Who is this Ron Paul?
 

Anyone else see homemade Ron Paul signs EVERYWHERE in their town?

My mom said she's seeing the same thing up in Virginia. I'm wondering if it's like that everywhere. I don't remember ever having seen such grassroots support like this before...

All I know about him is a) he won't win... yeah I'm sure about that... and b) his people are very annoying on the internet and appear, at least to me, to be failing in "getting the word out" and succeeding at "annoy the crap out of people so they won't vote for him even if they liked his platform which they won't read now because they're annoyed"

Or something like that.

He has some very good general notions- but on economics he is an absolute moron, and his simplistic view of foreign policy is troubling.

Ron Paul in 2008 is Ross Perot in 1992 x 10. He has some seemingly good ideas that resonate with the simple-minded average voter at an emotional level- but he does not even comprehend the intelligent and discretion required of the office to which he aspires.

I think support for him has been so strong because a lot of the Republican base does not like Giuliani's more liberal views on social matters and because an intelligent and progressive society is never going to put a Mormon nutjob (Romney) in the Oval office.

If Huckabee looks to be the winner of the nomination- or even Giuliani (who I support)- then Ron Paul will become "Ron Who?" pretty fast.

Exaaaaaaaaccctttllyyy.

EE-BO, you're a Mod, I have a question. What does it actually take to rid the boards of a troll? Do they have to cross a particular line, or is obvious and repeated trolling reason enough for a ban? (e.g., see above)


ETA: Troll edited post to sound more sane...

Wasn't talking to you, fool. Please see that I addressed my post TO a moderator.

Your best bet is to report posts that violate the TOS and then the appropriate mods will take action. I do not moderate this particular board or have the power to ban someone- so there is not much more I can offer.

James, PenguinTrax, and John are the only ones who can ban. PM James or PT. Generally, even if the troll hasn't QUITE crossed the line, enough PMs will get them banned anyway.:D

LOL!!! They are spraypainted on old coke banners and sheets (at least that is what it looks like). When I first saw it I was thinking he was some one local or something. I have not see anymore of his signs, I guess they were not durable enouth to hold up. KapitalPhi (I can not spell his new name so RainMan) has Ron Paul in his siggy.

Ron Paul is about the only candidate that would ever make me want to vote Democrat. He's a bit of a nutjob in my opinion.

While I agree with a lot of the sentiment here (and the Perot comparison is pretty apt, as well), Paul's leanings are actually very Libertarian, and I really don't see either the aim nor the ability to resonate with "stupid" average voters. In fact, outside of his desire to be rid of the IRS (which is a view shared by about half of the major GOP candidates), most of his views would seem very fanciful to most average Americans - think about his view on drug policy, for instance.

He's about half of the perfect candidate and half complete miss for someone like me, who aligns well with the Libertarian/state's rights view on social policy but desires fiscally conservative government. However, he just misses the mark badly on some issues - being rid of NAFTA? OK, possibly - low governmental spending? OK, well, that's a great concept . . . eliminating the Federal Reserve under the guise of a strict construction of the Constitution? Well, now we're pretty far off the reservation, and I've never really heard a good defense of why he wants to do this.

And it's like this over and over again - he has pretty sound views on health care, but no plan to implement those ideas and no structure beyond "do not socialize" (which, admittedly, is a good start). His views on immigration and war are draconian and incredibly inflexible, while his views on state's rights and education seem like the most uniquely American ideas I've ever heard.

He's about 50% fantastic candidate and 50% horribly awkward - this pretty much adds up to Drolefille's "no chance to win" for the most part, but it really is fascinating to watch. Since McCain and Romney have been absolute stiffs in any sort of unscripted environment and Giuliani has struggled to gain a foothold with casuals and hardcore right-wingers, it'll be interesting to see how Crazy Ron fares in the debates today - especially if Huckabee gets drilled about his amazing half a million in reported gifts as governor and has to get defensive. It would be completely sick, but I could see him bouncing out as the winner . . . he might be the only guy who can't beat Hillary.

One never knows? Stranger things have happened in past elections.

The 50/50 is a good analogy!

50% agree and 50% do not follow his reasoning!

It will be an interesting grass roots effort won't it?;)

Have not really seen anyone I would trust to run the country anyway!

Well said.

My comment about the "simple minded" voter is reflective of my feeling that he too often comes up with overly simplistic ideas and promises that have a lot of initial emotional appeal- but just won't work. It is a style of campaigning that appeals to one's impulses- and it is really kind of insulting since even the average person can readily see where his ideas cannot work as presented.

