Which Republican Will Be Elected President in 2008?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kstar
But the point he is trying ot make is that it is IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM.

It is not in the Democratic Party platform, some Democrats disapprove of it, but don't believe that it should be a national issue.

Where in the Democratic Party platform does it say that you accept gay marriages?

Please also point out what the all-encompassing Republican constitution is that states the exact opposite of the Democrat platform.

-Rudey

[kstar]

It's not, but it isn't in the Democratic Platform at all. The Republican Part Platform does however, outline that they want a Constitutional amendment to Outlaw gay marriages.

<i>Please also point out what the all-encompassing Republican constitution is that states the exact opposite of the Democrat platform.</i>

What the hell are you saying? Republican constitution? Are they claiming that they uphold the constitution now? Even though they pass laws that infringe on our civil liberties?

Or are you saying that the Democratic party platform has to have a section that states that that plank of the Republican platform is wrong? In which case, you're silly, since some Democrats are against it, but most (the party's leaders included) feel that the federal government has no business in it.

And personally, I don't think that there will be a Republican president in 2008. Usually when countries have a "return to conservativeness and religiosity" it only lasts for 5-10 years. And the economy is not doing better, ask any economist, this is a temporary upswing.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kstar
It's not, but it isn't in the Democratic Platform at all. The Republican Part Platform does however, outline that they want a Constitutional amendment to Outlaw gay marriages.

Oh I see what you're saying. You can't show me the Democrat's "platform" that says they endorse gay marriages. Ah, I see.

Originally posted by kstar
<i>Please also point out what the all-encompassing Republican constitution is that states the exact opposite of the Democrat platform.</i>

What the hell are you saying? Republican constitution? Are they claiming that they uphold the constitution now? Even though they pass laws that infringe on our civil liberties?

Why in the world do I have to deal with such BS on a consistent basis on this website? It seems that you "special" folks are also rather adamant about placing blame for your faults on us smart folks ("what the hell are you saying") and in quite a rude manner. Read what I said. And if you can't stay on topic (civil liberties), if you can't read (nobody referred to the American constitution or the bill of rights), and if you want to lie (Republicans pass laws that infringe on our civil liberties when laws are passed with Democrats supporting them) then try to keep quiet.

Originally posted by kstar
Or are you saying that the Democratic party platform has to have a section that states that that plank of the Republican platform is wrong? In which case, you're silly, since some Democrats are against it, but most (the party's leaders included) feel that the federal government has no business in it.[/B]

You shouldn't pretend to be educated when you are not.

Originally posted by kstar And personally, I don't think that there will be a Republican president in 2008. Usually when countries have a "return to conservativeness and religiosity" it only lasts for 5-10 years. And the economy is not doing better, ask any economist, this is a temporary upswing. [/B]

Stop making things up. The cycles in political power are 40 year cycles. They are based on identification with policies through different generations. If you actually read instead of making things up, you could look into Robert Fogel's writings.

And please, please don't talk about the economy. Surely if thinking, reading, analyzing are difficult then the other major aspect of economics (quantitative skills) would definitely be lost on you.

-Rudey
--Enjoy.

[kstar]

Wow, you attack my education and call me "special"?

Yet you can't grasp the simple fact that I was stating that the Democratic party DOESN'T endorse gay marriage. They also DON'T want to outlaw it, they just don't believe that it is something for the federal government to decide.

And the topic of this thread isn't gay marriage, so people have already devolved off topic, including you.

As to making things up, I admit that I didn't check my sources. I'm sorry that I relied on a political analyst that is writing her docorate on the subject, but I did.

And why would thinking, reading, and analyzing be difficult for me? Among the degrees that I've earned, a BA in Economics is one of them.

As for you Rudey, you've certainly lived up to your name. Most of your attacks on me were ad hominim and quite rude, which makes me think that you have no defence to those points.

[Rudey]

I really tore your arguments apart. Please stop. You post things you don't know, put out false facts, and now also claim that we all took this topic off track so you can hide?

