh well, at least jon stewart got it right on the daily show. he showed the us map and pointed to the red states, saying "these states are all bush country" and these little blue ones up here "are where the rest of us will be huddled together for comfort, waiting for the 2008 election". i spend quite a bit of time up there and even out of the country each year but feel sorry for any dem's who do not have that opportunity. all i can say is, it's tough livin' in bush country with your eyes wide open, except for those whose ignorance is bliss.

debmartin

[westguy]

i simply said that the battlefield in the war on terror has not been here on our soil since 9/11. i did not say, nor do i think, that iraq was responsible for 9/11.

That just means that we are ignoring the terrorists elsewhere like Afghanistan and within our borders. We have 7-10,000 troops policing Afghanistan, which is far less than the number of officers policing Manhattan in a country larger than Texas.

The country is also very unsafe now because the United Nations, the Red Cross, and other international relief agencies used to working in war torn nations had to pull back for their own safety. Doctors without Borders just pulled out of the country completely. Intercity travel in Iraq is dangerous, so convoys need escorts from US troops. Also don't forget the attack inside the heavily secured green zone two weeks back. And here we are in another standoff against another Iraqi city, ready to drop bombs and missiles into it.

There may be places in Iraq that have gone back to normal, but the tranquility is what makes them a target for the terrorists. As a result, the entire population must live in fear of this danger. There may be a "battlefield" in Iraq, but I'm sure the people hate that we made one in their country.

[YakuzaIce]

And after all, they are the only terrorist group out there, of course.  There are no terrorists outside of Al Quaeda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said they were the only ones out there, I was merely reffering to his comment that they had been dormant for eight years.

[northbeaumont]

That's what I meant. Thansk for the correction.

I'm for Hillary all the way!

[Trae]

Hilary? Hell no. Obama .

[jmancuso]

hillary will win it.

[gwilson]

I don't think Hillary will win. If it is going to be a Democrat, it will most likely be Obama. Either way, if a Democrat wins, it will be Obama/Clinton in the White House as the other will end up the running mate.

Neither of them is worth a hill of beans though. One is an amateur politician who has barely cut his teeth as a Senator with no leadership experience and the other is a carpet bagger who has managed to narrowly escape prosecution a number of times by letting her subordinates and associates take the falls for her. A rookie and a criminal. Sounds like good choices to me.

Republicans aren't much better. We have an actor, a philanderer, a war hero who can't seem to make a stand lately, an internet phenomenon with zero chance of winning, and someone who people can't seem to get past the fact that he is Mormon. There are others, but none of them really have a chance either.

The actor seems to be a decent guy, but no one knows what he stands for. He has a good shot simply because people like his role on Law & Order. Rudy led NYC very well. He helped to pull it out of the gutter and make it safer and more vibrant than ever. Yeah, he cheated on his wife, but that is between them. I still don't think I like him for President. McCain is a great guy. I've had the pleasure of meeting him several times and each time was a joy. However, he is so all over the place no, no one knows where he stands. He is also a sufferer of PTSD, and I am not certain, after dealing with it for as long as I have, that I want someone with that as our head of state. Ron Paul has made some great speeches on YouTube, and because of that has generated an enormous amount of buzz. I fear, based upon his record, he isn't who he is portraying himself right now. Additionally, I don't think he really had a chance to begin with. Mitt Romney is a good and decent guy but I really don't think people will get past him being Mormon. I hope they do, because I think he is the most "Presidential" of all of the candidates. He is a bit too socially conservative for my tastes.

Republicans aren't really Republicans anymore and Democrats aren't really Democrats.

I want someone who is small government, controlled spending, leaves people alone for what they do to themselves so long as it doesn't affect others, will secure our borders and quit subsidizing the most profitable companies on the planet. Someone who would make an effort to get rid of the idiotic and ridiculous laws on the books enforce the ones that make sense would be nice too.

[CDeb]

After the experiences I've had with the federal government the past couple of weeks, anyone who wants that bunch in charge of their health care, Rep or Dem, is not only a fool, but a damn fool and I'll be more than happy to say it to anyone's face.

[houstonmacbro]

McCain is a great guy. I've had the pleasure of meeting him several times and each time was a joy. However, he is so all over the place no, no one knows where he stands. He is also a sufferer of PTSD, and I am not certain, after dealing with it for as long as I have, that I want someone with that as our head of state. Ron Paul has made some great speeches on YouTube, and because of that has generated an enormous amount of buzz. I fear, based upon his record, he isn't who he is portraying himself right now. Additionally, I don't think he really had a chance to begin with. Mitt Romney is a good and decent guy but I really don't think people will get past him being Mormon. I hope they do, because I think he is the most "Presidential" of all of the candidates. He is a bit too socially conservative for my tastes.

I heard McCain on Tavis Smiley and when he was asked why all the republican candidates have skipped out on the African American and Hispanic invites for debates he basically said they could do better. He also said he had a previous engagement for himself that prevented him from making either.

