I guess this fits all the other gus candidates!

[jackley]

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher
whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor
struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got
around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a post
turtle.' Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him
what a post turtle' was. The old rancher said, 'When you're driving
down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle
balanced on top, that's a post turtle.'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so
he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by
himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do
while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb asses
put him up there to begin with.'

[Swagerman]

Yeppers, the donkey party put him up there...all right -- er all left.

Mc Cain comes drivng along and stops, places the post turtle in the middle of the right lane...a semi truck is puffing diesel smoke and roaring towards the PT who is starting to stick his neck out to see what all the racket is.

Jim

[Junior1942]

You just called our next president a turtle.

[montana_charlie]

You just called our next president a turtle.
Are you referring to the candidate who wants us to 'turn turtle'?
CM

[corvette8n]

Who ever gets to be president will get called a whole lot worse things than Turtle.

[chickenstripe]

Obama was the best thing that could have happened to the Republican Party.

IMHO he was the most unelectable of the two.

[Junior1942]

Are you referring to the candidate who wants us to 'turn turtle'?
CMNope, I'm referring to the candidate who doesn't want us in Iraq in 2108.

[Ricochet]

Obama was the best thing that could have happened to the Republican Party.

IMHO he was the most unelectable of the two.
I'm hoping that's true. It's my feeling that it is, I believe he has a lot of weaknesses that haven't yet had much exposure.

[Boerrancher]

The Dems and the media did not point out all of his shortcomings and many of his weaknesses. I think this is because the White Dems are so afraid of loosing the Black vote that they refused to throw Obama under the bus. When all the bad stuff about Obama starts to come out it will be those hate mongering, racist Republicans and their usual dirty tricks. The rich white man keeping the brother down is how it will be seen and played in the media. All of you watch and see.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch and Vote for Bob Barr(L) in 08,

Joe

[dominicfortune00]

Don't count Hillary out yet.

She said she 'suspended' her campaign, not ended it.

Wonder what tricks she has up her sleeve.

[felix]

(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator).....

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC , 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applica tions, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.



Thank you for your assistance.

Name withheld on purpose. ... felix

[singleshotbuff]

You just called our next president a turtle.


Puke.

Sorry.

Would someone please, without using the words Bush, McCain or Republican, please explain to me what qualifies B.O. to be president. By qualifies, I don't mean what makes him eligable, but what QUALIFIES him to lead our nation. I don't care who or what his is NOT (Bush/McCain/Repub), I want to know what EXACTLY he stands for that should cause me to vote for him. He doesn't seem to be a friend of anyone who enjoys our shared passions of gun ownership/use and freedom. Oh, and don't tell me I should vote for B.O. because he will "bring the troops home", that is a crock of BS. Our troops will be in Iraq for years after the next president leaves office. Cripes, we're still in Korea.

Sorry, rant off.

SSB

[quietmike]

Puke.

Sorry.

Would someone please, without using the words Bush, McCain or Republican, please explain to me what qualifies B.O. to be president. By qualifies, I don't mean what makes him eligable, but what QUALIFIES him to lead our nation. I don't care who or what his is NOT (Bush/McCain/Repub), I want to know what EXACTLY he stands for that should cause me to vote for him. He doesn't seem to be a friend of anyone who enjoys our shared passions of gun ownership/use and freedom. Oh, and don't tell me I should vote for B.O. because he will "bring the troops home", that is a crock of BS. Our troops will be in Iraq for years after the next president leaves office. Cripes, we're still in Korea.

Sorry, rant off.

SSB

He is a race baiter, class warfare, victimhood mentality socialist. It's a shame those qualities have so much appeal by so many Americans.

[AkMike]

He's a Marxist with big ears.

[357maximum]

You just called our next president a turtle.

Junior

I really wish the democratic party was actually the way you think it is....it was...but not no longer.....an old school southern democrat would be a welcome sigh of relief for us all....but the only kind of democrat left standing and willing is that california kind o' democrat....sorry junior...you are holding onto ideals long since gone.

I can not in clear concience vote for a man who would allow the war to come to us....I prefer we go to it and have it happen somewhere else....not in my backyard thank you very much....we are not french....lets stop acting like it eh!


Michael

[EMC45]

QuietMike, you aren't so quiet, but I agree with you and cheer!

[chickenstripe]

singleshot buff,

I believe you strike at the heart of the matter, and the underlying reason for the starting of this thread..... I don't believe you will get a clear/concise answer (with all due respect, even from junior).

