I read that during one of the Isreali wars Richard Noxon was so drunk that they couldn't wake him up. Henry Kissinger simple ran the whole support operation on his own. Needless to say the war was won!

Too bad George Bush wasn't drunk. With Colin Powell running the war we would have won and long be done.

It's a shame it wasn't 100% uncommitted. The whole Michigan and Florida Democratic primary situation is just plain stupid.

The Western part of Michigan is loaded with Bible huggers. I am surprised that Huckabee didn't do better.

Michigan has a female Dem as a governor, after a really bad male Rep governor, that might explain Hillary's vote.

Other (ME .. bwahahahahaaa ...)

??????????????????

Mitt Romney is the best politician amongst the bunch. He tells you whatever you want to hear!

All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.

I've upped my standards. Now, up yours.

-- Pat Paulsen

All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy

Aw, c'mon. No Ted Kennedy jokes.

Who was the famous person that said this:
"If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing."

Hillary Bonaparte?

Funny and close! I understand it was the guy that stuck his hand into his shirt front.

Educated folks believe that if you show people the problems, and you show them the solutions, then the people might be moved to act.

You don't know what you can get away with until you try.
~~ Colin Powell

Here I thought that "I saved NY" Rudi would do a lot better in this poll. This country needs an experienced street-smart man like him in those turbulent and disorderly times.

I'm most amazed by the fact that the race is between the left, the lefter, the really left, the really lefter, the my-god-I'm-left, the oh-yeah-I'm-even-lefter, the I-am-by-far-the-most-left, the right, the I'm-either-left-or-right-but-overall-wacky. Once the right gets squeezed out, it ought to make for an interesting election. :icon_rolleyes:

I think the election is already over. Unless all hell breaks out this year, we will have a President Clinton again in the WH.

If we keep these presidents within the Bush or Clinton family, maybe we ought to switch to a monarchy? Queen of the Hill(ary) anyone?

hmm.. I tend to think Obama has the edge over Hillary.. But either way, they'll be running mates probably.

I think the election is already over. Unless all hell breaks out this year, we will have a President Clinton again in the WH.

No disagreement here. I think the R-R-R (White House, Senate, House) will turn D-D-D. God help us.

This is my current presidential election prediction (candidates are of no matter, Dem 325, Rep 213):

Well.. at least the dems will have their chance to 'change' America. They keep bashing the Bush administration and Republicans for not doing a great job.. Let's see if they can do a better job. America is ready for a change in leadership, and most people are ready and willing to give the dems a chance.

>> I think the election is already over. Unless all hell breaks out this year, we will have a President Clinton again in the WH.

That may be true but she's not winning this one. Will Bill be the first lady?
Also, it would be cool if we could eliminate the candidates as time progresses from this poll. To see how conforming the forums are to real people.

Most folks on this forum are well educated, most voters are not, therefore this poll is biased.

Just look who is leading, Prof. Barrack Obama and Dr. Ron Paul.

The bulk of the voters get their information from the sports pages, and the espn and fox channels. They are scared of terrorists, taxes and foreigners.

They are scared of terrorists, taxes and foreigners.

And gays getting married, which just blows my mind. When ranked against some of the other issues facing the nation, same-sex marriage is about as far from relevant as you can get.

...
They are scared of terrorists, taxes and foreigners.

Also scared of not having enough cheap gas for their fuel guzzling dinosaur pickup trucks (another 't' word).

Americans keep going on about same sex "marriages" being bad but we have had same sex "marriage" ("civil partnerships") legal here for over a year, makes no difference apart from that the gays are happy (and so they should be, they deserve to have rights after all)

The bulk of the voters get their information from the sports pages, and the espn and fox channels. They are scared of terrorists, taxes and foreigners.

I don't know where you're getting your 'source list' from, so I won't touch that.

