Huckabee is yet another of the reasons I'm occasionally ashamed of being a Republican. He's a douche, along with most all of the GOP candidates.

same here
actually have you noticed that the term seems to mean something hugely different than it did, say, 15 years ago?
what ever happened to smaller federal government and lower taxes and more privacy and personal freedoms? i feel more like a libertarian these days!! which mainly sucks because i hate howard stern.

Damn right! Government is far more often the problem than the solution. It is terrible that a big gang of heavily armed thugs extorting trillions of dollars a year and killing lots of innocent people is considered \"legitimate\" by 90+% of the population. And Huckabee favored the forcible quarantine of those who are HIV positive years after it was known that HIV can not be spread non-intimately.

yeah... I consider myself a libertarian, but won't reregister because actually being in a third party is pointless when it comes to the primaries. However, if the GOP actually was what it used to be, there would be no reason for the Libertarian party.

...and, in closing... Ron Paul!

If the Republicrats nominate any of the likely suspects, I'll be writing in Ron Paul - and I think that a lot of Reagan/Goldwater Republicans will stay home. The Republicrats are heading back to the big government big corporation party that used to be called Rockefeller Republicans before the Goldwater revolution. The Whigs were replaced by the Republicans a little more than a century and a half ago.

I hope that such a realignment happens again, but it will take more stress. What sort of stress? According to the Social Security and Medicare Trustee's report for 2007, Medicare goes cash flow negative in 5 years, and Social Security in 10. Either benefits will have to be cut by 30% or payroll taxes increased by 60% - both of which are political suicide. Eliminating the cap on SS taxes while capping benefits would solve only about 25% of the shortfall - and that much only by assuming that tax increases have no effect on taxpayer behavior.

There is a third possibility which the Trustees report does not discuss: depreciating the dollar to reduce the real value of the benefits promised. This is almost certainly what is happening now. Unfortunately this is the most economically destructive alternative because it will cause misallocation of trillions of dollars of capital. The Republicrats may have to realign or be replaced in 10 to 20 years. In the interem, there is going to be an astronomical amount of damage:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/235604/

GOP or...Gay Orgy Party if all the recently outed conservative are anything to go by.

HA! so win!

Note how the Republicrat party leadership has done everything that they could to force Senator Larry Craig to resign. His being entrapped as a gay was the excuse; the leadership hates small government Republicans even more than gays. They want their $250,000,000 bridges to an island substantially owned by relatives as much as do the Demopublicans.

yeah... his presidential campaign strategy is that he is a man of god. It makes me scared and sad that that is a viable strategy in this country.

Huckabee -_O *sigh* Argg is right

I liked the whole statement back in '92 where he wanted to isolate AIDS patients ("the carriers of this plague"). He's claiming now that back when he made that statement, doctors still didn't fully understand how HIV/AIDS was transmitted, and comparing it to the tuberculosis scare with the guy on the airplane recently.

Um, I'm pretty sure that by 1992 they at least knew for certain that transmission wasn't through casual contact. >o_0<

We propably also knew it wasn't down to those 'pesky gays' XD

Every doctor, scientist, and nurse knew that by then.

What I'm really wondering is that if Hilary gets in office, will she go back to the 'national healthcare' plan that she tried to get going when Bill was top dog..

I think that would be a step in the right direction for this country. And it's the only truely different thing that any of the canidates have to offer.

The National Health Service (NHS) here in the UK is an excellent thing to have, even though it is grossly understaffed, under-funded and abused.

There is one reason why America could never embrace an NHS style programme though: taxes would need to rise to pay for it. I suspect many US citizens would do what they do now - put no money aside for medical costs or insurance and find the money when they were ill - and not want to pay taxes for 'the sick people' to 'mooch off their income'.

I'd love to see Hilary Clinton become President, it would be a milestone in American politics because, and this always amuses me, she's a woman! We all know how much most of the Bush administration dislike women in power.

Here's a thought, ever wondered why America has only ever had white male Presidents?

I think if Americans pulled their selfish heads out of their asses they'd realize that ... "oh yeah.. If I have a free national health care system.. I won't have to pay for Health insurance! Cause it's FREE HURHURHUR"

I'm more than willing to pay etra taxes to help support an American NHS, because it means when I'm in my time of need, I won't have to find a way to pay for it. And in America, staying in the hospital with even mild problems for just a few days can stick you with a bill of tens of thousands of dollars. It's laughable.

