[pico]

i don't like any of the democrate candidates. voting republican. Guiliani is on the top of the list right now...we'll see who wins the primary.

[EBone]

Well picoman, I'm with you. Giuliani would be my pick on the Republican side as well.

I'm really rooting for Biden on the Democratic side. He'll have to show real strong in New Hampshire which is possible since he's a Northeasterner.

Should be interesting in January......



E

[pico]

if the election comes down to guiliani and clinton, i wonder who will get NY state. guiliani was the mayor during 9/11, and clinton is a sentorbut she is a carpetbagger, so i think it might be a toss up.

[Seattle Slew]

I don't think NY will go Republican even if Guiliani is the pick. The election should be just like 2000 and 2004. Four or five states will decide it.

Ohio
Pennylvania
Florida
Nevada

GOP should get New Hampshire back, so Dems may need to grab Nevada or New Mexico to counter.

I think the Democrats would have a shot at Virginia, with senator and now governor both Democrats and more easterners moving down there.

[pico]

Originally Posted by Seattle Slew

I don't think NY will go Republican even if Guiliani is the pick. The election should be just like 2000 and 2004. Four or five states will decide it.

Ohio
Pennylvania
Florida
Nevada

GOP should get New Hampshire back, so Dems may need to grab Nevada or New Mexico to counter.

I think the Democrats would have a shot at Virginia, with senator and now governor both Democrats and more easterners moving down there.

nevada usually go GOP...bunch of conservatives there. Pennylvania will probably go democrate. Ohio and Florida are though. My bet will be Ohio republican and Florida Democrate.

[Seattle Slew]

Didn't Gore win Nevada? I know the Dems thought they were going to win that in 2004, same with NM, but lost them both. Wouldn't have mattered if they won Ohio.

Originally Posted by picoman

nevada usually go GOP...bunch of conservatives there. Pennylvania will probably go democrate. Ohio and Florida are though. My bet will be Ohio republican and Florida Democrate.

[Seattle Slew]

Bush did take Nevada in 2000.

[Seattle Slew]

2004 map

[pico]

i think it does not matter. i my mind, republicans and democrates are the same...they're all bunch of rich white wasp. obama is a uncle tom and hilary acts just like a rich wasp also. but i like the republican candidates more.

i think it comes down to whichever canidate is more lax on taxes and care less about internet gambling...that is the person i like to be the president

gay marriage, abortion, social welfare are all non issues to me. i don't think when i am old there will be a social security left, so less tax means more retirement money for all of us.

that is my two cents.

[BuddyBear]

What difference does it seriously make who is elected president...they are basically the same thing with some variation on social issues. Both parties are conservative and so out of touch with the people who they are elected to represent. Don't waste your time following the election.....

[pico]

Originally Posted by BuddyBear

What difference does it seriously make who is elected president...they are basically the same thing with some variation on social issues. Both parties are conservative and so out of touch with the people who they are elected to represent. Don't waste your time following the election.....

i have to disagree...why not follow the election...it is another chance to make a wager. if you do it right, a good chance to make some dough.

[Senator7]

If the Dems nominate Hilary or Obama, Minnesota and Wisconsin will probably go to the GOP in 2008...

[hitbitritz]

if dem's win in '08 im moving out of the country - 100%

[Dark Horse]

I have never seen a democracy with a more uninformed public than the American people. With a steady diet of corporately sponsored media propaganda you could make them believe anything. Very little ability for critical thinking.

In any case, anything will be a relief after the fascist neocon administration. Where presidents normally veer towards the middle, Bush's imbecile insistence to represent the extreme right has divided this country to the point where Republicans and Democrats can hardly stand the sight of each other.

Kakistocracy. That's the word that comes to mind when reflecting on the present administration. A government by those least able to govern.

My vote is that of zero confidence in this corrupted system, bought and paid for by corporations.

Before I forget, for the record, I want Cheney and his neocon cronies to stand trial for orchestrating 9/11.

[The HG]

Originally Posted by picoman

if the election comes down to guiliani and clinton, i wonder who will get NY state. guiliani was the mayor during 9/11, and clinton is a sentorbut she is a carpetbagger, so i think it might be a toss up.

