Libertarians are too closely intwined with laissez fare capitalism. Some things should not be left to the free market, like the Fire departments or interstate highways. I don't want to have to write a check to the local FD to extinguish my home. If it wasn't for that, I would probably lean a little more to that side.

Democrats are showing today that it's never too late to fu(k up an easy victory, at least that's what being reported by the talking heads. Reports are starting to hint at possible lawsuits over the Michigan delegates. Disenfranchised backers or independents may decide to step out of that sandbox and vote R with the nice old man from Arizona, and he we go again. (not necessarily my opinion, just repeating the repeaters)

Republican's? Well.....I could go on all day about that, but it's useless. I would like Paul, but that whole thing about him repealing the 16th amendment sort of makes him sound like a whack-job. How the hell does he think he's gonna get that done?? Can anybody really campaign on that??


They all suck, ....again...SH|T

Did you forget about the "free speech zones"? Or is free speech OK only when you're caged inside a chain link fence?

Slab...I did in fact say that I like Ron Paul...he's a Republican, last I heard...some might say he's one of the few actual Republicans that are left...hell, Bill Clinton was a way better Republican than virtually all of them that call themselves that now.

Fish on...

Todd

I'm not voting for any of these people.


Vhawk gets my vote as a write in!

I feel like an idiot, but maybe someone here can help me out. I went to the local republican caucus, and left as more confused about the actual cacusing procedures then when I went in. The way it was explained to us, the precincts all elect a delegate, who moves up to the county caucus on March 12th, on that date, he must vote on the first vote the way his precinct directed him. From here on it got fuzzy. I understood that if no clear winner came out of the first vote, then the negotiations began. How the local delegates combine to form the delegates going to the state conference, and how votes are combined, well, I don't think anyone there really knew. My question and thought is this. With the vote so divided, what are the odds that the huckabee , ron paul paul, and uncommitteds will combine to take down McCain. The mood from our caucus was clearly anybody but McCain, to at least send a message out that he is to liberal. I got the opinion that there would be a lot of negotiation with the sole purpose of keeping McCain from getting it.
Looking at the way the Media is covering it, the non-committeds are ignored, and they seem to say a small lead guarantees it for McCain. Like I said, I am total confused.
Rather than argue about politics on this one, does anyone know how the actual delegates are appropriated for each party and how the county and state delegates are chosen?
Thanks

Apparently you've learned your lesson...

There was a home heating oil delivery truck stolen in the backwoods of Appalachia a few days back and it was all over FOX 'news' as an Al Queda Terrorist Threat. Apparently the Hatfields & McCoys let their Terrorist Hunting Permits (#091101) on the backs of their trucks lapse.

Osama bin Laden then moved in under their porch with the hound dogs.

I can agree with the fact that whether D or R, your rights are in a certain amount of jeopardy when those candidates hang out on the fringe, (at least I think that's what you are getting at). The right of peaceful assembly and the right to free speech fall under the same Amendment I, but I have to view the two as separate freedoms. The KKK has a right to say pretty much whatever they want in their exercising of their first amendment right to free speech, they also have the right to join in a PEACEFUL assembly, again under the 1st Amend. I don't agree with their message, and I don't like seeing them march down Main with a police escort, but I'm not willing to take their rights away because I disagree. As long as they are not hurting anybody or doing any damage to property, they are protected under the same constitution that I am. Some idiot yelling "fire" in a theater may face restitution lawsuits, but I don't think they would get a ticket for saying something stupid. Where do you draw the line? Free speech zones just epitomize that Orwellian agenda that seems to be growing at a rapid rate for the past 20 yrs. So, I guess what I'm getting at, is the candidate that will stand up and repeal the Patriot act would be my first choice for Pres, but I don't recall which candidate that is right now.

I just heard that the telecom companies are gonna get their immunity, I have to associate this with a violation of Amendment IIII. Sorry, rights are eroding as we speak.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9870147-7.html?tag=nefd.blgs

How are we going to save social security?

Mandatory euthanasia for Baby Boomers. They've done enough damage already.

at what age irie?

We'll just start with everyone Born in 1945 and get the others as they reach 65. We'll stop when I stop seeing aged couples out for a walk in the park wearing matching grey pony-tails & dressed in matching Mountaineering outfits walking dogs with Gore-Tex booties on thier paws, and old guys dressed in top-end ski clothes parking thier fat asses in the ski lodge but never actually getting on the slope.


We can just taint the nation's Viagra & HRT meds with Sodium Cyanide. It'll save ammo & money.

cheaper than universal health care.

Maybe we could just start at 60

We would have to start with a cleansing of those collecting now, would we not?

Naw, the WWII Generation is dying off pretty fast from all that smoking & drinking. Besides, they've never been nearly as whiny & selfish.

so how are your parents?

t Chasbo,
What if we started by implementing a new program for children being born now. If we started by putting aside $5000.00 for each child when they were born and stuck it into a seperate account that would be used to fund a homeowners financing program. Parents could contribute a set amount to the fund tax-free like an IRA, with the money contributed refundable if the child dies, but the remainder or any unused funds going back to fund the program. The program would be backed by the federal government, guaranteeing a return of no less then 5%. With the laws of compound interest the initial investment should be plenty to fund the entire program. The advantage is that a large portion would be paid in interest by each recipient. If there is too much money available, the excess could be used to fund commercial loans or put into approved mutual funds. Perhaps a certian percentage would be allowed to be delegated by individuals into different investments, but would not be guarranteed.
In the short run, it would cost us lots, but if the funds were never touched or used for other things, it would be much cheaper. We could even try to make highend earners pay it themselves or pay for it by removing the tax credit for children for the first 5 years of their life. We would have to keep paying social security for a while, but we wouldn't have to worry about replenshing it.
Thats my long term solution to social security.

ahh cradle to grave, very interesting.


and considering 4 million live births per year we are only laying out $20 Billion..


but wait ,next we have to look at those that don't make it to 65 ! Talk about a rebate.

I believe that our stupid commander in chief suggested, that younger workers should be able to invest 3% of what is now taken out of their paychecks for SS in private accounts. That 3% would amount to about $1.80 per $1000 to a worker earning $20/hr. And the Dems cried bloody murder and have suggested nothing else other than hinting that more taxes will be needed.

If a candidate would come up with a solution we would have a winner. Fred Thompson had a plan but no one could hear it over his grandpa snoring and snorting sounds.

Chasbo, that avatar is giving me the wilies. Ugggghhhhh....