And honestly, the race or sex of a person has no relation to their ability to run a country. I wouldn't blink an eye to it if we'd had all Black Female Lesbian Jewish presidents. They're SUPPOSED to be working for the nation as a whole.. not their ethnic /religious groups.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT GEORGE?!?, you corrupted ritch white bible thumping douche.. (<sarcasm)

Uh, then the qualifications go to defining what is and is not "free national health care". Elective surgeries and certain procedures are already denied by insurance. Likewise, many procedures will be denied "free" by the NHS. And our Canadian brothers already have acute difficulties dealing with waiting lists to have procedures taken care of.

Just saying, the freeness of the system doesn't guarantee the quality or quantity of service, and therefore isn't necessarily an improvement, only a change.

You're right in what you say. But not in the way you might think... there's a lot of American propaganda going around that would make us think badly of 'free' healthcare systems. (and technically, it's not free. We pay for it in our taxes..) when really, Canadian /French healthcare systems aren't as bad as we're told. If you look at American hospitals, the wait for a transplant is dependant on what sort of organ you need. the same as in any other country. To think it has anything to do with your method of payment is naive. (unless it's America.. and THEN, you have to wait on your insurance, as well as the donor list)
The biggest difference in the two systems, is that doctors in the NHS don't have multi-million dollar per year salaries. And while foreign NHS hospitals may be understaffed... take a look around you. The American hospital system is just as understaffed as any other. A big contributor to that is doctors running away from malpractice lawsuits.

But regadless.. if anyone wants to further the talk about U.S. healthcare, then feel free to PM me. I don't want to spam up deathpuppies journal with off-topic chatter. :)

That's not the only difference... the pharmaceutical companies are also limited as to how much they can charge in Canada.

That alone is a big selling point for a National Health Service.

And you know, come to think of it, a national healthcare system with lower wages for doctors would have to lead to lower medical school/undergrad tuitions than there would be otherwise; half the reason salaries are so high is because highly-trained professionals have to pay back exorbitant student loans. So, it the Law of Unintended Consequences might actually work for us here :P

This is due to the AMA and state medical licensing boards refusing to accredit as many medical schools as there is a market for. Only those who graduate from accredited medical schools are permitted to take medical licensing exams. This is done to limit the number of doctors to far fewer than would be produced in a free market, thereby resulting in much higher prices for their services. Read the Coleman report of a century ago - it is an eye opener. Coleman was a doctor who thought that the incomes of doctors were too low because of too much competition, and proposed the system we have now to raise the fees that doctors receive. The AMA is basically a plot to use government guns to limit the number of doctors. Yes, I've subscribed to JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) for about three decades.

Uhh, I don't know what kind of American propaganda you speak of, I've discovered this in conversation with some folk from Toronto and Ottawa who have direct experience. There was a time when I considered living up there myself, and one of them is trying to live down here.

But anyway, I'm not saying that they aren't inherently bad, just different. It's complicated enough giving our healthcare system a reform. Good luck trying to get any politician to rebuild it from the ground up like that.

*are* inherently bad :p

What it really means is that bureaucrats will decide how you will be treated and whether you live or die. In Britain, one who is 65 is not eligible for dialysis (let alone a kidney transplant) for end stage renal disease - it isn't cost-effective in terms of the cost of treatment compared to expected future tax revenues from that person. I am a biomedical research scientist, and I have subscribed to the Lancet for over 20 years. Please study the public choice theory works of Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan. Government agencies and those who work for them are just as self interested as George Bush (whom I loath.) There are many terrible problems with the current medical system in America, and most of those problems are caused by government responding to special interests which have effectively severely limited both the number of doctors and the amount of competition in the drug industry, resulting in needlessly high prices.

Ayup! I'd happily screw you.....in the 'lifestyle' kind of way.

But yes, elections have gone from voting for the best person for the job.....to voting for the one who'll do the least amount of damage.

The thing I don't like is those who don't like any of the candidates....then chose not to vote. If you don't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about *ANYTHING* later on. If you don't like any of the candidates (I sure as hell don't) then mark the 'Fill in the blank' box and put down your own name.....or Mickey Mouse (though, some year....that fuckin' rat's gonna win...) or some long-dead Chinese emporer. The point is......vote for *SOMEONE*.