It depends who messes up more. Both are prone to gaffes. Hillary needs to make sure she never ever opens her eyes wide ever, or else she will be vulnerable to a Dean-like 5-second "crazy" spot that could flatten her. When Hillary opens her eyes wide she looks like a maniac, she really needs to guard against that. I can see it now - "we're gonna have (eyes widening) HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE! (eyes super wide open now) FOR EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN! WE'RE GONNA HAVE DOCTORS! AND NURSES! AND PRACTITIONERS! AND ...." then it will be over for her.

But Giuliani is vulnerable too. If he's too lax or casual about what a dick or a hawk he is, it'll be over for him too. I can easily see him saying some 5-second clip that makes it seem like he's gonna push the button as soon as he gets elected, and that will be the end of him as well. He is not smooth, he also needs to be careful.

If neither one messes up, I'd say Giuliani will get NY state, by a nose, by like half a percent.

[The HG]

Originally Posted by BuddyBear

What difference does it seriously make who is elected president...they are basically the same thing with some variation on social issues. Both parties are conservative and so out of touch with the people who they are elected to represent. Don't waste your time following the election.....

I actually don't think this is true at all. It's common wisdom to say stuff like that, people think it's "wise" to say both parties are the same, but in my experience, it's not actually true. I did used to work in politics, for people who were (and still are) very entrenched in the national scene, all races we did, Senate, House, Governors, everything, all over the country, Oregon, Indiana, everywhere. And then I was actually in Ohio in '04, so I did see a lot of behind the scenes stuff up close.

The two parties are not really the same at all. The Republicans were then, at least, way way way more organized and on the ball about everything. They had Ohio mapped out street by street, and the Dems didn't. Kerry really gave that election away. His campaign was not well-run at all.

There aren't quite the Karl Rove types on the Dem side, I'm sorry to say. The Dems try to play catch-up with all the Republican crap. Like, did you see when Obama, Hillary, and Edwards when they were on CNN, interviewed by Soledad O'Brien before a "faith-based" audience and Hillary was all like "Yes, I admit that sometimes I pray for selfish things, like 'Oh God, please help me lose weight'"? Hillary hired a "faith guru" for her campaign for chrissake, and Nancy Pelosi put together a Democratic Faith Group in '05 when they realized they were getting completely f**ked every which way by the Rebublicans, and that was a big one.

All that is the Dems playing catch-up, on faith, dirty tricks, politics of fear, etc etc, all of that. The Republicans keep on running out the same stuff over and over again, and it works every time, over and over again. So the Dems try to approximate it, but it's not natural to them.

I wish both parties were basically the same, but unfortunately, right now they're not at all. The Republicans really know exactly how and to whom to define and sell themselves. They will always be the "small government" party no matter how big the government gets under them. They will always be the "Godly" party no matter how many unGodly acts they commit. They will always be the "tough on terrorism" party no matter how dubious their efforts turn out to be. They will always be the "anti-fag" party no matter how many of their anti-gay leaders get busted trying to make love with other men. They will always be the party of the "regular American" no matter how much their actions hurt "regular Americans" in favor of non-regular Americans. They will always be the "anti-elitism" party no matter how elitist they get. I'm not saying it's wrong for them to do all that - I mean I do think it's wrong, but that's not what I'm saying. In a sense people deserve what they get - I'm assuming there hasn't been any vote tampering yet. But I always disagree when people trot out the "both parties are basically the same" line, which you hear all the time.

[capitalist pig]

Giuliani, will never win the primary here in the south. He has been too anti gun, and us southerners will not vote for him in the the primary. I realize to alot of the country this is a mute issue, but here in the deep south its one of the few issues that will get NRA members off their asses to actually vote.

Me Im liking Thompson at this point. As far a internet gambling goes, there isnt a candidate out there who is going to even bring up the subject.

