Seems to me it is your reading comprehension skills that need polishing. Never did I refer to your post as "unintelligent and uninformed." Secondly, I am aware there are many people that will base their vote on such things as race, sex and nationality. But you said much more than that. You said Hillery could not get elected because of her sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there are those who will not vote for her because of her sex, but there are many more who will vote for her because they like her and believe she will be a good president. I disagree with them, but there are enough of those people out there to elect her.
Well, somebody is giving out red using your name: Well, we'll just have to disagree on the Hillary thing. My opinion is that a woman cannot be elected president. Most people aren't ready to make that leap just yet. Not to mention the tumor named Bill that's attached to her. I stand by my original opinion that the entire nation has not progressed sufficiently to elect a black person to the White House. Personally, I like Obama and would love to support him provided his stance on issues important to me are aligned. But things are what they are and I shouldn't be labeled racist or sexist for pointing out what should be obvious to everyone.
You really think so? Wow! I really think you are wrong on this one. I don't think Hillary has a snowballs chance in hell of becoming the president and it has nothing to do with sex or race. As good as people claim Clinton was he has become a liability to Hillary and the Democrat party. I'm not sure why maybe its because he was into big oil and pardoned Marc Rich. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21595 Anyway Hillary doesn't have the charisma or the charm of her husband. Matter of fact I would say more people disapprove of her than approve of her including democrats and moderates. No democrat can get elected without winning a few red states unless the Constitution is changed to allow for a popular vote for president. This is why they are trying to change the law, they are like USC trying to change the rules in midstream even though they agreed to them. They aren't trying to change the Constitution either they are trying to do it with ballot amendments. The news isn't all bad for democrats however, I think Republicans and Conservatives are in real trouble in this country and most don't know it. With the borders wide open and all the Illegals coming into this country, having kids and taking over America the majority will vote democrat so they will have a brand new voting base to ensure they win future elections.
Setting a timetable for a campaign in no way limits free speech and you know it. Every time I have an opinion you dislike, you fearfully imagine that I'm "trying to impose my will" upon you. Grow some nads will you? I think your paranoia is getting worse. Freedom is important. Part of that is the freedom to set limits on wasteful, corrupt, expensive campaigns that prevent new parties from emerging. Part of that freedom is my privilege to lobby for change. It is you that needs to accept "freedom."
telling people when they can say what is explicitly a restriction of free speech and is one of the more explosively destructive things you can do to ruin this country. thats because every solution you have is terrible and involves telling people what they can and cannot do. the government is way too big already, we should be looking to reduce the things it does. but you are constantly looking for ways that you can justify growing the role of the government in our lives. always finding problems that the government needs to solve. the government is the cause, not the solution. i know you arent trying to contradict yourself as quickly as possible here, it just looks that way. it doesnt expand our freedom to limit each other. political campains are very explicit expressions of our freedom of speech, and do not need to be limited by you.
Don't delude yourself. First, like it or not, President Clinton was very popular when he left office. He is not the baggage that your post suggests. Secondly, I knew Hillery would be a tough candidate to beat from the get-go. She is very intelligent - more so than her husband. She is a top campaigner. She is also perceived to be a moderate, something I have always questioned. The only problem she has among Democrats is her vote on Iraq, but her detracters are largely from the far left wing of the party and will not cast the deciding vote on who gets the nomination. All this is not to say she has no issues on which she is vulnerable. Every candidate does. But I don't see any current Democratic candidate who can take the nomination from her.
Who said anything about telling people what they can say? I'm talking about time limits, not speech limits. You are just repeating yourself now and trying to be contradictory to every opinion I have. I tire of your silly delusion that my opinions constitute an attempt by "me" to tell people what to say, much less for "me" to ruin the country. We are the government, Captain America. You never seem to really grok this.
you did, see watch: one of the fundamentally important things about this country is that we can basically say what we want, when we want, where we want. there should not be special times whe we restrict people for expressing particular views you/we deem unacceptable. no views are unacceptable, ever. people should always be struggling to limit the size of their government, not thinking up ways to increase it. oh, and i dont mean you are trying to ruin things intentionally, i just disagree with your solving everything with restrictions. this is the kind of thing that marx would say. i am an individual, and i want to be manipulated by the collective as rarely as possible. so should every freedom loving american. we should always be working against having every little detail of our lives controlled. what is your plan, fine a candidate who goes stumping before we say so? dont let obama on larry king before we give him the green light? what if he wants to go on to talk about sports? can he do that? do we have a guy with a checklist marking off things he says until he crosses a threshold for too much campaigning? can i volunteer to campaign for obama and speak for him during the restricted time or will have your gestapo shutting me down? how will you know if i campaigning for him or not? cant you see what a nightmare this would be?
Reducing the schedule of national campaigns does NOT limit free speech. Politicians can talk 365 days a year. What it limits is the waste of billions of dollars and inhibit the influence peddling that accompanies polititicans desparate to raise campaign contributions. Why don't you address THAT instead of repeating your free-speech mantra over and over. How the hell does REDUCING the length of national campaigns add to the size of government? :lol: Actually is the kind of thing that Lincoln and Jefferson said. "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States of America . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson "... government of the people, by the people, for the people,..." -- Abraham Lincoln You sound like an anarchist with paranoid delusions. There is no Borg collective. No, candidates can talk on Larry King as much as they always do anyway. I'm talking about reducing the 9-month spread of primaries to 3 months. I'm talking about not allowing campaign fund-raising, especially federal match money to happen before the actual election year. Paranoid delusions again. I have no Gestapo. There is no Gestapo. Not at all, it works in Britain and many other democratic countries.
i can vote for whoever i want. if i feel like a candidate is unduly influenced by someone, i will vote for somebody else. maybe bush is a stooge for big oil? good, i like big oil. if you want a candidate that is a socialist or stooge for whoever, i am sure you can fine one to vote for. how do your rules for reducing campaign length get enacted and enforced? magic? it takes men and money to do things. big government. who pays to enforce your rules? anyways, the parties are not the government, so they will run the primaries whenever they want. what are you going to do to stop them? send armed guards to the polling stations and make them stop? the constitution gives us the right to freely assemble. if we republicans want to hold party primaries to figure out which candidate will represent us, we should have them on our schedule, not yours. if you are really irritated maybe you should get with your moderate friends and form a party that runs a primary when it pleases you.