Even under a flat tax or consumption tax, the IRS will remain in place- and they will have a lot of work to do. The agency may shrink in size with attrition, but it would still be there. If a consumption tax were created, for example, you can bet it would be applied to internet sales as well- watch out eBayers. Getting all that set up and enforcing it would keep the IRS busy for the forseeable future.

And pulling out of Iraq overnight would not work either. Candidates can say what they want- but whoever wins will, I expect, find very quickly that there is no easy next step to dealing with our current foreign policy situation. Hillary herself sees this and is very responsible about not making promises she cannot keep, even if her base wants to hear those promises.

Ron Paul would have had a real shot here- but he has been too activist in his public speeches. I think he makes a great advocate for a given position in his current role, but this is not someone who can lead a diverse nation where fast and easy solutions to problems are few and far between.

As for Hillary- I think Guiliani could beat her. Maybe Huckabee too as he attracts more attention- but only if he survives the intense scrutiny that is coming now that he is seen as a more serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

I do not think any of the other Republicans can beat her. And truth be told- while I do not agree with many of her domestic policies- in terms of competence and the potential for being a consensus builder, I think she is the strongest candidate of any party by a wide margin. I always thought she was smart, but she is really looking "Presidential" to me these days. And she certainly does not have any "gray past" issues that would make her any less desireable than the leading Republican candidates. All of them have a few pause-giving things on their record.

From the Washington Post site:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2...ates/ron-paul/
From MSNBC site:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17153378/
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can.../ron.paul.html
Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youd...ndex.html#c=15

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...nton_and_obama

I too have seen people carrying signs for him as well a few road signs.

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

Hillary's "game face" has, to my mind, taken people by surprise - I agree that she's taken to the role quite well, better than I thought she would at the least, and I don't think anyone can question her intelligence or drive on any level.

As far as competence, you're really short-shifting Romney - I don't personally like his social policies (and their inconsistency) and would shy away from voting for him, but I think he's clearly incredibly intelligent and puts on a solid (if not "businesslike") front, but only in scripted situations at this point. In terms of economic matters, I would probably take him over all the others - and that's with fully recognizing how lucky he got to gain the massive MA tax surplus when he balanced the budget there. And what are the skeletons there?

Also, I'm not sure the Mormon issue isn't a wash with the female issue, especially since the same kind of mentality will have problems with both, in my mind . . .

I'm so glad you came back on GC, EE-BO! :)

Care to explain the lack of congressional record a bit?
One could ask for just what you mean and/or looking for from her as well as any other current candidate.
Remember not all current or past candidates or POTUS even had Congressional records to show.
Just to help:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2...llary-clinton/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16123860/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can...y.clinton.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youd...index.html#c=6
http://www.reuters.com/news/globalco...hillaryclinton

Jon -

Seriously, the newsbot.org bit is fine, but the above isn't English. At all. Say what you mean.

Here's a good example of what I'm referring to:
Voting record

Hillary has certainly showed up more than the average Congressman, but pretty much at average for a Senator. Look at the "NV" issues, though - some of the ones she rails against the most, which is certainly interesting. For instance, she has a perfect Appropriations record, but a very spotty record on the Budget, one area where she assails the current administration (and for the record, I think she's right - but the record speaks for itself).

Her ability to push things through, which would seem to be a part of being President, is not particularly special, as well:
See here.

She's average or worse at sponsoring, voting on or enacting bills, which should be a negative considering public opinion polls for Congress. For all of the shit that Obama gets for inexperience, Hillary hasn't exactly made the most of her time in Congress. This is what I mean by "Congressional record" - I realize she was there, Jon. I realize Governors and other officials get elected all the time. However, look at the record and tell me what I'm missing.

POTUS=President of the United States.
Now do you understand?
Your posted argument stated out with a comment about just one current candidates' apparent lack of a Congressional/Senate record.

I just tried or attempted to point out that not all candidates have/had a record to show.
Thus some of those elected to the office of President never had one.

As for the links; thank you.