Then, and only then, do you have the right to demand change later.

Thank you, drive through.

Dr. Steel for World Emperor!

http://www.doctorsteel.com/

Global warming is "abhorent, unnatural and inherently sinful".

I wouldn't worry too much about Huckabee if I were you.. He doesn't stand a chance against anyone in his own party or otherwise.

No one knows who he is, and although it is still a large faction, the radical Christian right isn't going to be as strong was it was in 04, some are leery.

Also, my magic 8-ball predicts dems in office for 2008. It is cyclical; pugs, dems, pugs, dems.

People are entitled to their opinions about other people's opinions, and they can go to Hell.

It is cyclical; pugs, dems, pugs, dems.

I dunno, the Republicans seem more like a hardcore guild than a pickup group. (boo, bad gamer pun)

Trust me, they -are- a pick up group. :3

My family calls them repugs, pugs.. so it sort of sticks.

Republicrats and Demopublicans. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Don't get fooled again!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zydAs5bRW1U
I support Ron Paul.

If you aren't voting mainstream, your voice is likely lost under the wave of other people who are. Risks upsetting the lesser evil's chance of winning.

Game theory shows that multiple rounds of choosing the lesser of two evils eventually degenerates into a choice between Hitler and Stalin. The founders, having studied history, were acutely aware of this problem, which is why they chose a constitutional republic rather than a democracy. As constitutional limits are eroded, the ability of the lesser of two evils to be very evil indeed becomes ever greater. As Benjamin Franklin left the constitutional convention hall, a woman is said to have asked, \"What type of government have you given us?\" Franklin is said to have replied, \"A republic, if you can keep it.\"

Writing in Ron Paul sends a signal that will be seriously considered by the powers that be if the number of write in votes for Paul exceeds the difference between #1 and #2. This is how political realignments are forced to occur. They are very rare in a two party system, however; the last one was in the 1840s - 1850s when the Republicans replaced the Whigs.

The good news is that Hillary is insanely greedy, and this might lead to her self destruction. The odds of her cattle futures deals being legitimate were about 1,000,000,000 to one against. She has been blinded by greed in the past, and it may well happen again.

this is why that even though I'm an american, I hate the system. it's a popularity contest now and the masses are so ignorant they'll follow anyone off the edge of a cliff. it's really kinda sad that the people who honestly give a damn are the ones deemed socially unacceptable in todays' society. *gives a highfive* I'm backin ya hun all the way, and I'll be damned if I follow the tards on their way off a fuckin bridge

That's why I say we should eliminate the elections and just go with the Thunderdome. Two men enter, one man leaves! Televise it and everything.

That way, whoever's still breathing gets to run this snitch.

Sure was fun having him as a governor.

AMEN! as the church followers might say

I'd love to catch him in a debate. I'd ask his opinion on gays and when he says something like that, I'd ask him why he feels that way. Then the moment he mentions god or christianity, I'd call him on it. I'd say that that shows he's letting his religious beliefs cloud what's supposed to be impartial judgement and as such, violating the separation of church and state.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. One does not have to put aside one's faith when one enters politics. I strongly suggest you read up on it.

I'm aware of that but they should set their faith aside when deciding what's good for the public as a whole. It's like the pharmacists who refuse to prescribe contraceptives because it's against their beliefs. Or 'faith-based' government initiatives. I look at it from the standpoint of what would they do if I were say, a doctor and I said it was my religious beliefs to let certain people die because they don't agree with me.

To me, letting just a little bit of that in starts opening Pandora's box so I'm just simply saying that in such positions they should check religious beliefs at the door when deciding on laws for the public good. I don't want to end up being told I HAVE to attend church and do as they say. If I wanted that I'd go live with the Taliban. I just want them to leave their questionably tainted religious morals at the door when they go to work.

Bedtime now, I'll write more tomorrow, but "I don't want to end up being told I HAVE to attend church and do as they say." is just plain fear-mongering. In the past society was much more religious than it is now, and yet it was in that time that the 1st Amendment was written. If it didn't happen then, I don't see why it should happen now.

Besides, can you see all the very many different denominations agreeing which one people should be forced to attend? I can't.

Interesting. "... they should set their faith aside when deciding what's good for the public as a whole." Religious faith, philosophy, common sense or morality are templates by which most of us make our what's-good-and-what's-bad decisions in life.

