Whos gonna vote GOP in four weeks?

[Starbuck1975]

Please explain why you'd reward these incompetents by voting republican.

Last time I checked, we vote for candidates, not political parties.

I will therefore vote for the candidates that I think will do the best job in their respective office...sometimes that person is Republican...other times that person is Democrat...and perhaps this time, that person will be an Independent.

 

[palehorse]

here's a crazy thought: vote according to each candidate's individual merit as opposed to voting along party lines. That's what makes me sick about most of these "down with the GOP" morons. why don't they just say "down with the bad candidates!" instead? there are decent candidates on both sides of the aisle people and not every GOP member is in bed with Bush and Rummy...

get a damn clue people. YOU are ruining our democracy with your polarizing animosity, jealousy, and anger.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
here's a crazy thought: vote according to each candidate's individual merit as opposed to voting along party lines. That's what makes me sick about most of these "down with the GOP" morons. why don't they just say "down with the bad candidates!" instead? there are decent candidates on both sides of the aisle people and not every GOP member is in bed with Bush and Rummy...

get a damn clue people. YOU are ruining our democracy with your polarizing animosity, jealousy, and anger.

CaptnKirk thinks you're an idiot.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Please explain why you'd reward these incompetents by voting republican.

Last time I checked, we vote for candidates, not political parties.

you do a little of both. most canidates end up towing the party line, especially when you're in the majority and going against your party means that your own earmarks and ammendments could get shutdown.

personally, I'll be voting for the democratic canidate for senate even though I like the republican canidate more, simply because I'd rather have a senator I disliked and a democrat senate majority leader than have a senator I like towing the line under a religious-right sycophant.

 

[Starbuck1975]

personally, I'll be voting for the democratic canidate for senate even though I like the republican canidate more, simply because I'd rather have a senator I disliked and a democrat senate majority leader than have a senator I like towing the line under a religious-right sycophant.

Point taken, although a growing number of Republicans seem to be distancing themselves from the party line. Unfortunately, most of our politicians tend to toe the party line, but there are growing examples of GOP Senators, governors and representatives going against the Bush Administration.

The border states are an excellent example, as the constituencies of those states are not in agreement on the Bush immigration plan...and many GOP politicans from Arizona, New Mexico and California are speaking out against the Bush plan.

 

[Vic]

I don't vote along party lines.

On the federal level, neither of my Senators is up for re-election. My representative in Congress, Democrat David Wu, is essentially running unopposed.

On the state level, I have decided that I will vote against Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski. He's been an inept, weak puppet for the state government employees union, who's done nothing but waste state money (to the point of making national headlines) and foster corruption during his term. So I'll probably vote Ron Saxton just for the change. Maybe the Dems can come back with someone actually worthy of the job in 2010.

Local level, I haven't decided yet. Probably independent or Libertarian for the most part. That corrupt fool Sten already got the nod in the primaries for another 4 years on the city council...

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
The Foley scandal has opened this race bigtime in favor of the Democrats. The Democrats will without question take control of the House. The Senate is the only real worry for them at this point.

as usual, you're wrong. this scandal will be forgottten, but I'm sure dems have some more scandals up their sleeves, waiting to pull them out closer to election day. Of course the dems knew about this Mark Foley incident a long time ago, they were just waiting for the right time.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: loki8481
as opposed to having Dennis Hassert for a house leader, who's already proven that he's willing to look the other way in the face of pedophilia if it means protecting the republican party at the cost of protecting kids?

Hmmm, hard for you liberals to concede that the kid was 18 at the time this happened because it negates your entire argument. Its understandable.

I agree use of the term 'pedophilia' is not appropriate. Nevertheless, what Foley did was unprofessional and unethical. It's also pretty clear Republicans didn't have the best interests of the pages in mind when they turned a blind eye to Foley's indiscretions.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
The Foley scandal has opened this race bigtime in favor of the Democrats. The Democrats will without question take control of the House. The Senate is the only real worry for them at this point.

as usual, you're wrong. this scandal will be forgottten, but I'm sure dems have some more scandals up their sleeves, waiting to pull them out closer to election day. Of course the dems knew about this Mark Foley incident a long time ago, they were just waiting for the right time.

And your proof is what?

 

[TraumaRN]

Definitely NOT voting for Dick Devos, he just scares me, and it bothers me to think that someone who has NOT elected government experience wants to suddenly be the governor of a state. And state thats in a lot of trouble.

I think the voters in michigan are realizing this along with the fact that michigan economy has went in the sh!tter cuz of the Big 3. So they dont blame her for the trouble. And she can actually answer questions about her policies.

DeVos just throws out my plan will improve michigan....umm ok but HOW....

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: loki8481
as opposed to having Dennis Hassert for a house leader, who's already proven that he's willing to look the other way in the face of pedophilia if it means protecting the republican party at the cost of protecting kids?

Hmmm, hard for you liberals to concede that the kid was 18 at the time this happened because it negates your entire argument. Its understandable.

I agree use of the term 'pedophilia' is not appropriate. Nevertheless, what Foley did was unprofessional and unethical. It's also pretty clear Republicans didn't have the best interests of the pages in mind when they turned a blind eye to Foley's indiscretions.

