Pick the winner..

[JimHawkins]

Since this forum is often so politically charged...

Let's see who would win a mock election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani around here..

Non US residents please don't vote..

[TSDguy]

Sweet JESUS don't let it come to those two...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

It goes without saying, (I should hope) anyone interested in either of them is not interested or educated in politics. What a couple of evil, evil phonies. And no I'm not biased against the established cronies.

[TSDguy]

Second thought: For better or worse, Paul is the only Republican candidate that has a chance in hell of winning against a D. With something like 75% of the country opposing the actions in the middle east, any neo-con candidate gets slaughtered by the pro semi-withdrawal of the democrats (minus Hillary who is bat ##### insane).

All opinions aside, Rs lose to Ds by default unless Paul is up for Rs. Even Hillary wins against the neo-cons. I'll put money on it.*


Anyone following the betting odds on the major world gambling sites, by the way? Generally you have the big four, Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, and Paul

[JimHawkins]

Sweet JESUS don't let it come to those two...

Jesus has very little to do with this...

[Bill Glasheen]

It's early on this one, boys.

I have to disagree with you on Paul. He's not even on the radar screen of either party. No chance whatsoever.

I also have to disagree with you about a Republican not having a chance against a Democrat. Hillary is the likely nominee, and she is a VERY polarizing figure.

This isn't the first election where we have the lesser of evils. It's been a long time since anyone inspiring has run. Nobody decent wants to go through this process. You need to be obsessed with power and/or an egomaniac to make it through the brutal process.

I'm just hoping that whoever makes it won't do too much harm. I know I may be in the minority, but... Neither of the candidates Jim put up there scares me TOO much. At least neither of them is an extremist. Just the usual character flaws.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

I have to disagree with you on Paul. He's not even on the radar screen of either party. No chance whatsoever.

A lot of people disagree with you there. The major gambling sites for example. Just the other day he raised a record 4.2 mill or something just from online donations. Also, he's starting to attract the Christian nutjobs (I'm not even sure why exactly), which, despite being completely psycho, have a lot of voting power.

Edit: It's because they disagree with Rudy's pro-choice stance (and interesting sex life). Almost ironic since Paul is pro-choice on EVERYthing.

[Bill Glasheen]

Also, he's starting to attract the Christian nutjobs (I'm not even sure why exactly), which, despite being completely psycho, have a lot of voting power.

Edit: It's because they disagree with Rudy's pro-choice stance (and interesting sex life). Almost ironic since Paul is pro-choice on EVERYthing.

Well... Pat friggin Robertson came on TV and endorsed Rudy. Go figure...



A good percentage of Evangelicals look to Robertson for direction. Rudy's a social liberal, with pro choice, pro gay, and pro gun control stances. Nevertheless, Robertson and other Evangelicals are now siding with Rudy because they fear radical Islam more than they care about how many wives he's had or whether or not government will intervene on social issues.

Steps on soap box.

If I may... I get a bit upset when some around here refer to Evangelicals in disparaging terms. Disagree with them, fine. But they represent a VERY large block of Americans. Call an opinion on an issue (such as the oxymoronic creation science) as nutty. But don't refer to any group as psycho, nutjubs, etc. I'm not taking you on specifically, TSDGuy, as you aren't the poster child here. I just think it's fair not to disparage a very large and influential block of Americans just because your political views are different.

I know it's fashionable - even politically correct - to bash Evangelicals. They aren't from the big cities like New York, Boston, LA, etc. But come on... The very idea smacks of elitism. And this divide is a big reason why we have the media scratching their collective heads whenever certain politicians win. It isn't because a large block of people need antipsychotic meds. It's because folks in the big cities need to get out of their little provincial worlds and travel a little. God forbid that we be a diverse people.

Off of soap box.

- Bill

[chef]

Wow, I consider myself an evangelical christian but never thought of myself as a psycho, nut job. Yep, sometimes I fall so far from the mark where I would like to be and sometimes I am a little nutty (according to my husband)....but definitely not a psycho Bob.

People are very passionate about what they believe and have a tendency to fire off sometimes, based what they have experienced with certain groups.

Just remember, every group has its extremes.

Reno, one of our recent black belts we had at the dojo was Muslim, and acted more 'christian' than most people I see that consider themselves christians. Great guy! Definitely not a psycho, nutcase Muslim, as many would consider classing him.

Be careful of labels, guys.

Regards,
Vicki

[TSDguy]

I don't mean that christians are nutjobs, I mean the ones that want to teach creationism in schools, the ones that want to blow up abortion clinics, and the ones that try to bring their faith into politics or my life are nutjobs. And I think most christians would agree that those folks are nutjobs.