And thank you for providing some to back-up some of your augment or POV.
However it would have been rather interesting to have posted that same link for all the other candidates as well.
For us all to be able to compare the rest of the group.

in the debate today clinton kept trying to cite her experience as first lady. the debate today showed that the only candidates worth a shit in the democratic party are obama and edwards (note that i will vote any other party before i ever vote democrat).

now on the topic of ron paul, he is blowing smoke. many of his stances and what he says he will do in office just will not work. personally i think he's a lunatic and if he wants to be on the ballot in november he needs to go to the libertarian party because republicans would never put him on the ballot. huckabee or romney (i still have my doubts about him) will be the republican candidate and hopefully next president

I clearly understood the acronym, and for you to insinuate otherwise is condescending and douchey.

I was telling you that your sentence did not make any degree of sense to me, because of what I intended in my post. Wires must have been crossed - and I'll explain below:

You're being too literal - I mean that her actual Senate record is sparse, spotty at best, and not indicative of any degree of involvement that would set her apart from Joe Average Senator (and in many ways, she comes in below par).

She doesn't have a good record in the Senate, even though she served - that was my point, not that it was some sort of awkward requisite for being President. Frankly, that final assertion would have been both asinine and literally wrong, so I'm not sure why you would think that was my point, but hey - my bad, I'll be more clear in the future.


What?

Just like you said, not every candidate has a similar Senate experience to draw from, so "side-by-side" comparisons are a joke - not to mention that individual candidates should be examined for their own merits, unless you think the goal should be to elect the "lesser evil" candidate. Comparison is a beautiful thing for finding differences between the candidates, but it is not at all necessary for rational discussion. Sorry - feel free to find Mike Huckabee's veto record as Governor, if you think it's comparable . . . I don't. Meanwhile, I think Hillary's "skeletons" include her overblown Senate experience - hence, I pointed out proof of that. Life is easy, brother.

The hazards and dangers of internet "conversation":D:)
I think we are on same page.
I did a rather quick look at some of the other site and many of the records are just about equal to hers. However, as you pointed out, many other components to look at.

And as we are now finding out, many of the candidates have some sort of "skeleton" in their back ground.
Which does being it to, unfortunately, "the lesser of the evils" level. Or it at least adds that component to many of the
candidates

No one is perfect. While the US may have one of the better ways of electing officials, it too is not perfect.

If I recall correctly, the last Senator to be elected President was JFK. All of your arguments about Senate records is exactly why - Senators have voting records, Governors do not.

Huckabee scares the crap out of me, but that's because I tend to weigh social issue stances seriously. And Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, even with all of his crazy "Pauline" supporters. They're all over the place in Seattle, vandalizing public infrastructure with their crappy homemade signs. Stop it! Hillary is very intelligent and I used to love watching her interviews, but now she's gotten all politician-slick and it's totally turned me off. McCain is too old, I'm afraid, and even he is wavering on things he used to be so strong on. Giuliani is a phoney that has personal issues that make me seriously question his decency as a person.

You know what? I don't even care about "experience" anymore. NO ONE has the experience needed to be the Most Powerful Person in the World. The President is surrounded by advisors that can help in the experience category. At this point I'm looking for someone that's fresh, intelligent, of good character, and will inspire Americans again, someone that's not afraid of candor and who hasn't been spoiled by national politics yet. Frankly, someone that is different and will actually get young people in this country to care about politics again. So my support is behind Obama, who is the only candidate my Republican boyfriend also supports.

Hi KSig,

I am actually in the brokerage business. We don't deal in commodities, but I have some insight there. The kind of money Hillary made is small potatoes in that high stakes game. That story has been in press a lot, but the sole focus has been on the profit she earned based on a cash investment (which is also meaningless since in commodities a cash investment is most often used to secure or margin a far larger actual investment), and never has there been any substantive proof of wrongdoing. So I don't let that enter my mind.

Every candidate will have something that "looks" funny in their life if it is portrayed in a certain way- same would apply to any person on the planet.

And every candidate will at times "speak to the base" and get a little aggressive and superfluous with their language.

But Hillary has been noticeable restrained and intelligent when it comes to talking about Iraq and the Middle East. She understands that there are not easy solutions to this, and I think she has a great respect for the fact that she cannot make fast and easy promises with American lives, Israel's security, the flow of world oil supplies to us and our Allies and the long term future of a key region at stake. This is why she impresses me. She talks the rhetoric and does her thing, but she stops short of making irresponsible statements. PLUS she has a ready defense when she changes positions on something. This is key. "Flip-flopping" is not always a bad thing. She has been able to articulate a change in position on key issues based on the evolution of related events- and she is not afraid to do so. It is truly exciting to see someone that courageous.

As for the Mormon issue- Romney cannot win because he is a Mormon and deeply involved in the church.