That we follow these codes in running our own lives does not mean that we are puppets to them. On the contrary, strict religionists or philosophers can still screw up just as badly as any one else because it is we who ultimately make the decisions. And if the decision templates that are used are so flawed then obviously the ruin of the person's life that follows them stands as obvious proof to all of us that they are flawed.

Oh and by the way, the openly atheist socialist governments of Stalin, Hitler, Castro and their ilk are not exactly glowing endorsements of 'checking religious beliefs at the door when deciding on laws for the public good'.

A painfully good point! Hitler murdered roughly 6,000,000, Stalin 40,000,000, Mao 60,000,000, and all the witch burners combined perhaps 100,000 or so. Please note that I have no sympathy for the witch burners; they murdered one of my ancestors for witchcraft in Salem.

The key point that I have extracted from years of studying History is to beware of any leader or any group that believe that they are in possession of \"The One Truth\". The One Truth can be religious or political or sexual or whichever computer operating system is the correct one.

Being in the possession of \"The One Truth\" elevates a believer above common morality while at the same time removes them from the responsibility for what they say or do in advancing “The One Truth”.

What they do, whether it is dropping canisters of Zyklon B though the top of a chamber to rid the world of evil, or setting off a bomb in a crowded marketplace filled with infidels is always for \"the children\", or \"the workers\", or \"the race\", or the hungry, the needy, or some faceless personless entity nebulously labeled either “the Future” by the non-religious or God by the religious.

True believers are crusaders embarked upon noble crusades against ignorance, oppression and what they perceive or are told is some form of threatening evil. In organized groups the true believers engage in real wars, genocide, persecutions, and progroms. As individuals they are merely pathetic losers trying to find a purpose in life that will allow them to redirect their own self-hatred onto someone else.

I agree that the elections have turned into popularity contests, and i think i can say the if out previous great presidents came back to life and looked at how our leaders are acting, that they'd be ashamed of what we have become. It's so sad really......

Elections were always popularity contests. The system was designed to minimize this damage by limiting the Federal government to only 18 specifically enumerated powers (national defense, suppression of piracy, minting (not printing) of money, etc.), and all other powers were reserved to the states (which were thereby put in competition with each other) and the people. (10th Amendment) The 10th was called a meaningless tautology in the FDR era, and now the Feds can do anything that isn't expressly forbidden - unless its popular enough, then they can do it anyway (e.g., more and more warrantless searches, starting with the Interstate Commerce Commission). O-o...

You know what's funny is, there's all these religious guys who say, "I'm a good *insert religion here*."

Yeah, sure, they may talk a lot about their faith, but how many of them can truly back it up?

At first I thought, whoever the next President is, he or she can't be as bad as the one we have now. And then along came Mike Huckabee. At least we don't have to worry about Sam Brownback. Suffice it to say, I never did heart this Huckabee.

Huckabee has said that gays need to be rounded up an quarantined.
Concentration camps anyone?

Dude, this is a Christian nation. Deal with it. I've given up on the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment entirely. For all this nation is concerned, separation of church and state does not exist. And what's worse is the fact that there is nothing those of us who actually have brains can do about it.

I wonder how Christians would feel if we printed "In Zeus we trust" on our money instead of "In God We Trust. I wonder how they would feel if we said "One nation under Krishna" during the pledge instead of "one nation under god"? Just the fact that "God" is on our national currency and in our national pledge of allegiance proves that the Jesusians have pwned the entire country.

But anyway... I am hoping that this nation will realize the ***fact*** that the last friggin thing we need is another Praise-Jesus Republitard in office.

I know you and I don't agree on the print, but have you ever thought about how depressing and oppressive that message can be? I mean, it seems just as appropriate to say "One Nation Under Cthulhu." Also, I like your "Republitard", this should be printed on a T-shirt. Lovers and haters alike would gobble it up, like Naruto.

XD I know. I'm evil. I am really starting to head down a dangerous path here. The only thing saving me from being a true ass is the fact that I know my extremo hatred of republitards is in fact, wrong. *twitch twitch* Besides, I'm not really pleased with or fond of the Democrats either. Maybe if they spontaneously grew some balls and a spine...