[Junior1942]

singleshot buff,

I believe you strike at the heart of the matter, and the underlying reason for the starting of this thread..... I don't believe you will get a clear/concise answer (with all due respect, even from junior).Here's your "clear/concise" answer straight from the source:

"Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

It doesn't say a word about military service or membership in right wing organizations.

[jackley]

Well the vast majority of the people on this board and myself and you to Junior qualify. But I know I'm not qualified to. And the vast majority on this board are not qualified.

I don't think our founding fathers would really care for a person that attends a anti american church for 20 years ( and gives them more money a year then I made as a cop for most of my career) and then say's " Well he never said those things when I was there." He must of attended only on anti white sunday's.

He couldn't even pass a background test. With his assoc. with ( now his name escapes me,) the cop killer that he is good friends with.

Being a cop and being around this type of person is not good. Its scary what he may do.

This B.O. is not someone. that I think will guide our country in a direction that we here would want it to go.

I know our choices are not what we would hope them to be this year. But we had better make the best choice for us and our next generations.

I think the lasting effect of this Presidency will be the Supreme Court. And who he may appoint is what we should be looking at for the future of our beliefs

Jerry

[45 2.1]

Here's your "clear/concise" answer straight from the source:

"Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

It doesn't say a word about military service or membership in right wing organizations.


The man wanted this: "I want to know what EXACTLY he stands for that should cause me to vote for him.", not what you gave.

Maybe a clear/consise answer to that question would illuminate your reply somewhat.

[testhop]

ok Fokes
this election will make history
it will be the first time that 2 damocrats( yes i spelled it right) ran for the office of presedent
of the U.S.A. the more i hear about them the more i like donald duck

[Ricochet]

How about daemocrats? :mrgreen:

[Junior1942]

>The man wanted this: "I want to know what EXACTLY he stands for that should cause me to vote for him.", not what you gave.

How's this: he stands for at least 4 years and maybe 8 years of change in the way the White House operates this country. But if you think the last 8 years of Republican leadership has been good for the country, then vote for McCain. But don't voice that opinion in public unless you like people laughing at you. Many Americans think the last 8 years of Republican leadership has almost destroyed this country. I believe a solid majority of Americans want anything resembling GWB leadership out out out. We shall see in November. Get ready for a new and far better way of conducting national business.

[45 2.1]

How's this: he stands for at least 4 years and maybe 8 years of change in the way the White House operates this country. Yes, but how? What does he stand for? But if you think the last 8 years of Republican leadership has been good for the country, then vote for McCain. I don't like any of the so called "choices" presented. They look to be the opposite sides of the same house and owner. But don't voice that opinion in public unless you like people laughing at you. Many Americans think the last 8 years of Republican leadership has almost destroyed this country. I would say that has been the case for a very long time, but in past few years the agenda has acelerated quite a bit, I believe a solid majority of Americans want anything resembling GWB leadership out out out. For what, that is whats being questioned. We shall see in November. Get ready for a new and far better way of conducting national business. I sincerely hope that the future will be better, but the way things are going, considering what is being laid before us, it will not be so.

[Ricochet]

I couldn't agree with you more about Bush, Junior. Good riddance. But McCain's not another Bush. I'm not real happy about him, but I'm plumb scared of Obama. Elections just about always come down to picking the lesser of the evils, and I can't believe that's Obama.

[Bret4207]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't......

[trickg]

>The man wanted this: "I want to know what EXACTLY he stands for that should cause me to vote for him.", not what you gave.

How's this: he stands for at least 4 years and maybe 8 years of change in the way the White House operates this country. But if you think the last 8 years of Republican leadership has been good for the country, then vote for McCain. But don't voice that opinion in public unless you like people laughing at you. Many Americans think the last 8 years of Republican leadership has almost destroyed this country. I believe a solid majority of Americans want anything resembling GWB leadership out out out. We shall see in November. Get ready for a new and far better way of conducting national business.
He represents 4-8 years of change, but is change always a good thing? Change for the sake of change can be a pretty slippery slope and you can wind up worse off than before, and believe me, we certainly could wind up worse off than before.

B.O. preaches about change, and he pontificates about all of the wonderful things he's going to do when (if!) he is elected, but I have yet to hear anything convincing from him that describes how he's going to accomplish all of these lofty ideas.