Just like the dems did with Clinton and Monica. The difference is, Foley came clean when he was confronted.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: loki8481
as opposed to having Dennis Hassert for a house leader, who's already proven that he's willing to look the other way in the face of pedophilia if it means protecting the republican party at the cost of protecting kids?

Hmmm, hard for you liberals to concede that the kid was 18 at the time this happened because it negates your entire argument. Its understandable.

I agree use of the term 'pedophilia' is not appropriate. Nevertheless, what Foley did was unprofessional and unethical. It's also pretty clear Republicans didn't have the best interests of the pages in mind when they turned a blind eye to Foley's indiscretions.

Just like the dems did with Clinton and Monica. The difference is, Foley came clean when he was confronted.

Let's see. One was hitting on minors, while the other was diddling a 22 year old intern.

Yeah, no difference at all...... :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: loki8481
as opposed to having Dennis Hassert for a house leader, who's already proven that he's willing to look the other way in the face of pedophilia if it means protecting the republican party at the cost of protecting kids?

Hmmm, hard for you liberals to concede that the kid was 18 at the time this happened because it negates your entire argument. Its understandable.

I agree use of the term 'pedophilia' is not appropriate. Nevertheless, what Foley did was unprofessional and unethical. It's also pretty clear Republicans didn't have the best interests of the pages in mind when they turned a blind eye to Foley's indiscretions.

Just like the dems did with Clinton and Monica. The difference is, Foley came clean when he was confronted.

Hmm, consenting adults vs kids. Is this one of those times when you have trouble telling the difference?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Corbett


Just like the dems did with Clinton and Monica. The difference is, Foley came clean when he was confronted.

When he was confronted years ago you mean?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Strk
Let's see. One was hitting on minors, while the other was diddling a 22 year old intern.

Yeah, no difference at all...... :roll:

So 18 years old is now a minor eh? Interesting...

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hmm, consenting adults vs kids. Is this one of those times when you have trouble telling the difference?

Again, I didn't know that 18 year olds were kids. LOL!

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Corbett


Just like the dems did with Clinton and Monica. The difference is, Foley came clean when he was confronted.

When he was confronted years ago you mean?

Yeah, you know. When he lied straight to our faces on national tv. You remember don't you?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Corbett


Just like the dems did with Clinton and Monica. The difference is, Foley came clean when he was confronted.

When he was confronted years ago you mean?

Yeah, you know. When he lied straight to our faces on national tv. You remember don't you?

yeah he didnt come clean when he was confronted by the GOP years ago, just when there was irrefutable proof produced by the media.

what a stand up guy, BTW clinton was president a long time ago and you can move on comparing every GOP failure to what Clinton did.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: bctbct
what a stand up guy, BTW clinton was president a long time ago and you can move on comparing every GOP failure to what Clinton did.

They are the same situation, no matter how much you want to forget how much worse Clinton responded when he was called out.

 

[fitzov]

Why would I want to vote GOP? The only reason I can see anyone voting for them is because they don't like the Dems. I'd rather vote for someone whose platform I most identify with. It sure as hell isn't the pro-corporate, pro-war, elitist trash that infests the GOP.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: bctbct
what a stand up guy, BTW clinton was president a long time ago and you can move on comparing every GOP failure to what Clinton did.

They are the same situation, no matter how much you want to forget how much worse Clinton responded when he was called out.

He lied just like any other husband would do when asked about an affair by someone who is not a prinicple in his life.

Many voters could care less about a president banging someone in the whitehouse, most voters have a problem with a guy hasseling young men for sex especially if they are minors.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Yeah, you know. When he lied straight to our faces on national tv. You remember don't you?

Now, he didn't "lie" per se. It all depends on your definition of "sex" :laugh:

Liberals have what I call convenient amnesia.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Strk
Let's see. One was hitting on minors, while the other was diddling a 22 year old intern.

Yeah, no difference at all...... :roll:

So 18 years old is now a minor eh? Interesting...

Except it wasn't just some 18 year old.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Strk
Let's see. One was hitting on minors, while the other was diddling a 22 year old intern.

Yeah, no difference at all...... :roll:

So 18 years old is now a minor eh? Interesting...

Except it wasn't just some 18 year old.

Meaning it was an 18 year old page? That still does not change the fact that it was not a minor or a child. It was an adult.

 

[Lemon law]

For all the lies of Bill Clinton on the famious I did not have sex with that woman---no one died over the deal---wish we could say the same about GWB---he now appears to be even worse than Saddam Hussien in Iraq.

And in terms of the cherry picked intel on selling the Iraq war---anyone with brain one knows this Uranium from Niger deal was a lie Bush knew about. As were the aluminum ttubes could only be used for atomic weapons.---both Clinton and GWB were just taking the license of language to disguise their lies.

When it comes to the realivity of those two different Presidential lies----Bush's is far more serious in my mind---and that seriousness is demoninated in deaths, lasting
disabilities, and about a trillion dollars of public funds.---vs. a stain on a little blue dress.