It occurs to me that if I'm going to invent the word "Republitard" I must be fair. Therefore, I hereby dub democrats "Hempocrats" and Libertarians are fuckoffertarians. Nah. That last one was lame. I must do better. Back to the drawing board. ^.^

Republitards is good, but you need to do better than Hempocrats. Pot is far less dangerous than the Demopublicans.

The truth was never sweeter, hon.

That's what we get having a popularity contest as vote. Then again, I never did pitch my vote for anything but the actual election. When I settle down, maybe it'll be easier to be more politically concerned...

'Steven Colbert 08'
Fuck Yeah.

HALLELUJAH.

I agree with you deathpuppy. Im christain as well but the major difference between me and most(not all) christians is that i dont follow religion. Even the Bible has a passage that warns us from following a religion, but hey then life wouldnt be simple huh? :P

but i tell you now, i would not, myself, bring up religion in the white house if i ever did get in it, but i have an actual life so i dont think ill be in politics XD.

As a guest on "Penn & Teller's Bullshit!" once said, "...government has a propensity to attract people who like power, that like power over the lives of other human beings." And its true. Have you ever seen a politician that does the work that the people want rather than follow their own agenda?

Damn right!

I'm not voting for him, so no skin off my backside.

Whoever wins will skin your backside royally. Almost all of the others are as bad as Huckabee. Unfortunately, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance because he won't promise to use the guns of government to rob 49% of the voters for the benefit of 51% of the voters. Whoever wins will rob 99% of the workers to pay off the top few percent of their contributers, whether they be Demopublican or Repiblicrat. Government has become little more than a protection racket. Pay up or else...

WHoever comes to skin my backside better come wearing heavy body armor and come with a squad of Secret Service types. Nobody will take my backside without a fight. I'm coming out fighting.

Good for you! I'll bet that you don't like either our current King George II or the original King George IV. I really like your spirit!!

Well, I don't let political alliances cloud my judgement and common sense; i believe is high time for a change; we need new thinking and fresh ideas in the White House and not rehash ideologies and old guard alliances.

Me, personally, I would not vote for a single candidate, Republican or Democrat. I might steer my vote towards a third party nomination.

I really like what I just heard Ron Paul say. When asked what he thought about gay marriage, he flat out said that his personal thoughts on it are his own buisness, but even though he doesn't like it, he still believes that the government has no right to prevent any consenting adults from marrying. He's not going on his own personal feelings, he's going by what's truly right and wrong.

Ron Paul said something similar about medicinal pot, but stated that as a physician he favored patients and doctors being able to use anything that they thought might be helpful. Tom Tancredo said that under the Constitution, medicinal pot was a states rights issue and that \"the Federal government should get the hell out of the way!\"

Yes. It seems like everyone else is just pushing their opinions on everyone instead of following the actual constitution here.

Danm right! The Constitution isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

aww sorry your down pup. I will make it up to you on Friday

Remember that fierce discussion with the Christian family in the movie "I heart huckabees", scary to think that people still think that way. Scarier is seeing Jesus camp, looking at how these guys corrupt the next generation.

Huckabee's not all bad. He supports the FairTax, and taxes are probably the most important issue I'm tracking in this next election.

There is a lot of purposeful disinformation about the \"fair tax\".

First, to be revenue neutral, it will have to be about 33% added onto prices. The 25% figure is \"tax inclusive\", that is the tax would be 25% of the after tax price. That is not the way sales taxes are figured, and is seriously misleading.

Second, this is a 33% tax on all existing savings - savings on which income tax has already been paid. This would be the single largest transfer of private wealth to the government in history. It will penalize thrift and reward indebtedness. It will also kill small businesses by taking 33% of the capital that the owners have to invest.

Third, it will penalize small businesses (where almost all job creation occurs) at the expense of big businesses. The economists who are proponents admit that services will have to be taxed just like goods or the tax on goods would have to be over 50%. What does this mean in practice? If I hire a plumber to fix a leak in a rental house that I own, I will have to pay a 33% \"fair\" tax on his services. If a large company owns 1,000 rental houses, they will have enough work to hire plumbers as full time employees, and will not have to pay a 33% tax on their wages.

The flat tax makes much more sense. The \"fair\" tax will still require a massive enforcement bureaucracy, even if it is no longer called the IRS. Many people already go to considerable lengths to avoid a 6% sales tax. When the tax is 550% higher, just about as many enforcers will be necessary to forcibly steal as much money.

