Hayden Panettiere says VOTE MCCAIN!

[Rev.Reverence]

anyone who votes the way of thier favourate celebrity really has wasted thier right to make thier own choice on how a country is run.

never mind seperation of church and state, can we have seperation of television and state

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

SERIOUSLY GAF...please stop trying to pigeon hole me into this fucking dichotomy you keep trying to limit me to...it is in bad form.

So is making assumptions.

I wasn't implying you were going to vote for Obama.

What I was saying was that Obama has less executive experience than Palin and that he is the one running for President. Where as Palin is running for Vise-President. Her becoming President relies on McCain's perfect health suddenly taking a reverse course and he dies in office.

I don't find your argument against McCain to be anything more than another way to say you wont vote for him because he is old. Age discrimination works in both directions.

Thank you for proving my point.

BTW: She was cleared of any ethics violations.

[phee]

Palin has a certain kind of experience yes... and what she portreys based on this experience scares me....

[Rev.Reverence]

So is making assumptions.

I wasn't implying you were going to vote for Obama.

What I was saying was that Obama has less executive experience than Palin and that he is the one running for President. Where as Palin is running for Vise-President. Her becoming President relies on McCain's perfect health suddenly taking a reverse course and he dies in office.

I don't find your argument against McCain to be anything more than another way to say you wont vote for him because he is old. Age discrimination works in both directions.

Thank you for proving my point.

What the fuck ARE you babbling about?

I am really leaning towards Nader...who BY THE WAY...is 2 years OLDER than McCain!...SO I would really appreciate it if you were to stop your incessant whining about this & that about why you disagree with our personal views...CALLING NAMES IS AGAINST THE RULES HERE...I have seen you calling peoples sexist & ageist..these words are as grass in your hands...you purport sadly formulated assumptions to be immutable fact; by YOUR WORD...NO..STOP IT GAF...IT IS ASININE BEHAVIOR FOR SOMEONE AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU....FURTHERMORE..YOU ARE NOT MADE TO JUDGE ME.

[savageminstrel]

You think Obama is Republican-lite? His policy proposals have more in common with Socialist ideals than Democratic ideals and are no where near Republican ideals.

Actually yes I do, I have been voting for 30 years, and have not seen any fundamental difference in the way Republicans or Democrats behave when in office. Simply put, they all take care of the corporations at the expense of the people. The best example I can point to recently is the passage of NAFTA. It was passed and shoved through congress by republicans, and was decried by the dems. The great "hero of the working man", Democrat Bill Clinton, swore up and down at my union hall that he would veto the bill if he was elected. His first official act as president was to sign it with NO COMMENT whatsoever. He set the stage for "that big sucking sound" that H.Ross Perot talked about. And don't tell me he had no choice but to sign it.... that is horse shit. He could have stood up for the American workers like he promised to do in his pre-election speeches, and instead he rolled over for the corporations just like the republicans do.

The two parties talk a different game, but act the same. Neither candidate is offering to repeal NAFTA. and get us out of the New World Order's economy. There is NOTHING in our constitution that allows for a world economy, the document states that the only purpose of this government is the welfare of the people of the United States, NOT a world corporate dictatorship. And for a president who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution to force us into a world economy at the expense of our own economy is, in my eyes, treasonous.

Yes, I see any Democrat as "Republican-lite" because, again, there is no fundamental difference in what they do once they get into office. If you choose to believe all the pre-election bullshit and hype, go right ahead... but mark my words Obama will do nothing to stop the flood of jobs out of this country, he will do what the super rich lobbyists and his corporate bosses tell him to do...as will McCain.

The so-called "ideals" that you speak of have nothing to do with reality... it is action that speaks the loudest... and the actions of both parties speak volumes and prove that they don't really care about the people, it's all about big money... and making sure that big business gets what it wants at the expense of the people they claim to represent.

But of course, that is only my opinion... having been voting in this country for longer than most of you have been alive... I would like to think I have seen and learned enough in that time to form a somewhat educated opinion on this subject... but I am sure some of you don't think so... that is your right and prerogative. But don't try and convince me of the rightness of either parties "ideals"... the facts do not support any belief that they themselves follow them.

