Okay, so I started the current events thread back in 2004 before the election. Okay, so I was too young to vote back then While there has been bloodshed, angry comments, and numerous name calling, much like any healthy relationship, the thread has survived, though I didn't anticipate the level of plagarism that would occur.

Another election looms larger and larger in front of us. Where do you stand?

Truth in advertising dictates that I say I'm moderate to liberal, but have voted both Republican and Democrat in my lifetime.

I have not yet made up my mind though I'm definitely leaning Democrat.

On the Republican side I would never vote for Rudy or Mitt. I would look more closely at Mike. I really like John but his position on Iraq is one I will never agree with.

On the Democratic side, I think Obama lacks experience, Hillary would unite the right and and is either love or hate, not the greatest at winning an election, Edwards bothers me as someone who made his fortune as a plantiff attorney. I actually liked Richardson but see him as more of a VP at this point in time.

We'll see how things evolve.

Your thoughts?

i liked richardson too. if anything because of his experience. id like to see a moderate take the reins, and def no more preachers or god types. Havent we had enough of this religion/government nonsense since the reagan years?

mccain, i lost all respect for him when he dropped his race against bush, "for the good of the party" unfortunately, it showed me his political connections were more important than the ones he holds with the people of the nation.

ill vote for the best hope the nation has. but overall i think the end result will be the people electing "not bush" and paying less attention to what can help us out of this pit.

not very positive are they.
cheers
Nige.

It's still a little early for me to make a decision, but I like to think for myself based on what people have done and how feasable what they're promising to do is. I like to wait a little closer to the date to make any decisions. We'll see what happens! I'll probably weigh in a bit later.

Before anyone asks, I really don't know anything about Mike Huckabee. He was just leaving office when we moved to Arkansas, so everything on the news about him was about the election for a new governor. The only things I'm sure about so far, is that he lost over 100 pounds at one point, and is a Baptist minister.

being the old hippie liberal that i am, i will vote for Obama. i hope i have that choice in the general election. if not, i'll vote for the democratic candidate whoever it may be.

that being said, i think you have to realize that by voting for the "Huckster" or McCain, you'll be virtually assuring Roe-V-Wade is overturned. i think men and especially women should really think about the candidate's stance on social issues, not just iraq and terrorism.

i think Romney would be the only one to try and keep religion and politics separate....as they were meant to be when our constitution was written. and being mormon he'll be scrutinized by everyone and he knows it.

ajay, in some ways obama worries me, both for issues of race. (is america really ready to elect a minority or a woman to the post of president?)
and due to his extent of life experience. on the other hand. since every president seems to come well equipped with a cabinet and advisors. perhaps it wouldnt be all that bad.

certainly a grand experiment, but one that will stop another 4 years of neocon involvement? doubtful.

N.

Huckabee: ‘amend the Constitution’ to ‘God’s standards.’

At a campaign stop yesterday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee recommended — to a cheering audience — that the Constitution be “changed” to fit “God’s standards”:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.


i'll bet Romney is salavating over this one...

This is what I like about these discussions. It's interesting to me to see what others see that I may not. While I don't want someone who would support changing the constitution for religious reasons, and I'm most certainly pro-choice, I have respect for someone who has convictions, even if I don't agree. On the other hand, someone like Romney who has been on both sides of so many issues, strikes me as someone who doesn't believe anything. And Rudy, I was mayor on 9/11 therefore I'm best equiped to fight terrorism. Huh?

It's going to be an interesting year.

the only thing that has struck me over the past 3 primaries is the fact that Edwards has talked about issues, when the other two have said nothing....and nothing in a big way....other than banter about trivialities.

i also know that corporate america has a stranglehold on this country. and by the way, if i wanted to fight back at corporate america, what kind of expertise would i have to have?? and who of the three would i want in my corner as an american?

i'll see how things shake out, and what rhetoric we hear or more importantly DON'T hear from the other camps.

if it's status quo with NO REAL ISSUES being discussed, you'll see me dumping my favorite (Obama)and jumping headlong on the EDWARDS wagon.

Being very cautious. I used to waste a LOT of time arguing about politics in online forums. I'm only going to post once. I really really mean it.

I like you guys, but the reason I don't discuss politics in here is, I don't have a dimmer switch. I'm done with diplomacy.

Whomever wins will withdraw from Iraq. To a degree. We will have troops in Iraq indefinitely. At least until all the troops in Japan, Korea, and Germany come home. It will be a question of how tough they want to be with the Iraqi government. While I don't like setting a withdrawl date, I do hope Bush has been tougher with them in private than he has in public. Whomever wins will claim that they were able to withdraw when Bush couldn't.

My decisive issue in voting is the Second Amendment. Not the only issue, but certainly the decisive one. If a politician trusts me to be armed, I will trust them to be in my government. Any politician that wants to disarm me in the name of safety is not to be trusted. EVER. (Especially those such as Diane Feinstein, who want to disarm ME, but have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.) Guiliani has a terrible record for gun control in NY. Romney signed an assualt weapons ban in MA, as well as supporting the now lapsed Clinton Era AWB in '94. Both of them have now become 'born again gun people'. BULL. I judge them by their records, not by what they say during election years.

McCain is also damaged goods. He sponsored the McCain-Feingold bill, the most damaging parts of which have now been overturned by the supreme court. It targeted campaign season ads, the most powerful user of which was the NRA.

Ron Paul is the best, but his snowball in hell was melted before it was formed. Thompson was great, but I think he really thought all he had to do was enter the race and it would just win itself. Now he's gone. Richardson was actually very good as well, but he's gone now too.

The best is Huckabee. He is a true sportsman and 2A defender, and always has been.