-Uh, no. You're just twisting the facts of the actual FairTax. The sales tax would be set at 23% and would be included in the price, meaning that if something costs 100$ right now, that would not change under the FairTax. The only difference would be the 23% taken as taxes. Whether or not anyone will raise prices if it happens has yet to be seen.

-The FairTax would eliminate the IRS and all other taxes. This would be the only tax of the land in terms of federal taxation. It's not an add-on, it's a total replacement, and would be the biggest transfer of power from the government to the people we've seen in decades.

-There will always be people trying to cheat the system. Right now, larger business are constantly using loopholes in our red tape infused tax code to lower their own tax burden. And larger companies spend more on other things, no? Taxing consumption, rather than earnings, seems to be the method that leaves the fewest loopholes. And sure a larger company could hire a plumber instead of paying for one's services peroidically. So? Larger companies do things like that anyway, no matter the tax situation.

Hell, Neal Boortz and congressman John Linder did a whole book on precisely these questions. It's annoying when there's so much spin concerning the actual FairTax bill.

I own and rent several houses. I am currently charging $700 rent on a four bedroom house, my profit after county property taxes (which will continue, of course), insurance, repairs and maintenance, etc., is about $100 (per month) on which I pay $25 in federal income taxes. If I continued to charge $700 per month, the "fair" tax would take 23% of that or $161, whereas before the feds took $25. My expenses would exceed my costs by $61 per month with a zero return on my investment. You claim that "Whether or not anyone will raise prices if it happens has yet to be seen." Of course I will have to raise prices - if you believe otherwise you are deluding yourself. Neither I nor any other property owner can long afford to rent below operating cost. To make the same return after tax on my investment (the house), I would have to charge my tenant about $880 per month - except that I have to pay the "fair" tax on repairs and maintenance, too, so the actual price that I would have to charge would be about $1,000 per month, whereas it is now $700. Or do you claim that the "fair" tax would not apply to rents?

It is annoying that so many people who have never run a business insist that that what some politically motivated bullshitter has told them is true when there is no factual support for it. I've read their book. It is full of distortions, lies, and fabrications.

i just saw a debate. no one won really it was more of a debate to say anything versus the moderaror that would not let anyone speak!
anyway from a standpoint of watchiong people and knowing a few things beforehand i get this as the final point (this is after my own synopsis of watching both debates demoralicrat and religiopublican; Ron Paul was gittery, Huckabee is a finger-pointer vindictive #%@+head, Romney is a salesman yet diginified and careful with what he says - someone said same as the old boss i think, Keyes is a man of conviction and little ability to be the guy at the top - yet a man of integrity, Guiliani thinks too small-scale to be the leader, Thompson will tell the truth and refuse to be led by the hand and shows more ability as an executive than ANY of the others, Hunter has as much experience in doing the right thing as McCain has in writing legislation but both are not presidential. all the democrats i saw were scary i feared for the entire united states might become a third world nation under any of them.
So all in all the one that showed what he would do in a crisis was Thompson - because he stood up for himself and refused to act like a politician.

Huckabee showed me what kind of person he really is, another scary person masqurading as a potential president, ie another George Wallace (all you younger people will have to look up that name to find out who and what kind of person Wallace was). ...Rhymes with Imperial Wizard.

Oh, yes... democrats... they are concerned about health care, the environment, and alleviating the ever growing income gap between the rich and poor... those evil bastards... how dare they. Shame on them. They should be far more concerned with the illegal baseless war the Republitards have started and making rich people richer. Republitardism is so obviously the right way to go.

Besides, I don't think it is fair to call the democrats immoral. If any party is more immoral, then it would be the Republitards. It could be that the dems are just better at not getting caught but the Republitards have had about a frazillion more scandals than the dems. Mark Folley? Tom Delay? Karl Rove outing CIA agents? Larry Craig? Etc Etc.