Scared of terrorists: When someone has, and has demonstrated, the means and desire to harm another person...not for an individual reason, but for being part of a group...then I'd say that it is fairly reasonable to be nervous about the chances that said 'someone' would be willing to do so again. To let this nervousness descend into fullblown 'OMG Weyre all gunna die!!!11' panic is foolish. It is equally foolish, however, to refuse to acknowledge the potential for harm; to do so only makes it easier for future incidents of that nature to occur, as those responsible, or others emulating them, become emboldened.

Scared of taxes: Most people, when attempting to earn money, do so for themselves. As far as I can tell, working to make money for another, rather than doing so for yourself, especially in the manner of paying off a debt, would seem to be indentured servitude. Given that the current American tax bite is large enough that the supposed Tax Freedom day lies about one-third of the way through the year, this would imply that, for that first one-third year, every working man and woman in America is, in fact, an indentured servant of the government.

(For those who care: The website Taxfoundation.org marked Tax Freedom Day 2007 as April 30th. I wasn't kidding about that 1/3 year bit.)

Scared of foreigners: Actually, I'd say the condition here is a bit different. From what I've seen, most people who actually speak on the issue aren't 'scared' of foreign people, so much as scared of national dissolution. If those coming in were willing to become part of the 'melting pot' that the United States of America was once known for being, there would be little problem. (I acknowledge that there will always be some cranks out there who'd have a problem with anything that interfered with their 'do it my way' mentality.) The problem comes when those who enter the nation, rather than trying to become part of it, insist on remolding a portion of it in their image. Doing so effectively creates what might be considered as shadow nation within the main one. Eventually, those within this shadow nation may be forced to choose between loyalties to their neighbors, and loyalties to the national government; offhand, I can think of at least two ways this could happen.

Also scared of not having enough cheap gas for their fuel guzzling dinosaur pickup trucks (another 't' word).

Considering the options seem to be 'fuel guzzlers' vs 'safety hazards', I think I'll risk the guzzling. Generally, the heavier/sturdier a car is, the safer it is, and the more fuel it uses. This applies to single-vehicle incidents (collision with a wall, a light post, a tree, etc.) as well as for multiple-vehicle incidents. If it comes to a case where I'm betting my safety and wellbeing against my pocketbook, I'd like you to guess which one comes to the surface.

Americans keep going on about same sex "marriages" being bad but we have had same sex "marriage" ("civil partnerships") legal here for over a year, makes no difference apart from that the gays are happy (and so they should be, they deserve to have rights after all)

What rights are homosexual couples supposedly missing in America? The last time I checked, the word 'marriage' was a descriptive of a specific type of relationship. Getting to use it has more to do with validly filling that description than any form of hypothetical 'right'.

As to the rest, it is literally an unnatural relationship. From the moral standpoint this seems clear, but even looking at it from the most amoral standpoint I can think of, the 'humans are just animals, no better than anyone else' view of evolution, it's still unnatural. I can think of no way that such a coupling could, absent medical technology either real or hypothetical, pass on their genetic material as the parents of biological offspring. And I can't see any way they could do so for joint biological offspring even with the inclusion of what real medical technologies I know of.

~~
Considering the options seem to be 'fuel guzzlers' vs 'safety hazards', I think I'll risk the guzzling. Generally, the heavier/sturdier a car is, the safer it is, and the more fuel it uses. This applies to single-vehicle incidents (collision with a wall, a light post, a tree, etc.) as well as for multiple-vehicle incidents. If it comes to a case where I'm betting my safety and wellbeing against my pocketbook, I'd like you to guess which one comes to the surface.
~~

With your reasoning everyone should drive a Mack Truck! If a Mack truck hits your pickup, you are mulch like the rest!

America is about freedom, the freedom to be uneducated, the freedom to arm themselves, the freedom to belong to a church group, the freedom to work or not to work, the freedom to guzzle gas and polute the air, all is included in the word. Any politician doubting these sacred principles is on the losing end, as far as the average voters are concerned.

I would vote for Barack Obama, but can't in real cuz I am not a US citizen. :)