Having said all that Im voting for anyone other than Hillary if that what it comes down too.

later

[The HG]

On paper, it's hard to imagine Giuliani getting the nomination. He gives the GOP the best chance of winning, I think he's the only one who could beat Edwards. But it's just impossible to imagine the grassroots of the GOP nominating someone with ALL of his social issues at odds with their supposed core issues. But he can play the ruthless dick card to the hilt, and all those GOP loyalists will be like "well, we don't like what he's on record for as far as abortion, guns, gay stuff, and all the other stuff is concerned...but you gotta admit, he does seem like a callous hypocritical dick ... and he'll win if we put him in ... what the hell, let's vote for him."

I bet you Giuliani does get the GOP nomination, and ALL those interests completely sell out their values. Giuliani has been anti-gun, and that is a huge issue in the south of course, but I bet you he finesses it enough to come off as sort of pro-gun, and wins all the gun people over with his tough talk. Dems already think of him as in the pro-violence camp anyway, so spinning things towards the pro-gun side won't hurt him any in that area. He is a tough talker, and gun people like that, even if the actual words aren't quite exactly what they'd prefer. He'll send them the right signals, if he's smart about it, and they'll vote for him. Gun people will be naturally inclined to like Giuliani. In fact, I bet there's already a poll out that says that. If I have the time maybe I'll look for it.

[pico]

ganchrow, you no longer living in forest hills?

[MonkeyF0cker]

How you guys would even consider voting for Guiliani or any other Republican for that matter after them passing the Internet Gambling and Prohibition Act is beyond me. Those Bible thumping retards can shove it.

[dante1]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow HG

I actually don't think this is











All that is the Dems playing catch-up, on faith, dirty tricks,
I wish both parties were basically the same, but unfortunately, right now they're not at all. The Republicans really know exactly how and to whom to define and sell themselves. They will always be the "small government" party no matter how big the government gets under them. They will always be the "Godly" party no matter how many unGodly acts they commit. They will always be the "tough on terrorism" party no matter how dubious their efforts turn out to be. They will always be the "anti-fag" party no matter how many of their anti-gay leaders get busted trying to make love with other men. They will always be the party of the "regular American" no matter how much their actions hurt "regular Americans" in favor of non-regular Americans. They will always be the "anti-elitism" party no matter how elitist they get. I'm not saying it's wrong for them to do all that - I mean I do think it's wrong, but that's not what I'm saying. In a sense people deserve what they get - I'm assuming there hasn't been any vote tampering yet. But I always disagree when people trot out the "both parties are basically the same" line, which you hear all the time.

Very funny and very true. How and why any "average"
American votes for these aholes is beyond me. "How does
a political party that represents 2% of the population manage
to get 50% of the vote."

[G. K. TEMUJIN]

I hope Ron Paul wins !!!!

[RonPaul2008]

Ron Paul is the only Republican worth voting for and the only Republican on the radar who can defeat Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted by picoman

i don't like any of the democrate candidates. voting republican. Guiliani is on the top of the list right now...we'll see who wins the primary.

[McBa1n]

Ron Paul!!! Sad that he won't get any play. He's great youtube time killer, however. He's got it on the money... But grassroots campaigns of 'outside the party line' guys never make it - but they do make a dent (Jerry Brown comes to mind). It'd be nice for Republicans to get back to their roots of libertarian values, not mixing their secular values with policy.

No way Rudy is going to win the Republican ticket. He's slowly being exposed and has way too much baggage. Even when he was Mayor of NY - he was very much a divisive character and not liked by most... That will come out, too. Also, when pictures of Rudy in drag get more media play, I think you will see his numbers fall. It may get votes in NYC, but...well...ya know.

I hate to say it, but Romney looks like he's going to be the Republican guy... A total paradox of 'core/fundamental' Republican values (not neocon - proper Republican), which is sort of funny (he's very socialist/democrat on many issues - and also says what polls encourage him to say to the nth degree). He's on course to win Nevada - not a huge deal - but still, it's something.

On the Dem side? It's a disaster as to what is going on. Biden and Edwards clearly have a monsterous edge in policy (very specific policy), agenda and a track record of sticking to what they believe in - but I don't know how they will do.
Clinton is just riding the 'I don't really care about policy' vote - like most of these elections go. She was the one that created all the scandal (save the blowjob) Bill went thru (Whitewater, etc)... And obviously Republicans want her to win. Garry Gnu of Great Space Coaster fame would beat her head up in an election for President. Hil-dog is by far the least experienced politically out of all the candidates. Also, she sure has taken a ton of interest money (as did, Slick), which changed her views on say -- healthcare -- immeasureably. She went from idealist to total corporate whore, like all the major players do anyway. Dems with brains know this and don't like it.