The Mormon faith is a scary thing- and I am one of the majority of Christian believers who do not accept the Mormon Church as a legitimate denomination of the Christian Faith.

The Jeffords case is a key example. It took the Federal Government to track him down and arrest him, but never has much issue been made of the fact Jeffords got away with all he did with the blessing and participation of local police and court officials.

The Mormons own and control Utah- and like no other religion since the Catholics in the 1200s-1700s, the Mormons abuse the powers of State and local economic opportunity in order to shield and protect the most fanatical members among them. The Feds got Jeffords, but that town and many others have yet to be cleansed of goverment officials who support and participate in the statutory rape and molestation of underage women, and the abuse and abandonment of young men who pose a threat to town leaders marrying multiple women.

I would hire a Mormon to work at my company tomorrow and not think twice about it. I would shop at a Mormon store. I would visit Utah.

But a devout temple-worthy (aka temple-recommended) Mormon in charge of the most free and diverse nation in the world? Never.

There is a good reason why Romney does not utter the word Mormon and why he has done a lot of press conferences about "faith" and whether America can handle a President who is strong on "faith".

There is also a good reason why Pat Robertson- total nutjob that he is- endorsed pro-choice Giuliani over Romney.

In a recent poll, just over 50% of Americans said they would never vote a Mormon into office. I think the actual number is much higher because poll questions like that are somewhat intimidating to people who want to be fair despite their nagging concerns. This poll alone proves Romney could never win. There have been tons of Hillary polls asking if people would never vote for her under any circumstances- and she has never pulled the thumbs down like Romney does.

He has no chance and he never should. The Mormon Church is the only major faith in modern America that actively uses it influence to abuse the powers of State to protect religious practices that a free and intelligent society finds abhorrent. A man who is a follower of that faith has no business even thinking he is prepared to lead this country.

I challenge any Republican who wanted to impeach Clinton over an extra-marital affair to explain to me why a key national player in a religion that has actively abused the powers of State to protect child molesters should ever set foot in the Oval Office.

And, in the words of a great old Mad TV sketch,

I'M THROUGH!

:)

Good post, EE-BO - you're probably the best poster on this site, post more homey.

I don't disagree with your views on Mormonism - in fact, I'm probably much more anti-Mormon, and my problems are based on their history of institutional racism, sexism and child abuse, but at the end of the day we reach the same conclusion: as a collective, they're nuts.

Interestingly, I could never vote for Romney for totally different reasons than his faith - mostly his abortion stance, which is laughable if you look at his record as a whole. I agree with your comment that flip-flopping is appropriate given an articulated reason, which is why Romney's moves on this stance just blow me away.

Also, I appreciate the insight from the finance world - honestly, my level of expertise is essentially "have dollars, call i-banking buddies, get the lay of the land, trust them for better or worse" . . . still, though, the grand jury portion of the situation blows me away, especially since it seems comparable to, say, Giuliani's marital issues, in that both were likely somewhat wrong and somewhat common for better or worse. I hope that makes sense.

I have not followed Romney much since I would never vote for him, but would you say he has flip-flopped in a bigger way than other candidates? I hear that about him, but have not really looked into it.

Thanks for your kind words otherwise. I post when I can. And I try to be careful about politics since I am always up for a good debate- but I can get a little excited at times, and Romney is definitely a hot button for me right now.

Since it seems that the topic has moved from Ron Paul, I thought I might throw this in!


Subject: People in the White House


Views of past presidents offered by Capt. Dennis Keast (USAF, retired)
from his Air force #1 mission experiences and talking with Secret Services
agents involved in some of those missions....... Capt. Denny Keast flies for
UAL and flew many SAM's (Special Air Mission 's) for the White House.

**********************************************

I flew 4 Presidential support missions in the C-141 out of Dover
AFB, DE.. Two for President Johnson and two for President Nixon.
Johnson was a first class jerk and on the two occasions I flew for him,
if the Secret Service and their Liaison in the Pentagon hadn't
intervened, we would have had to stay on the airplane for hours while he
(Johnson) was off somewhere. Nixon never required that and the four (4)
stops we made with him he was cordial to the Secret Service and to me
and my crew.

We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service
presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson
were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents'
plane.

Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and
LBJ was a typical Texas "good ole boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and
Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match
Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.

The information below is accurate: The elder Bush and current president
Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the air crews who fly
them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that
also go, one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus
usually a press aircraft. Both Bushes made it a point to stay home
on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day
with their families.

Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally
abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from
exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her
mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness, ignored her demands and
exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presenc e.
Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The
consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her.
Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were
charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their
job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be
on a different detail. Hillary Clinton w as despised by the Secret
Service as a whole. Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable
than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal
attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for
his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him,
sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind
closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and
holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying. Many felt
sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it
instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear
that the Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and this was
true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a
"marriage of convenience." Chelsea was much closer to her father than
her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely.
Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at
or shake hands with his security detail. Still , he always displayed an
obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly
believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without
a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career.
He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody
trusted him.

Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton.
They were friendlier toward each other than either of them
were towards former President Clinton . They were not intimate, so
please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way.
Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary
but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her
or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.
Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton . Al Gore resented Bill
Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans.
His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the
Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common.
They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail.
Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined,
neither of them even liked him. Bill Clinton did have some good
qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their
security details. Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant
toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would
not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor
details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on
them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one
occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his security
detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?" Word of this
insult by the former Vice-President quickly spread and he became as
disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore
would not be elected President, and they really did have private
celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was
not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate
Al Gore's defeat.

Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's
detail. Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest
and most kind person they have ever had the privilege
of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be
taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be
asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank
you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug
to express her appreciation. There is nothing false about her. This is
her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a "breath of
fresh air." They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is
like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem
of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect
and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really
like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to
Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps
serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks
with them.. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by
their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their
family, the names of which he always remembers. They believe that he is
deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like,
love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not
know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for
him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never
changed since he began his Presidency. He always treats them with the
utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.

Please pass this on. It is important for Americans to have a true inside
understanding of their President.. And also the woman who is currently a
candidate for president..

And as some say, who can take over a Country as huge as ours and try to not only run it, but the world!

Try to hire the best advisers to help of course, but I wonder why so many have left lately?

Why has so many since and including Nixon been involved in so many dirty tricks and politics?

^^^^ I'd beware forwarding and posting emails like this one.

Snopes says that the jury is still out on whether it is legit or is a political trick, but Snopes seems to be leaning heavily toward political trick.

That said, there's a lot about it (including the notable absence of the Reagans) that makes me more than willing to sell my castle to anyone who thinks this thing is for real.

I was kinda thinking that too. Even though there are other "recollections" out there that more or less imply the same observations about these individuals, the thing that I question most would be that a current or former Secret Service agent would freely discuss these things. I guess it just seems to me that part of their "oath of office" would be that they never reveal anything about the people they are protecting or things they have seen.

Not to mention that it's not like the SAME secret service personnel protect each President and his family. For something like this to be true, me thinks you'd have to get a lot of SS folks on the protection detail to talk. It seems like an obvious ploy by the Republican party to paint Republicans as good and Democrats as bad, thereby helping whomever gets the GOP nomination.

This may be a political trick but the observations about Hilary are very believable in my eyes. If any of yall have ever seen the Manchurian Candidate she reminds me of the mother of the presidential candidate. Every time I see a picture or hear her voice I am overwhelmed by a sense of fear that this person can possibly be leading our country for four years. Her recent actions involving dirty politics just strengthens this description that pins Hilary as a "bitch".

It's called R-U-M-O-R. Even if it were true, there is no way to verify. It's among the oldest political tricks in the book.

Why do campaigns use it? Because college kids love to toss it around the internet the way we used to tell campfire stories.

Those who have been through freshman logic, or some course that requires objective thought, should be able to see through all of them.

Unfortunately Earp is not a college kid.

Her voice scares you? Damn, men really are afraid of a powerful woman, huh?

There are plenty of men in politics that could be called a$$#00!#s, but that only seems to get them victories. Do you honestly think a woman could ever be elected in this country by being sweet-as-pie? You know that you wouldn't take any woman like that seriously...she'd be seen as all mush, no substance. And now when a woman of substance stands up and speaks powerfully, in a way that she knows is the best way to get attention, you still say she's doing it all wrong? How would you propose a woman position herself as capable of leading the most powerful country in the world? Capable of, frankly, pushing other countries to work with us and/or do as we tell them? Capable of commanding the military and sending our nation's young people to war when needed, no matter the loss of life? Capable of pushing an agenda through a Congress that is made up overwhelmingly of white male lawyers? Is she supposed to do it with sugar?

You're scared of her photo and voice? Try doing what American women have done for decades of elections - sit down and listen.

