Well, that's 0-2 for me, because I was sure that MC would be a registered Republican.:p

To be fair, one can be opposed to voting for a woman for president without being misogynistic.

I can appreciate the reluctance. Unfortunately, in some places, women just aren't given the respect they deserve, regardless of their political position, simply because they're women. I detest the fact that that happens, but until women and men are on a level playing field - everywhere, not just in the US - I find myself reluctant to put a woman in that position. Sure, she asked for it, but that doesn't really matter (not to me, anyway).

Of course, we won't know how real of a problem this is until there's a woman in office. And Hilary sure seems strong enough to handle herself. I dunno... But, I still think that someone doesn't have to be anti-woman to be anti-woman-President.

So, just how much difference is there between a Democrat and Republican when they get elected to office? Not a damn bit.

All of the new electees have a first breakfast where they take their first stupid pill.

All of the smart people run big corporations and do not run for elected office, especially President.

Ron Paul has some genualy great ideas and others are out there in space!

He is as good a candidate as the rest of these dim wits who are in it for power tripping.

When did Giuliani become a Democrat????

This would be his own personal opinion

Sorry, but this guy's a bit too much of a Ron-bot for me.

Anyway, I don't vote in primaries since I refuse to register as any particular party and Illinois requires that.

Silly drolefille, call them Paultards! :)

(Go ahead and report me Jon1856linksposted - every time you do Huckabee gains back another pound and Mitt Romney flip flops on abortion again!)

Ok that just made me giggle.

For the sake of the thread, my opinions on the candidates:
Romney - I don't care that he's Mormon, but I don't care about him in general.
Huckabee - Doesn't believe in evolution - this scares me. Science and faith are distinct things.
Giuliani - I like some of the stuff he says, but some doesn't fly and I'm kind of just burnt out on him.
McCain - Used to have conviction, several years ago he and Bush started cuddling in public. Gee, that backfired on you didn't it?
Fred Thompson - Well, I like your acting, but eh, you just don't do anything for me.
Brownback - Who?
Tancredo - What?
Gilmore - Lorelei?
Hunter - Gatherer?
Tom Thompson - Fred's Brother?
Ron Paul - Big Talker, nothing gonna happen. Don't like the idea of abolishing the "land" bit of being born a citizen, and there's no way in hell he'd actually get done what he claims he wants to and if he were it'd be under some sort of totalitarian state. He should be a lobbyist and get some of his good views done that way.

Democrat -
Hilary - I don't hate her, but I don't like her. I'm all for a woman being president, but I won't vote for her just because she's a woman. I don't like her pushes for war.
Obama - I like his approach to politics, and I like his views. I like his ability to work with people he doesn't agree with and to reach "across the aisle" as it were.
Edwards - Eh, he's so off the radar I haven't noticed much. He may well end up as a VP nominee or surprise us all. But I think he'd end up almost tainted as the "I don't want to vote for a woman or a black man" vote. Not sure.
Biden - your time?
Dodd - what's up with people announcing themselves to Don Imus anyway?
Gravel - not sure about this "citizen's wage thing. Plus, gravel isn't exactly a noble rock... maybe marble.
Kucinich - well he opposes the Patriot Act *small yay* but have we heard from him much? No? Yeah bye bye buddy.
Richardson - Are you even still running? I hadn't noticed. Oh well.

Also on flip-flopping- why can't candidates change their minds? I mean, we do it all the time. It's not as if they're naturally blessed with extra information. Flip-flop is this buzzword that's pissing me off lately. I demand we go back to wishy-washy.

:eek::confused::confused::confused:;)
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/register.php ;););):rolleyes:

OMG ANOTHER LINK.

"By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

Nothing I posted was obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. Unless making fun of Ron Paul is against the law, which could be, since he does want to get rid of amendments all willy-nilly.

By the way, here are some links for you to peruse so you can reconsider your perception of my gender.
http://www.gammaphibeta.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Phi_Beta
http://npcwomen.org/

[quote=GeekyPenguin;1564857]OMG ANOTHER LINK.

"By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

Nothing I posted was obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. Unless making fun of Ron Paul is against the law, which could be, since he does want to get rid of amendments all willy-nilly.

quote]
You took the wrong path, just as I believed you would.
I was referring to your posting comments.
Per John:
"Just wanted to add:

Do not post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have permission from the copyright owner. This has been part of the site rules since these forums were started.

If you are posting a news article it is fine to post an excerpt/summary along with a link to the full article on the news publication's website.
__________________
John Hammell
Network Admin, GreekChat.com"

So in the future, if you have problems with anyone posting links, bring it up with John.
Not here. Truly not needed.
And BTB, my Big Sister & Best Friend is a Gamma Phi.

You totes need to stop taking the interweb so seriously. You are the one who called me a he when you reported my post, which I know because I got an IM from someone who said that you thought I was a guy. Is your best friend a SHIM? That would really be a whole different thread, although I am curious to know what Ron Paul thinks of SHIMs.

Liberal on social issues you mean.

Giuliani is, dare I use the phrase on this website, the wave of the future.

Conservatism's core principle is smaller and less intrusive government.

Governments that regulate medical procedures and marriages are not smaller and less intrusive governments.

There are a lot of people in this country who are religious but also have the common sense to know what happens when government leaders make religious-based issues their platforms.

Matters like abortion and same-sex unions have no business in politics- and this country is full of people who will never vote for someone living in the dark ages because even though they want lower taxes, they also want to know that they- or someone they care about- is not going to have their basic rights stripped away by the government on the basis that "Jesus said so."

The Bible makes it very clear that a good Christian will uphold the rule of societal law and make all people feel welcome. Beats the hell out of me then how so many Republican candidates will claim they are good Christians and then proceed to campaign not on the vital issues of running a state, but on some fear-based campaign to "save the nation from the evils at the door."

Men like Giuliani are who can save the Republican Party.

There must be a lot of local SHIMs - I went into a grocery store today, came out, and just about every car had a Ron Paul bumper sticker. That's one of the fastest ways to lose my vote.

Drolefille, that's an interesting synopsis - at least as intelligent of some of the talking heads I've heard recently. That still doesn't leave a strong winner in the bunch, or a candidate who can mend the blue/red divide in this country. As if that's possible, I suppose.

I don't know what a SHIM is, but it sounds interesting!

Drolefille, I agree, I very much enjoyed your post. My favorites were Hunter - Gatherer? and Biden - your time?

EE-BO, I always enjoy your posts as well, although I can't join you in your fondness for Giuliani, I applaud your extremely reasoned and well-presented expose on the hypocrisy that often comes out of the right-wing platform (and I was raised nestled deep in that wing, Mom used to tape Limbaugh's show, the whole 9 -- got too dark for me under all those prickly feathers!).

I wish Bill Richardson were a more serious contender for the Democratic nomination. I think John Edwards is a fine fellow and all, but I believe his one and only shot at the Executive Branch came and went in 2004. I would much rather Richardson be the other member of the triad that gets the most coverage, I think he would provide a much better comparison/contrast with the other two front runners. He is the only one with (elected) executive branch experience and front-line foreign policy experience. And he too would be a first, he is Mexican and Catholic (and greek! he was president of Delta Tau Delta at Tufts -- his bio says he was almost impeached in the early 60s when he cracked down on pot usage in the house, lol).

My father is convinced he'll be Hillary's VP candidate. If that's true, then I will be able to throw my full support behind that ticket. (Dad, btw, is a Huckabee or Romney guy -- it's really amazing I ever have any civil conversations with my family...)

Editing someone's quote is done in bad faith.