So which one? McCain or Obama? Both supported the Socialist stickup bailout.

I can't vote for either one., since I don't believe that either one is going to do what is right for the people of this country.

*edited to correct spelling errors

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

What the fuck ARE you babbling about?

I am really leaning towards Nader...who BY THE WAY...is 2 years OLDER than McCain!...SO I would really appreciate it if you were to stop your incessant whining about this & that about why you disagree with our personal views...CALLING NAMES IS AGAINST THE RULES HERE...I have seen you calling peoples sexist & ageist..these words are as grass in your hands...you purport sadly formulated assumptions to be immutable fact; by YOUR WORD...NO..STOP IT GAF...IT IS ASININE BEHAVIOR FOR SOMEONE AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU....FURTHERMORE..YOU ARE NOT MADE TO JUDGE ME.

I'm talking about the subject at hand. Could you do me a favor and stop looking for a reason to argue with me? Instead of flying off the handle when I post something you don't understand, ask me to explain it.

btw.. all I posted was how I feel about this subject. I didn't say anything was a fact other than Palin has more executive experiance than Obama and that Obama was the one running for President. Can you refute that? Can you show me one job or political position Obama has held that is considered as an executive position?

I also stated that I thought you arguments against McCain was nothing more than bias agsinst his age. Can you explain how it is not? Your given reason for not likeing him is that Palin will become President when he dies in office. You are either assuming he will be assainanted or die of old age. Which is it?

as for judging you... are you the pot or the kettle?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Actually yes I do, I have been voting for 30 years, and have not seen any fundamental difference in the way Republicans or Democrats behave when in office. Simply put, they all take care of the corporations at the expense of the people. The best example I can point to recently is the passage of NAFTA. It was passed and shoved through congress by republicans, and was decried by the dems. The great "hero of the working man", Democrat Bill Clinton, swore up and down at my union hall that he would veto the bill if he was elected. His first official act as president was to sign it with NO COMMENT whatsoever. He set the stage for "that big sucking sound" that H.Ross Perot talked about. And don't tell me he had no choice but to sign it.... that is horse shit. He could have stood up for the American workers like he promised to do in his pre-election speeches, and instead he rolled over for the corporations just like the republicans do.

The two parties talk a different game, but act the same. Neither candidate is offering to repeal NAFTA. and get us out of the New World Order's economy. There is NOTHING in our constitution that allows for a world economy, the document states that the only purpose of this government is the welfare of the people of the United States, NOT a world corporate dictatorship. And for a president who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution to force us into a world economy at the expense of our own economy is, in my eyes, treasonous.

Yes, I see any Democrat as "Republican-lite" because, again, there is no fundamental difference in what they do once they get into office. If you choose to believe all the pre-election bullshit and hype, go right ahead... but mark my words Obama will do nothing to stop the flood of jobs out of this country, he will do what the super rich lobbyists and his corporate bosses tell him to do...as will McCain.

The so-called "ideals" that you speak of have nothing to do with reality... it is action that speaks the loudest... and the actions of both parties speak volumes and prove that they don't really care about the people, it's all about big money... and making sure that big business gets what it wants at the expense of the people they claim to represent.

But of course, that is only my opinion... having been voting in this country for longer than most of you have been alive... I would like to think I have seen and learned enough in that time to form a somewhat educated opinion on this subject... but I am sure some of you don't think so... that is your right and prerogative. But don't try and convince me of the rightness of either parties "ideals"... the facts do not support any belief that they themselves follow them.

I can't vote for either one., since I don't believe that either one is going to do what is right for the people of this country.

*edited to correct spelling errors

You have at most, voted in 2 more elections than I have. Just an FYI.

Why do you call Obama Republican-lite? Do you call McCain Democrat-lite? I mean, Why is it that Republican is your choice for a negative term?

And if you look at the actions/voting record of Obama.. a better term comes to mind, Marxist and perhaps racist. So, your label still dosn't fit.