These nutjobs often can influence the non-retarded christians to vote a certain way.

Giulani has the backing of some christians, but many are so rabidly anti-choice that they are going against him. That's easy enough to see and it is certainly going to influence the elections in '08, whichever way it goes.

[Bill Glasheen]

It's a fine distinction to describe views as nutty as opposed to calling people nutty. OK? We need to be careful.

If you want to throw labels at people... Anyone who would blow up anything outside the bounds of a declared war is a criminal. The Unibomber is a criminal. The fellow who blew people up at the Atlanta Olympics was a criminal. The masterminds of the Oklahoma City bombing were criminals. The planners and participants in 9/11 were criminals. Any homicide bomber who intentionally takes his/her own life as part of the act is a criminal. It has nothing to do with a political or religious point of view, and everything to do with their actions against innocent people.

If a group - such as al qaeda - wants to wrap its identity around killing innocents, then I'm all for making the name and criminal synonymous. But that doesn't make the Shia or Sunnis criminals.

If pro choice people want to get over-the-top with their protests, that's fine. They have their reasons. Show pictures of aborted fetuses if it turns you on. What-ever... But killing people? That's another dimension that few support. Implying that it does is disingenuous, and just increases the political divide.

'Nuff said.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

Exactly!

I think you were the one who once cautioned your viewers not to read so far into a post that you think it's talking about you (lots of pronouns in that sentence...) Much of my family is christian, so I don't hate them all. I hate the ones that, over the past 8 years or so, have decided the US needs to become the church of olde, a glorious theocracy that abandons all sense of reason.

As one employee at the creationism museum in KY said, "we are under attack by the educated and intelligent of America!"

[fivedragons]

It's really funny when you stop to reflect that the only true christian that has ever lived on this planet is Jesus Christ.

If there was such a person, he never proposed anything called christianity, or a religion, or raping children, or burning people alive, or arrrrrghhh....

You know, there already was a whole bunch of religion going on, and I think he was trying to save humanity from superstition and unquestioned dogma.

Basically this selfless kind of person said that the whole secret to life was to love god and to love everyone like you love yourself.

Of course love doesn't mean that you have to let other people indulge their non love on your person.

It just means to be aware and accept the responsibility of your actions. Karma if you will.

2000 years later, everyone's still walking around in a semi comatose state.

Zombies for satan.

[Gene DeMambro]

Interesting that Guliani's getting much of the press, and Romney's leading in many of the polls.

Cheers,
Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

Interesting that Guliani's getting much of the press, and Romney's leading in many of the polls.

Cheers,
Gene

Here is last week's NBC/WSJ poll results for the Republican party (who would you vote for in the Republican primary). This is a national audience.

Giuliani - 33%
McCain - 16%
Thompson - 15%
Romney - 11 %
Huckabee - 8%
Paul - 4%
Hunter - 2%
Tancredo - 2%
Other - 1%
None - 1%
Not Sure - 7%

Weekly NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

From yesterday's "Boston Globe":

Romney, Clinton ahead, vulnerable in N.H. poll
Race still open, analysts say
Globe Staff / November 11, 2007
Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Hillary Clinton remain the clear front-runners in the New Hampshire presidential primary, but both have vulnerabilities that could erode their support among voters in the weeks ahead, a new Boston Globe poll indicates.

Two months before the New Hampshire primary, Romney leads his nearest rival, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, 32 percent to 20 percent, with Senator John McCain of Arizona third at 17 percent. Among Democratic voters, Clinton, the New York senator, leads Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, 35 percent to 21 percent, with former senator John Edwards of North Carolina third at 15 percent.

The primary contest in both parties remains highly fluid - just 16 percent of likely Republican voters said they had definitely decided whom to back; among likely Democratic primary voters, only 24 percent are firm in their choice. And neither Clinton nor Romney has closed the deal with their party's voters, the poll suggests.

"It's still really open," said Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the Globe poll.

I couldn't find a poll on Iowa. Actually, I didn't really want to look that hard - I don't have a dog in that fight. But I do find it interesting that Guiliani's getting a bunch of press, Thompson shook things up a bit, Clinton's still in the lead, and Mitt Romney is winning over some skeptics and is leading in NH and (I think) Iowa. By no means am I a Romney supporter. If he wins the Presidency, he'll most likely do it without winning the state he was governer of. But, kinda interesting. At the very least, don't sleep on him.

Cheers,
Gene