Obama is interesting - but I still don't know enough of his policy... A lot of people are on the wagon, though. He's a brilliant speaker and has that aura of 'hope' and 'integrity'.

As an independant - libertarian leaning person - It's fun to follow and find a candidate to believe in... But it's so far off. I really like Biden, Edwards and Paul a whole lot. They all have some very interesting things to say and actually have a pretty clear message. It's a shame none of that will matter. $ and whoever avoids the dirt will win... And typical moronical people will vote for whoever they think can kick the rest of the world's ass in the dirt... If you watch the Republican debates, that's what it's all about.

[ccsraj]

Originally Posted by picoman

i think it does not matter. i my mind, republicans and democrates are the same...they're all bunch of rich white wasp. obama is a uncle tom and hilary acts just like a rich wasp also. but i like the republican candidates more.

i think it comes down to whichever canidate is more lax on taxes and care less about internet gambling...that is the person i like to be the president

gay marriage, abortion, social welfare are all non issues to me. i don't think when i am old there will be a social security left, so less tax means more retirement money for all of us.

that is my two cents.

YOU ARE A PRACTICAL THINKER.

[McBa1n]

If the internet gambling thing is your issue - Ron Paul is the only Republican on your side. On the Dem side it's not very clear. There are very strong people in congress all for repealing the current ban (all democrats) - or making it allowable again. It was the Republicans that have been after gambling, however, for a long long time... Being an online bettor and voting Republican is about as bad a decision as you can make (senate or presidential). If you elect someone with 'neocon' leaning policy (like what Guiliani is doing, amongst others), you can kiss any opportunity goodbye unless Harrah's and the other big casino operators get involved in getting it regulated and legalized... Other than that, other than Hil-dog, you have to go democrat. Hildog happens to lean very hard to the right.

[BuddyBear]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow HG

I actually don't think this is true at all. It's common wisdom to say stuff like that, people think it's "wise" to say both parties are the same, but in my experience, it's not actually true. I did used to work in politics, for people who were (and still are) very entrenched in the national scene, all races we did, Senate, House, Governors, everything, all over the country, Oregon, Indiana, everywhere. And then I was actually in Ohio in '04, so I did see a lot of behind the scenes stuff up close.

The two parties are not really the same at all. The Republicans were then, at least, way way way more organized and on the ball about everything. They had Ohio mapped out street by street, and the Dems didn't. Kerry really gave that election away. His campaign was not well-run at all.

There aren't quite the Karl Rove types on the Dem side, I'm sorry to say. The Dems try to play catch-up with all the Republican crap. Like, did you see when Obama, Hillary, and Edwards when they were on CNN, interviewed by Soledad O'Brien before a "faith-based" audience and Hillary was all like "Yes, I admit that sometimes I pray for selfish things, like 'Oh God, please help me lose weight'"? Hillary hired a "faith guru" for her campaign for chrissake, and Nancy Pelosi put together a Democratic Faith Group in '05 when they realized they were getting completely f**ked every which way by the Rebublicans, and that was a big one.

All that is the Dems playing catch-up, on faith, dirty tricks, politics of fear, etc etc, all of that. The Republicans keep on running out the same stuff over and over again, and it works every time, over and over again. So the Dems try to approximate it, but it's not natural to them.

I wish both parties were basically the same, but unfortunately, right now they're not at all. The Republicans really know exactly how and to whom to define and sell themselves. They will always be the "small government" party no matter how big the government gets under them. They will always be the "Godly" party no matter how many unGodly acts they commit. They will always be the "tough on terrorism" party no matter how dubious their efforts turn out to be. They will always be the "anti-fag" party no matter how many of their anti-gay leaders get busted trying to make love with other men. They will always be the party of the "regular American" no matter how much their actions hurt "regular Americans" in favor of non-regular Americans. They will always be the "anti-elitism" party no matter how elitist they get. I'm not saying it's wrong for them to do all that - I mean I do think it's wrong, but that's not what I'm saying. In a sense people deserve what they get - I'm assuming there hasn't been any vote tampering yet. But I always disagree when people trot out the "both parties are basically the same" line, which you hear all the time.