I have to ask... Clinton was publicaly against NAFTA? That goes against every speach he made outside of your Union Hall. He was publically for NAFTA but with provisions. His support of NAFTA was one of his election talking points and major focus of his first couple months as President.

[Fin]

Why is it that Republican is your choice for a negative term?

That's a good question. I counter: Why do some people use the word "liberal" as a negative term?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The same reason some use "conservative" as a negative term. "other than me" is too long.

[Rev.Reverence]

I'm talking about the subject at hand.As am I. Could you do me a favor and stop looking for a reason to argue with me?I did not. Instead of flying off the handle when I post something you don't understand, ask me to explain it.FIRST EXPLAIN: why you repetitively ask me to defend Obama when I am not backing him? THAT reoccourance is a redundant pain in the neck.

btw.. all I posted was how I feel about this subject. I didn't say anything was a fact other than Palin has more executive experiance than Obama and that Obama was the one running for President. Can you refute that?(I was never arguing for him; just against McCain) Can you show me one job or political position Obama has held that is considered as an executive position?(never said he did)

I also stated that I thought you arguments against McCain was nothing more than bias agsinst his age.I think he looks evil...oh..YEAH & I favor an older candidate. Can you explain how it is not?How is age a point? I stated I am leaning towards an older candidate. Your given reason for not likeing him is that Palin will become President when he dies in office. You are either assuming he will be assainanted or die of old age. Which is it? I don't know. Can you argue that there is ABSOLUTELY no chance for either?

I did not like Obama by the time that Bidden became the ticket runner, so I did not research his background.

as for judging you... are you the pot or the kettle?Which one are you Gaf? You keep assuming I will defend Obama by asking me to give defenses for him.

Now Gaf...I am asking nicely...was my position on this matter clear enough?

[Rev.Reverence]

Why do you call Obama Republican-lite? Do you call McCain Democrat-lite? I mean, Why is it that Republican is your choice for a negative term?

I call them the same thing...FULL OF SHIT!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Now Gaf...I am asking nicely...was my position on this matter clear enough?

Just as clear as it was before and just as valid in my eyes.

[Rev.Reverence]

Actually yes I do, I have been voting for 30 years, and have not seen any fundamental difference in the way Republicans or Democrats behave when in office. Simply put, they all take care of the corporations at the expense of the people. The best example I can point to recently is the passage of NAFTA. It was passed and shoved through congress by republicans, and was decried by the dems. The great "hero of the working man", Democrat Bill Clinton, swore up and down at my union hall that he would veto the bill if he was elected. His first official act as president was to sign it with NO COMMENT whatsoever. He set the stage for "that big sucking sound" that H.Ross Perot talked about. And don't tell me he had no choice but to sign it.... that is horse shit. He could have stood up for the American workers like he promised to do in his pre-election speeches, and instead he rolled over for the corporations just like the republicans do.

The two parties talk a different game, but act the same. Neither candidate is offering to repeal NAFTA. and get us out of the New World Order's economy. There is NOTHING in our constitution that allows for a world economy, the document states that the only purpose of this government is the welfare of the people of the United States, NOT a world corporate dictatorship. And for a president who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution to force us into a world economy at the expense of our own economy is, in my eyes, treasonous.

Yes, I see any Democrat as "Republican-lite" because, again, there is no fundamental difference in what they do once they get into office. If you choose to believe all the pre-election bullshit and hype, go right ahead... but mark my words Obama will do nothing to stop the flood of jobs out of this country, he will do what the super rich lobbyists and his corporate bosses tell him to do...as will McCain.

The so-called "ideals" that you speak of have nothing to do with reality... it is action that speaks the loudest... and the actions of both parties speak volumes and prove that they don't really care about the people, it's all about big money... and making sure that big business gets what it wants at the expense of the people they claim to represent.

But of course, that is only my opinion... having been voting in this country for longer than most of you have been alive... I would like to think I have seen and learned enough in that time to form a somewhat educated opinion on this subject... but I am sure some of you don't think so... that is your right and prerogative. But don't try and convince me of the rightness of either parties "ideals"... the facts do not support any belief that they themselves follow them.