depends entirely upon who is involved, the Alan Cranston seven, back in the seventies comes to mind.
And i base my synopsis upon what i've seen with my own eyes-evaluated with my own mind upon the practiced showmanship of Edwards and Hillary(hand gestures) meaning very little if the MIPscan psychology tests to hand pick the panel (pshchologist testing) that favored everything) Obama said and nothing Richardson, Todd, Edwards or Hillary said.
I saw that Both Hillary and Edwards also did one other thing, they promised what they would do, just like when the Democrats promised they would write more legislation in 'one-hundred hours' of taking back control of the House, then FAILED to deliver upon those and that particular promise too!
All the candidates said the same things in essense lets raise taxes, roll back everything ever accomplished bi=partisan or by the Religiocans, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (revisit why the Vietnam and Korean wars ended in defeat).
Lets instead make everyone pay for healthcare, (whether they already have healthcare or not) through a new tax so that the new illegal aliens that have come across the border can get better free healthcare and free schooling.
Lets also perpetuate bad teachers in keeping thier jobs by making another new tax to fund a raise so that like all taxes written by Demorializingcrats different only slightly from Immoralcrats in spelling, (you tried but found out you can't change my words on me!), can make 90% of the money for themselves and fool the american people, then blaming everything upon ANY other party when caught with thier hand in the cookiejar.
Lets make it mandatory that the USA allows the UN forces to police even the United States so that the army/navy/marines and air force are abolished or at least so that anyone in this service has to go on food stamps again - via all the cuts.
remember this one fact a tax that takes from your paycheck fifty bucks is very difficult on you. fifty bucks taken out of a member of the top tier is nothing when you make eight hundred dollars and hour. but how many people in this country make 800/hr? not that many right? how many make 11/hr? alot more right - including me! i do not want more taxes like at all again. If the Democrats come into the White house this next time expect all those tax cuts everybody got (including the rich most of those live in Chappiquittik and Syracuse and vote Democrat) to become a thing of the past.

there are more people that make less than more, so add up those numbers... the Demoralcrats need to convince you that to keep the 5/7ths entitalments going we will have to foot the bill. The first part is convincing you "...it is all the Republicans fault!" before they hit you with a new taxbill. Anyone that has alot of money now is because they either stole it or they earned it. If they are smart they can manipulate thier taxes to not pay any since they work cash, or hid it in investments or thier business. myself i am once again almost to the point of beginning my own business. I want to be able to get above the poverty line once in my life, since i refuse to sell my soul to the Democrats. But i can't in a crippled economy and burdened with a new demoralizing depressing TAX!

Oh believe me, I'm not vindicating the democrats either. I think both parties have their heads up their asses. But it is my opinion that democrats tend to have their heads shoved slightly less far up their asses.

Huckabee is indeed a populist like Wallace. Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold which strikes at the heart of the First Amendment - everyones' rights to criticize politicians before elections. Every politician who votes to use armed government thugs to limit and suppress my criticism of them is my enemy; they are fascists.

what a drag..

i also just read a How they stand - report by the Union Tribune. but then they are owed by the UAE. anyway no one on the Republican side allows Gays to have many rights, Some of the Democrats do favor not banning Gay equality - but this does not have to be an admendment does it? I mean how many admendments were created for the black man to have equality, aren't there three of them, each one consistantly violated throughout our history mostly because there was a law against it in the first place? - violations to certain things seem to become more pronounced i've researched IF there is a ban in the first place. Like when it was niether one way or the other concerning drug use was there such widespread lawlessness concerning use and distribution? when alchohol was forbidden was there not most of the country all of a sudden drinking as much as posible breaking the law? Did not the south in general refuse to abid by human christian values set out in the religions of most of them openly discriminating against chatholics, Jews and Blacks?
If there is a special ban versus Gay discrimination i think it will only escalate in intensity. If on the otherhand Gay marridge is allowed same as decriminalizing Marijuana use, this would take the combination of church to the state away, i seem to remember the forefathers also putting that into the constitution due to the King of England also being head of the Anglican church!
But no one except maybe Ron Paul allows more than minimal Gay rights at all. Thompson or Mc Cain seem like the lesser evils. No one on the Democrat side has anything favorable to the country nor Gays - they promise instead, nothing is actually supported.
Except for the fact that Ron Paul does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, (since only a democrat or a republican can get enough electorial votes to become president) he is never going to win, but he from the stand point of what he stands for seems like a better choice.

So the fairest, unfortunately turns out to be Mc Cain, i hate to say.

Unless of course i win the lottery and then run for office with my winnings as a democrat, then after being sworn in change my allegiance (like Schwartzenegger did), into a party called the F(urry) R(eform) E(mpowered E(lectorate).- "...wanna be FREE vote for ME!"