That sounds like a bunch of hogwash, but at least he came on the show and made his point. For that I do give him credit because none of the others, to my knowledge have even bothered.

As for Mitt Romney, he is a bit too conservative for me as well. There is something very scary about him. Dunno what it is.

Giuliani is about the only republican that tells it like it is, but even he seems to pander every and then. I like the fact that he did go before the conservative religious right and basically told him that he is who he is. He SEEMS practical about social issues, but also seems like a leader that ALL Americans could probably get behind. I did not like a lot of his racial politics in NYC, but I also know several African Americans that worked in his cabinet and said that personally he was fair.

On the democratic side I like Obama, but I also like Edwards stand for the average American, even though he is richer than God. Would that ticket work? Probably a lot better than Hillary/Obama, but I think the dems are gonna go with popular wisdom (and female votes) and will nominate Hillary (wrong move). Something I do not like about her. And I am not talking Whitewater and all that crap, just something I do not like about her persona. Can't really put a finger on it.

I'd like to sit this election out, but honestly if it came down to Hillary vs. Giuliani, I would probably go with Giuliani (and I tend to vote democrat). That is saying a lot. huh?

Nevertheless, if it was an Edwards/Obama (or vice versa) ticket versus Giuliani/Romney I would go with the first. Again, Romney is scary.

[gwilson]

I used to live in the NYC area during Rudy's tenure and his "racial politics" weren't bad at all. I'd like to know more of what you mean on that topic.

I really can't stand Edwards. Whenever I look at him and see that smile something just tells me there is something unsavory behind it. He is a great speaker and a good lookin guy, so if he gets the party nod, he will probably win.

I'd like to see a candidate that doesn't want to spend every dime in the treasury, doesn't want to legislate social change, will let the markets govern themselves (like they were intended to do), will keep their nose out of my private affairs and will both lock down the borders to stem the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants and then come up with some way to legalize those who are already here (not amnesty, but something practical that allows them to earn a living while they pay the penalty for breaking the law. background checks would be nice too.). Someone who understands that the war on terror is real, but we need new strategies to fight this new kind of war would be an uber-plus.

[plumber2]

Edwards for me.

Mitt's dad used to build Nashes and Ramblers! They had optional seats that converted into beds. Many of y'all baby boomers may have been conceived in one of these.

[RedScare]

will let the markets govern themselves (like they were intended to do),

Yeah, the sub-prime market did a fine job of governing itself.

As for Rudy understanding the war on terror, you ought to read some of his statements prior to 9/11. He did not even know who bin Laden and al Qaida were, though he claims to have been warning people about it now.

[west20th]

will let the markets govern themselves (like they were intended to do),

Yes let the markets govern themselves. Who needs regulation? With regulation we'd have to go to dangerous drug dealers to get our "G". Now all we have to do is buy Chinese toys.

[lockmat]

Anyone know the exact number of people who voted yesterday? I haven't been able to find it so far.

Found 'em:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide.../states/IA.html

Wow, where are all the Dems?

[RedScare]

Anyone know the exact number of people who voted yesterday? I haven't been able to find it so far.

Found 'em:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide.../states/IA.html

Wow, where are all the Dems?

Those are delegates, not voters, for the Dems. According to the Des Moines Register, more than 346,000 voted, 239,000 Democrats, more than twice the 112,000 Republicans.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS09/80103047

EDIT: Mods, can you separate the 2008 presidential race from the 2004 race? Thanks in advance.

[Trae]

I like Barack Obama and will be voting for him. Hopefully he gets the Democratic nomination. He's different and not trying to remind people of everything that's wrong with us and this world, including scaring us. Instead he talks about new ideas and how to improve stuff. A damn good concept.

And we need a new thread.

[crunchtastic]

EDIT: Mods, can you separate the 2008 presidential race from the 2004 race? Thanks in advance.

Like John Edwards is trying to ??

Couldn't resist. I sort of like the new, angry John.

[Trae]

And mods, add a poll when you separate the thread! That would be nice to see the views of people at HAIF.

[RedScare]

Like John Edwards is trying to ??

Couldn't resist. I sort of like the new, angry John.

Yeah, you gotta love the coal miner's daughter approach. I'm kinda warming up to Obama, though. The same ol' same ol' sure aint working. And, if he turns out to be a bust, how bad can it be? I mean, we seem to have survived 8 years of GW, didn't we?

[webdude]

Yeah, you gotta love the coal miner's daughter approach. I'm kinda warming up to Obama, though. The same ol' same ol' sure aint working. And, if he turns out to be a bust, how bad can it be? I mean, we seem to have survived 8 years of GW, didn't we?

I don't know whether we did survive yet, if only the damage can be limited to just 8 years. The damages done in the last 7 years will last a really really long time. I am not in to Obama that much, but contrast that with Huckabee, I see no choice, because I just cannot take another religious nut for another 8 (or 4 years) after seeing what happened with this current one.