Oh you have an Economics degree from boondock U? Good job. I'm sure you're using it well.

Again, since you can't read and post jibberish:

1) The Democrats do not have a platform embracing gay marriage.
2) If you can find published platforms for both parties that specifically discuss how the party and its members accept or reject gay marriage, please show us.

Keep talking your way into a hole. Oh and by the way special girl, Rudey does not mean rude. Stop insulting me with name calling after you abrasively and rudely posted jibberish to me in your first post ("what the hell").

-Rudey
--Rob tell her that I only get worse

Originally posted by kstar
Wow, you attack my education and call me "special"?

Yet you can't grasp the simple fact that I was stating that the Democratic party DOESN'T endorse gay marriage. They also DON'T want to outlaw it, they just don't believe that it is something for the federal government to decide.

And the topic of this thread isn't gay marriage, so people have already devolved off topic, including you.

As to making things up, I admit that I didn't check my sources. I'm sorry that I relied on a political analyst that is writing her docorate on the subject, but I did.

And why would thinking, reading, and analyzing be difficult for me? Among the degrees that I've earned, a BA in Economics is one of them.

As for you Rudey, you've certainly lived up to your name. Most of your attacks on me were ad hominim and quite rude, which makes me think that you have no defence to those points.

[Optimist Prime]

Our Constituion is not Republican, it is Federalist. We declared our Federation of Soveriegn States a single republic in order to better perserve our glorious and eternal union.

[KSigkid]

I honestly don't recall seeing anything in the platform asking for an ammendment. I recall seeing mention of the DOMA, but wasn't that also a bill signed and endorsed by President Clinton?

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
There are no presidential elections in 2006.

No but it'll be alot clearer on who is ACTUALLY running for election.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by Rudey
Oh I see what you're saying. You can't show me the Democrat's "platform" that says they endorse gay marriages. Ah, I see.



.

Here you go Rudey, enjoy.

I glanced over it and I didn't see anything about gay marriages period. But I'll let the board tear it to shreds or big it up. Whatever...


Democratic Party Platform

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
Here you go Rudey, enjoy.

I glanced over it and I didn't see anything about gay marriages period. But I'll let the board tear it to shreds or big it up. Whatever...


Democratic Party Platform

That platform is outdated and refers to Kerry being the best possible president frequently.

Also, this document gives the basic political statement that serves no purpose. It says marriages should be defined through state rights. The Democrats have refused to say they support gay marriage without any attached footnotes. Some say that through a combination of this ambivalence and a push by some Democrat politicians towards being accepting of it, many undecided and non-aligned voters voted for Bush. You can believe it if you want or just reject it.

At the end of the day, people like IowaStatePhiPsi can't say Republicans are against gay marriage and Democrats support gay marriage. Cheney very much support his lesbian daughter who was heavily involved in his campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans are the gay Republican wing. Each political party pulls together different viewpoints.

We can get back to the topic at hand, but it's funny how IowaStatePhiPsi consistently posts this garbage even after the fricking election is over.

-Rudey

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by Rudey
That platform is outdated and refers to Kerry being the best possible president frequently.

Also, this document gives the basic political statement that serves no purpose. It says marriages should be defined through state rights. The Democrats have refused to say they support gay marriage without any attached footnotes. Some say that through a combination of this ambivalence and a push by some Democrat politicians towards being accepting of it, many undecided and non-aligned voters voted for Bush. You can believe it if you want or just reject it.

At the end of the day, people like IowaStatePhiPsi can't say Republicans are against gay marriage and Democrats support gay marriage. Cheney very much support his lesbian daughter who was heavily involved in his campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans are the gay Republican wing. Each political party pulls together different viewpoints.

We can get back to the topic at hand, but it's funny how IowaStatePhiPsi consistently posts this garbage even after the fricking election is over.

-Rudey

It's the most recent one I could find I saw that you wanted to know the Platform. Personally I'm not too interested in all of that. I'm more interested in who has my best interest. At this moment (and this is only me) I felt that Kerry did. But I also t hink that McClain is a great guy..