Something else that I feel needs to be addressed is the eroneous idea that McCain is simply going to maintain the status quo. Has ANY President in history ever simply continued on with how business was done under the leadership of their predecessor? No. McCain and Bush are two completely different people with different ideas about how things should be run, and I believe McCain will do some major house cleaning if he is elected.

The truth of the matter is, BOTH candidates represent change - the differences in how things will change lies in the ideologies of their respective parties, although frankly, John McCain has always been considered a maverick by the GOP.

Something else I would like to point out is the similarity between this upcoming Presidential election and the last election held for the Governor of Maryland. Bob Ehrlich (R) the incumbent Governor ran on his record - he did not raise taxes, he eliminated the debt that his predecessor left him with, he balanced the budget, he made great strides in cleaning up the Chesapeake bay, and in a very real way, in spite of the fact that the very democratic General Assembly tried to thwart him at ever step, the state was MUCH better off than when he took office. (As a side note, he also tried like heck to help out the City of Baltimore, but was thwarted by the Mayor, Martin O'Malley(D) who wanted no such help from a Republican.)

On the other hand, his challenger, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D)(should be spelled "Owe'Malley") in spite of having a dismal record as the Mayor of Baltimore, promised Marylander's the world in a very abstract, "pie in the sky" kind of way. He told the good citizens of Maryland everything they wanted to hear and made all kinds of promises without giving any details regarding how he was going to accomplish those things. Well, the good citizens of Maryland booted the guy who made things better and elected Martin Owe'Malley, and guess what - here we are, back in debt, taxes have been raised, and in general we are much worse off than we were under his predecessor. All of this with a General Assembly who votes in virtually any proposal he makes!

O'Malley promised change - all kinds of it. Well, we got it - unfortunately, only it didn't even remotely resemble the change he promised us. So I ask you - do you really believe that Obama is going to be able to deliver any of what he is telling Americans he will with his "pie in the sky" promises, or will the country mirror the state of Maryland, and we'll be 2-3 years down the road wishing like heck we had voted for John McCain?

[quietmike]

>The man wanted this: "I want to know what EXACTLY he stands for that should cause me to vote for him.", not what you gave.

How's this: he stands for at least 4 years and maybe 8 years of change in the way the White House operates this country. But if you think the last 8 years of Republican leadership has been good for the country, then vote for McCain. But don't voice that opinion in public unless you like people laughing at you. Many Americans think the last 8 years of Republican leadership has almost destroyed this country. I believe a solid majority of Americans want anything resembling GWB leadership out out out. We shall see in November. Get ready for a new and far better way of conducting national business.

Great! He meets the minimum requirements to be able to hold the office and he isn't Bush. Sounds like a glowing resume' to me. :groner:

How about his rabid anti-gun stance, his support of a U.N. doctrine that will disarm all civilian populations.

Instead of people being responsible for their own actions he wants to "tax the rich" to "help the poor". Nevermind there has been a war on poverty since FDR and we've wasted trillions and now have fourth generation welfare recipients to show for it.

Or the socialized health care plan that will, among other thing, provide taxpayer funded medical care to 30 million illegals, and have a budget so large that an accounting error will be bigger than the defense budget.

With all these grandiose socialist utopia plans, he still has yet to explain how he intends to pay for any of these.

[waksupi]

Keep in mind, McCain would have been to the left, of JFK.

[hpdrifter]

He (BO) will pay for it just like all the other Presidents; just borrow from the Social Security fund. I'm not for BO, but really there ain't a dimes worth of difference between any politician and McCain sure is not a friend of gun owners.

so, who you gonna call????

[floodgate]

Those Bolshevized medicine proposals are really scary! Do you realize that under that system, doctors will no longer be able to select their patients on the basis of their ability to pay?

Fg

[skeet1]

Democrats; the white flag party.

[Junior1942]

Democrats; the white flag party.Republicans: the bend over and bow toward Mecca party.

[JIMinPHX]

Republicans: the bend over and bow toward Mecca party.

I believe that B.O. has had some practice doing that...

[JIMinPHX]

Would someone please, without using the words Bush, McCain or Republican, please explain to me what qualifies B.O. to be president.

If you believe what Jackie Mason has to say about him on You Tube, all he is qualified to do is wait tables at a nice restaurant. I sort of agree with Jackie on that.

[JIMinPHX]

Comedians aside, B.O. is horribly under qualified. Even if you believe him when he says that he stands for change, his ideas of what changes to make do not sound realistic to me & he has not presented any viable plans for how to get anything done. He’s just promised a bunch of pie in the sky. Hearing this from a Chicago Democrook does not encourage me in any way what so ever.