Thank you, MC! I'm with you, anything that starts with "We had a neighbor..." and ends with "Please pass this on to everyone you know..." automatically makes it suspect in my book.

From the Snopes article: "As Time magazine noted as far back as 1993, cranking out spurious stories that discredited Hillary Clinton and were attributed to Secret Service agents was a known political trick:

'A Republican consultant told a network newscaster that his job was to make sure Hillary Clinton is discredited before the 1996 campaign. Each day anti-Hillary talking points go out to talk-show hosts. The rumor machine is cranking out bogus stories about her face (lifted), her sex life (either nonexistent or all too active) and her marriage (a sham). Many of the stories are attributed to the Secret Service in an attempt to give the tales credibility.'"

And that was just when she was running for Senate. Can you imagine how the machine is cranking now that she's a serious contender for President??!?

If (and I mean if, since I do not know if this is true) Capt. Dennis Keast (USAF, retired) really did publicly say all these things about former Presidents- then what a disgraceful betrayal of trust to his employers after years of having the privilege of such an amazing career.

If the American people cared about the private lives of their Presidents- it would show up on election day. And if the American people ever became overly obsessed with judging Presidential Candidates on a random set of arbitrary moral criteria at the expense of examining their qualifications and willingness to work- we will start to resemble every other disastrous tyrannical regime in human history where "morality" was the basis for government (and God help you if you did not have the same "morality" as the man in charge.)

As for Hillary, since leaving college I have met and worked with many female executives who were rewarded with the nickname "bitch" just because they were able to be as bold and aggressive as is required for men who rise to the top of their fields/organizations.

George Bush I is an exceptionally aloof individual. Granted he is polite, but he is every bit as "cold" as Hillary- and can be as snobby as anyone you have ever met. There is more old money Maine in him than Texan.

So how come he gets to be a nice guy and Hillary gets to be a bitch? I am not saying we should say Bush I is a jerk- he is not. But why does Hillary get blasted just because she is not some warm and gooey personality?

And as I said above- same happens in business. Martha Stewart is the ultimate bitch to gossipers, but there have been some downright evil CEOs in recent history who are male and who have never been portrayed as such. If a man brings in the money, he is good no matter what. But if a woman delivers results, she is still just a bitch in some minds.

But back to the diversion, who actually casts a vote based on whether somebody is mean or not? This kind of stuff makes a good media story, but anyone who is casting a serious vote cannot possibly take these things into account.

Does not, in truth, matter how old one is or educated one is. Too many people fall for these mass e-mails.

Several people in my office sent around stories/urban legends like this. And even after I showed people that they were false, I was told why would I want to stop people from talking about them?????!!!!

People just want to wish that somethings are true.

As others have already pointed out, if I receive an e-mail telling/asking me to send to everyone I know I do not.
Not before I check it with the following sites:
About com/Urban Legends, Folklore & Myths:
http://www.snopes.com
http://urbanlegends.about.com
http://kumite.com/myths/
http://truthorfiction.com/
http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/
http://www.nonprofit.net/hoax/default.htm

Talking about records, here is a rather interesting story from New York Magazine on "America's Mayor":
Rudy Has Seen the Enemy and He Is...Us

http://nymag.com/news/features/41550/

Well worth the read. I was very happy that my doctor was running late:D

No, I am not a college kid anynore, I am a graduate of my University.

I try and keep up on Political topics and have voted in every election since I turned 18 which is the voting age.

It has always been my contention that if you do not vote, do not complain.:rolleyes:

Politicals many times have feet of clay and it has become a profession, not a drive to do the best job one can do for the citizens.:mad: Dang little if at all.

Now they changed the name of Pork Bellies to something more PC correct and it still is the same under a differnt name. So, this helps you how?

If I am asuming, you are of teh middle class, when was the last time you got a tax break?

What is your cost for gas, bread, milk, eggs or any other needs for your family?

Do you have money to spend on fun things? No.

What I used to go and get two paper bags of food is now in two plastic bags. When I used to get a full tank of gas with $20.00, now I get a 1/2 a tank of gas.

So where is your extra money going?

Do yopu know any Legislatures who leave Congress poor?

They are interested in one thing only! Guess what/who=them!

I was backing Ron Paul, and read more up on him and his beleifs and he is a little/lot off the wall.

# 1, the Inner Belt will never allow him to get what he proposses. It has happened before and will continue to be the norm.