Clinton is seething to take all guns away from the public. She won't do it in her first term, but if she gets a second, all the stops will come out. And Silk, I love you baby, but I have to ask, exactly what makes you think that either Hilary OR the republicans will do anything but throw mudballs at each other?

Obama is at least a young, impressionable idealist who might be pushed around a little by a strong gun lobby. I truly hope he wins at least the dem nomination, to watch him dance when he has the tiger by the table at the grown-up table.

I am a libertarian who votes to keep democrats out of office. A government big enough to provide you with a service or influence is big enough to take it away. (This is Bush's biggest problem, he made government MUCH bigger, with no discernable benefit.)

The last couple of weeks have been interesting. Guiliani bet the farm on Florida and he's losing. I never thought Obama would get this much weight on Hilary, but now McCain, Romney, Obama, and Clinton are all in a position where they can't take anything for granted. I am being cautions, but I'm betting on Romney with Huckabee as a running mate, and Hilary getting SUPER dirty to pull the advantage away from Obama, to name him as her running mate.

I have never been so unsure of an upcoming election. I TRULY don't dare guess. Everything has been a surprise so far. But if the dems win, I will be buying AR-15 lowers while I still can.

and hence you see the dangers inherent in a political party system..

one issue voters.

sorry jack , dimmer or not. I gotta tell ya, voting to keep the nanny state off your back will only delay the inevitable (both parties excel at telling us where to go and what to do). only voting on one issue. makes it easy to defend your passion, but overall why not just vote for whos best for our future.?

could you even mention huckabee in a positive light after speaking his wish to re write the constitution to fit "gods law"? the constitution is a package. a one size fits all so to speak. you cant just accept one amendment without holding the whole document as something real. thats how it works.

not to mention. Id like to remind people of where we are and of what were speaking. this board deals with things of a sexual nature. do you really beleive a neo conservative christian government would allow this little first amendment feast? and while were discussing amendments. lets dwell on the first. the fourth etc many of which seem to be suffering since 9/11

your post proves you care (if you didnt you wouldnt have written all that or for my guess even identify with the word libertarian) . if you are indeed a libertarian, then you hold the constitution to be the end all be all, the rule sheet on the top of the games box..

so defend all of it. not just your right to pull a trigger or own a larger magazine. look for the big picture.

I might wrap myself in the tie die of the liberal wing. but in the end. I try to at least flex my rights to bring something that we can all live with and be stronger for it.

sure guns have a place. as well as the reasons why the second amendment is there. this isnt about the right to keep and bear arms. its about seeing a bigger picture for your nation. and mine.

aside from all that. cheers!

N.

The rest of the Bill of Rights took a much worse hammering under Clinton. Look up The Eschelon Program, which the NSA ran in HIS administration.

An armed populace isn't a passion. It's a reality. Governments have disarmed and killed more of their own people in the last century than both world wars. An armed populace is the only thing that will one day prevent the government from deciding between its own survival and the survival of the people. Once the right to keep and bear arms has been surrendered, it will never again be given back until the next revolution, if ever. The process of effectively banning and confiscating guns would permanently compromise the entire Bill of Rights, INCLUDING the Third Amendment, which no one has much worried about since it was written.

Without the Second Amendment, the rest of The Constitution is nothing but old paper.

My New Year's resolution is an official "No Shrug" policy. When people say incorrect, inflammatory, or exaggerated things about an armed population, or guns in general, I will not shrug. I will educate and correct. My idea of compromise is to only repeal HALF of the existing anti-gun legislation THIS YEAR.

only thing i have to say about guns. my point wasnt about them. i own them. i use them. i enjoy them. i've also been raised with them, and been trianed in thier use. I also entrust them to a friends lock up in a place i travel to often. I dont carry, I dont want to. I see them as sort of an essential tool.

I also understand totally about the need of them in our society. i eluded to it. thanks for spelling it out.

My point is. In the end we get two. thats it, two to choose from. often not we end up voting for the lesser of two evils. what other choice do we have in a representational democracy.

i just dislike the one issue voter. they fail to see the forest for that one tree. and like it or not thats where weve been headed.

and yes. i too rue the anonymity of the pre computer age. but technology is a train we cannot stop. bringing attention to how technology is used is more important.

our constitutional rights are very important. but face it. there are SO many guns loose in the u.s. all the laws wont matter, have they really? . there will still be guns. for the good, or evil. after all . its just a tool.

the right to bear arms being stripped from us is just another tactic of the far right to influence people via fear.

kind of goes along with their hatred of same sex relationships and roe-v-wade....among others. sadly though, this same rhetoric pops up every election year, and some people subscribe to it.

i would think anyone trying to take away the right to bear arms would indeed start coast to coast civil unrest.

I agree Ajay, I think there are enough people in our society willing to become criminals, if they attempted to ban guns from society.

its like this. somethings will sink us of we dont get our act together.

for instance.

the economy
the foreclosure fracas (almost to 500 thousand homes in the us this year up 75% over last year.)
rebuilding a manufacturing base.
the war.
feeding the homeless, the hungry etc.
health care
the environment

then you have the things that seem to matter to many and invoke passionate discussion.. but really dont have anything to do with reality.

homosexuals or homosexual marriage
gun control
roe vs wade.

these things are issues sure. but our nation wont dissolve our government wont disband and there wont be anarchy... years ago they outlawed automatic weapons without a permit. but gee for some reason, they still find the hands of criminals, the curious , legal collectors etc.

theyre still out there! and well frankly as long as some concerned individual is happy to "correct" me about my viewpoint. im happy to put it right back where it belongs. the nra is a joke. a conservative front. no more than a preacher who tells his "flock" how to vote. or Fox news. conservative host/writer michael savage, when I lived in the S.F. bay area had a term. "sheeple"

so maybe "flock" isnt too far off.

divide and conquer. its amazing how easily it works.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nigel,