I can't vote for either one., since I don't believe that either one is going to do what is right for the people of this country.

*edited to correct spelling errors

+1^HaRuMpH!

[Rev.Reverence]

Just as clear as it was before and just as valid in my eyes.

Read them again & again & again until it becomes clear that I don't want a two party system...I am voting against them BOTH....KTHNXBY.

(edit to )

[Reaper]

Obama doesn't have that much experience, and he is on the top of the ticket.

I think experience hasn't been much of a help these past two terms as well. So I don't mind giving inexperience a try.

[n0Mad]

That's a good question. I counter: Why do some people use the word "liberal" as a negative term?

I think both "liberal" and "conservative" are good terms but both "Liberal" and "Conservative" are bad terms.

[sass_in_the_pants]

Actually yes I do, I have been voting for 30 years, and have not seen any fundamental difference in the way Republicans or Democrats behave when in office.

A friend asked me before, if you didn't know who was in charge, if you didn't know who was in Congress, who was in the White House, if you didn't know any of that, what, EXACTLY, in your day to day life would tell you who was in charge?

I couldn't answer.

I still can't.

It's a good question.

[Rev.Reverence]

A friend asked me before, if you didn't know who was in charge, if you didn't know who was in Congress, who was in the White House, if you didn't know any of that, what, EXACTLY, in your day to day life would tell you who was in charge?

I couldn't answer.

I still can't.

It's a good question.

^G*D

[savageminstrel]

You have at most, voted in 2 more elections than I have. Just an FYI.

Why do you call Obama Republican-lite? Do you call McCain Democrat-lite? I mean, Why is it that Republican is your choice for a negative term?

And if you look at the actions/voting record of Obama.. a better term comes to mind, Marxist and perhaps racist. So, your label still dosn't fit.

I have to ask... Clinton was publicaly against NAFTA? That goes against every speach he made outside of your Union Hall. He was publically for NAFTA but with provisions. His support of NAFTA was one of his election talking points and major focus of his first couple months as President.

No, in fact he was not a public supporter of NAFTA "with provisions". I remember, and I am surprised to hear can say that. I remember his promises to veto the bill..... but please, if you would, find the supposed NAFTA support speeches he made, I am curious to see those. I doubt they exist to be honest.

This is getting really ridiculous... believe all the hype and BS if you like.. but stop trying to convince me please, I know better.

[Rev.Reverence]

No, in fact he was not a public supporter of NAFTA "with provisions". I remember, and I am surprised to hear can say that. I remember his promises to veto the bill..... but please, if you would, find the supposed NAFTA support speeches he made, I am curious to see those. I doubt they exist to be honest.

This is getting really ridiculous... believe all the hype and BS if you like.. but stop trying to convince me please, I know better.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

No, in fact he was not a public supporter of NAFTA "with provisions". I remember, and I am surprised to hear can say that. I remember his promises to veto the bill..... but please, if you would, find the supposed NAFTA support speeches he made, I am curious to see those. I doubt they exist to be honest.

This is getting really ridiculous... believe all the hype and BS if you like.. but stop trying to convince me please, I know better.

OK...

Clinton Dispenses NAFTA Pact to Skeptical AFL-CIO

NAFTA Engulfs Clinton Team: Defeat Would Be 'Catastrophic'

Remarks on Naming William M. Daley as NAFTA Task Force Chairman and an Exchange With Reporters

Here is a list of news articles from 1993 about Bill Clinton and his support of NAFTA

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm not the one believing hype and BS here.

[Head Wreck]

can i just say, thier both politiccians

to get into a position such as the run for president thier dirty. clean politicians (if aby exist at all) are kept away by little coeteries of malignant narcasists.

in short thier all dirty bullshitters

[Rev.Reverence]

can i just say, thier both politiccians

to get into a position such as the run for president thier dirty. clean politicians (if aby exist at all) are kept away by little coeteries of malignant narcasists.

in short thier all dirty bullshitters

Ah...the refreshing sight of British reason.

[Head Wreck]

just someone who's had to deal with politicians POV.