I think you might be missing the point I am trying to make GanchHG. You are referring to different strategic and organization skills of each party......sort of media effects within political campaigns (i.e. framing of issues, agenda-setting, priming certain issues, etc....). Sure one party may be better than the other but to me that stuff is irrelevant.

My argument is that they are the same when it comes to issue positions not on campaign/strategy skills. Sure there are differences between the two parties I'll concede that but such differences are becoming smaller and smaller. It's like the concept of statistical significance....you may have two groups you are collecting data on and in all likelihood the means are going to be slightly different right or not exactly alike....but are they really different? That is are they statistically significant? Probably not...they are difference in appearance but not really that much different.

In the end both parties serve the interests of the corporate establishment who controls everything in this country from the messages you see on television to the clothes you wear to who gets to participate in the presidential debates. Candidates these days know who the master is and when the master speaks the servant has to listen. The candidates are beholden toward special interest and their corporate paymasters. In the end, candidates care very little about their constituients and their best interests.

I don't think it is far-fetched or radical to believe there are not very many meaningful differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. Ask yourself a simple question...you think anything would be different if John Kerry was in office?

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by BuddyBear

Ask yourself a simple question...you think anything would be different if John Kerry was in office?

Yes. Had John Kerry been elected President neither Samuel Alito nor John Roberts would be on the Supreme Court.

[BuddyBear]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

Yes. Had John Kerry been elected President neither Samuel Alito nor John Roberts would be on the Supreme Court.

Sure that's true there is 0 probability that these two would be nominated. However, there were Democrats who voted for these individuals and they had their chances to really oppose these two candidates and expose them but did not . Just like they did for Anton Scallia and other conservative judges who were nominated who coasted in the confirmation process. Roberts less so...but Alito much more so.

Sure there would be a difference between almost any Democratic administration (for the better obviously) compared to Bush's but I am not convinced that there would that significant effect such that a Democratic administration is the answer....it's not.

On way too many issuses the Democrats and Republicans are similar. On issues of the War on Iraq they are almost the same. Where were the Democrats in the leadup to war...they were busy cheerleading and relinquishing their authority to Bush. On healthcare the Democrats have made little advancement for universal healthcare....on issues of consumer advocacy, corporate crime, worker's rights, fair trade, pandering to Israel, etc... the Dems fail just like Republicans. Maybe they get a D or D- but this idea that simply electing Dem will solve the problems is misplaced. The Dems are beholden to thier corporate special interests as well.

Why aren't they in the process of impeaching Bush....simple, the Democrats don't want their duplicity and war criminal activities to be made public as well. It's not just Republicans who are at fault for everything that's wrong the Democrats have had a very helping hand in it....almost every Democrat (c.f. Dennis Kucinch, Barbra Lee, etc...) deserves some blame.

Okay on issues of women's reproductive rights, some civil liberty issues, etc... The Dems are beter but not so much so that the Dems have become the default party for liberals/progressive. If they nominate Hillary Clinton I think it will be a very bad thing...

[BatemanPatrickl]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

I have never seen a democracy with a more uninformed public than the American people. With a steady diet of corporately sponsored media propaganda you could make them believe anything. Very little ability for critical thinking.

In any case, anything will be a relief after the fascist neocon administration. Where presidents normally veer towards the middle, Bush's imbecile insistence to represent the extreme right has divided this country to the point where Republicans and Democrats can hardly stand the sight of each other.

Kakistocracy. That's the word that comes to mind when reflecting on the present administration. A government by those least able to govern.

My vote is that of zero confidence in this corrupted system, bought and paid for by corporations.

Before I forget, for the record, I want Cheney and his neocon cronies to stand trial for orchestrating 9/11.

I love how everyone, except you and Shamswoof, are stupid and uninformed. What makes you think your information is correct? Your opinions are just that, OPINIONS.