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Rudey
That platform is outdated and refers to Kerry being the best possible president frequently.

Also, this document gives the basic political statement that serves no purpose. It says marriages should be defined through state rights. The Democrats have refused to say they support gay marriage without any attached footnotes. Some say that through a combination of this ambivalence and a push by some Democrat politicians towards being accepting of it, many undecided and non-aligned voters voted for Bush. You can believe it if you want or just reject it.

At the end of the day, people like IowaStatePhiPsi can't say Republicans are against gay marriage and Democrats support gay marriage. Cheney very much support his lesbian daughter who was heavily involved in his campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans are the gay Republican wing. Each political party pulls together different viewpoints.

We can get back to the topic at hand, but it's funny how IowaStatePhiPsi consistently posts this garbage even after the fricking election is over.

-Rudey

Let's go a step further, and see if we can get a response . . .

Democrats, I hate to say this, but the Democratic Party pretty much tacitly denied the rights of gays to have marriages by copping out with the "state's rights" angle. They know as well as I do that marriages are not implicitly a states' issue, according to the courts, because of the national need for standardization. Instead, they clung to a quasi-constitutional excuse for not platforming at all.

Even worse, in doing this, they allowed a large number of states to ban gay marriages on election day, a point in which they had zero to negative momentum. They essentially cost homosexual men and women in these states the ability to achieve the rights that straights have.

Now, was this an error of commission or omission? Obviously it was more likely omission, but honestly I think that, in pragmatic terms, if I were a gay man looking for the ability to engage in a civil union, I would be just as heated at the Dems as the GOP.

I'm a Republican, and I'm very much in favor of allowing gay couples to be recognized as legally married. Weird huh.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

The April 2005 issue of Runner's World magazine has an article on Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (Since March 2003 he has lost over 100 pounds by running and changing his diet). The article has the following:

"Governor Widebody is history, the loser of a hostile takeover by Skinny, as President George W. Bush called Huckabee during a stump speech. The once corpulent public servent, who's been mentioned as a possible 2008 contender, beamed at his new nickname."

I may not agree with his positions on several issues, but reading about how he has changed his health and has gone from barely able to walk a block and on diabetic medications to running marathons and diabetes-free has garnered respect for the man.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4347607.stm

Rice 'will not run' for president
Condoleezza Rice has apparently ruled out a 2008 presidential bid, after only two months as US secretary of state.

Ms Rice is seen as the rising star of the Republican Party, and has been touted as successor to George W Bush.

She was repeatedly asked about her future on US TV shows this weekend.

"I have no intention. I don't want to run," she told NBC's Tim Russert on Meet the Press, adding finally: "I won't run."

Condi v Hillary?

Russert showed an unofficial website called Americans for Rice, which is soliciting donations to support a bid for the presidency.

It advertises bumper stickers and a song entitled "Condoleezza will lead us".

Commentators have been speculating on an all-female contest, with Ms Rice going head-to-head with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible challenger for the Democratic nomination.

"I won't. How's that? Is that categorical enough?" said Ms Rice after persistent questioning on the ABC channel.

Last month a survey in the US showed 81% of people would vote for a woman for president.

Of those questioned, 42% thought Ms Rice should run for the White House.

That compared to 53% who thought Mrs Clinton should stand.

'Candy fluff'

Many commentators say it is still too early to say whether Ms Rice will be a realistic candidate in 2008.

Larry Sabato, who directs the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, told the AFP news agency that Mrs Clinton is a more solid bet.

"Hillary Clinton is certainly real - she's the most real candidate on the Democratic side so far," he said.

Talk of a Rice campaign, in contrast, "is cotton candy fluff generated by those of us who pine for the intense days of a presidential campaign that is still three years away".

[citydogisu]

New York Governor George Pataki was in Iowa over the weekend and backed Stop Hillary Now- a PAC to stop Hillary Clinton if she runs for President... rumors over coffee this morning was that he'll throw his hat in the big ring by late September in order to stump speech for mid-cycle elections.