Provide some proof about your 9/11 theory and maybe people will not laugh at every comment you make. Youtube videos do not equal hard evidence.

[BuddyBear]

Originally Posted by BatemanPatrickl

I love how everyone, except you and Shamswoof, are stupid and uninformed. What makes you think your information is correct? Your opinions are just that, OPINIONS.

Provide some proof about your 9/11 theory and maybe people will not laugh at every comment you make. Youtube videos do not equal hard evidence.

Research shows that out of all the industrialized nations the United States tend be the lowest on several political indicators of political awareness, political knowledge, and voting.

If you break it down by individuals some key findings are

-Self-identified conservatives have lower levels of political knoweledge than self-identified liberals

-Older Americans (55+) tend to be the most informed age group

-Younger Americans tend to be the least informed politically

-The more education you have the more liberal you are likely to be and the more likely to vote Democrat

-The less education you have the more likely you are more likely to vote Republican


Just some interesting info I thought I would share....

[Dark Horse]

Red or blue, it makes little difference. Both sides of the aisle sold out to corporate interests (and behind that, private bankers) a long time ago. As soon as, no, before you have even voted these politicians have already turned around and sold your vote. They don't represent the People at all.

Private international bankers, through the Fed and other centralized banks, have complete control over our and the world economy. (the past weeks were a perfect example of this). Our government sold out to the Fed in 1913. The only recent president courageous enough to stand up to the Fed (JFK did write 'Profiles in Courage') was dead six month later. Lincoln had tried the same with an earlier version of the Fed, and didn't live to tell it either.

It comes down to this: as long as the government doesn't print its own money, but allows a private bank (the 'Fed') to print it out of thin air plus charge interest over it (the astronomical 'national debt'), we are not going to be a free country. Period. No matter which party you vote for.

We are under absolutely no obligation to pay the national debt, because it is illegal to have an outside source, instead of our government, print our money. All income tax goes to paying the national debt, every penny to line the pockets of these private bankers... (Perhaps surprisingly, we are not under any obligation to pay income tax either). Our founding fathers knew what they were doing, and our Constitution protects us against this corruption. The first Americans came to these shores to escape the feudal systems of Europe. Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer being upheld. But let there be no doubt that our present, corrupted form of government would paint our very founding fathers, were they alive today, as anarchists and criminals.

Modern Americans have taken for granted what it means to be free. Our freedom was lost, because it must be carefully protected against the enemies of freedom. These are not, as the bankers and corporations that control our politicians and media would like us to believe, some Muslim terrorists (or before that, some communists in Vietnam). The enemy is much more hidden, much more powerful, and a whole lot smarter. How do we fight back? Easy. This is the information age. The pen is mightier than the sword. It may yet take a while, but once public awareness reaches critical mass, the slave masters will be made to tremble. Until that day, America must be considered a failed experiment in freedom.

This is the issue I want our politicians to discuss. Until they do, they can basically go f*ck themselves. And please do not take my word for any of this... Here is a historical collection of related quotes:

'If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
President, Thomas Jefferson

"History records that money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”
President, James Madison

"You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out... If people only understood the rank injustice of the money and banking system, there would be a revolution by morning."
President, Andrew Jackson

"The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest.”
President, Abraham Lincoln

"I have unwittingly ruined my country… We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
President, Woodrow Wilson

"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses... This little coterie...run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen...seizes...our executive officers...legislative bodies...schools... courts...newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”
N.Y. Mayor, John Hylan

"The dollar represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government Bonds from the U.S. Treasury...[thus creating] out of nothing a...debt which the American people are obliged to pay with interest.”
Congressman, Wright Patman

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the FED. They are not government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers.”
Congressman, Louis T. McFadden

[Cheryl]

With Newt out of the picture, I'm for Fred T. & Rudy G.
Leaning toward Fred though.

[milwaukee mike]

cheryl, that is like saying you are leaning toward the dog shit that is kissing israel's ass and fighting their wars vs. the cat shit that is kissing israel's ass and fighting their wars.

please explain to me why fred visited israel more than once (on our dime) before even announcing his candidacy?

[milwaukee mike]

and i would add that the donkey shit is wearing a skirt this time around.