McTrainWreck on the other hand is no prize either. He used to be a great American & he has done a lot of great things for this country. Unfortunately, since McCain-Fiengold, he has continued to show bad judgement on a regular basis. He is not the great man that he once was. He is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Both these candidates are dogs. They just have different fleas. I’m still voting for Ron Paul, even if he’s not officially running any more. Neither of the two clowns listed above are any good for us at all.

[JIMinPHX]

Besides, I don’t want someone like Raila Odinga to end up becoming our secretary of state or anything like that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm

It's O.B.'s connections that scare me even more than the man himself. He's actually just a puppet at best.

[Boerrancher]

He (BO) will pay for it just like all the other Presidents; just borrow from the Social Security fund. I'm not for BO, but really there ain't a dimes worth of difference between any politician and McCain sure is not a friend of gun owners.

so, who you gonna call????

This is what I so don't get about every one on this board. No one really seems happy with either of the two choices. Everyone keeps B******* about having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Don't any of you get it? That is what the Powers that be want, because it insures the Two Party system will be the status quo.

I am tired of the Status Quo, and want a Real Change, not hollow promises and platitudes form the same old political machine that has been slowly destroying our country for the last 100+ years. If all of you truly want change you will consider the other party that has been gaining support slowly over the last 20 years and that is the Libertarians. The Libertarians will be on the ballots in all 50 states this election.

I know what you are all thinking, A vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote. I have news for you, if you vote for either Obama or McCain you have wasted your vote if you truly want to change the way the White House operates. If you sit down and compare Obama(D), McCain(R) and Barr(L) along with what the founding fathers said and what Carl Marx said, you will find that McCain and Obama, are far closer to Carl Marx than they are the founding fathers.

Some of you may think that Barr is unelectable and he will be as long as you continue to think that way. If each of you convince 10 people you know to vote for Bar and each of them do the same, and so on, there is a good chance Barr will make a good showing, and may possibly win with such a grass roots effort. IF he doesn't win, but makes a good showing, it will send a message unlike anything that has been seen in Decades. The greater the vote for a party the more money that party gets for campaign funding.

There are many things that some libertarians support that I don't cotton to, but I do see their point. If you support freedom like it was intended then what a person does in the privacy of their own home should not bother you until they do something that does interfere with your rights.

The problem with where we have gone in this country is lack of individual responsibility. If you want to sit in your home and smoke pot all day that is fine, but when it starts to interfere with your health don't come to me wanting me to foot you medical bills with my tax dollars, don't expect me to pay for your rehab with them either. If you choose to build your home below sea level next to the ocean, don't ask for my tax money so you can build it there again after it floods. You had the freedom to make that choice so live with the consequences of that choice. If you made a bad business decision, and went broke don't ask for my tax dollars to bail you out. It seems that people want freedom free of responsibility and that is what Both mainstream candidates want to give you but at what expense? What part of your children's or grand children's future prosperity are you willing to sacrifice so that you have it good now?

I know the answer when it comes to me. I went half way around the world and left puddles of my own blood so hopefully my children won't have to ever do what I did. I will do what ever it takes to change our politics so my children will not have to carry the huge financial burden that every generation since the 1930's has left them. IF you vote for the Status Quo, you are just securing the continued failure of our Nation. There is no change for the better with the Republicans or the Democrats, It doesn't matter what they say, for in my life time all I have seen out of both parties has been nothing but failed economic, energy, and foreign policies that have put us behind the 8 ball.

We have China, Viet Nam, and several other countries pumping oil out of the ground less than 50 miles from our coast, yet we can not do the same and have $4 a gallon gas. Why? the answer is 30 years of failed energy and economic policies that the Reps and Dems seem to want to continue.

Communist China holds most of our debt. Why? 30 years of failed economic policies is why. I think it is despicable that we are in debt to the Chi coms considering that some of you here either know of are were part of the Korean war where US forces were constantly attacked by the Chinese. Yet you will still vote for the same two parties that are selling your children's and grand children's future to the Chinese.

Islamic terrorists have killed thousands of Americans, we were warned time and time again. Did we listen when the Marine Barracks in Beirut was bombed? Did we listen when the Twin towers were bombed the first time? How about the USS Cole or our embassies? The answer is NO! Why is this? 30 years of foreign policy failures.

The majority of the nations corn and soybeans are under water now, and before the flood corn and soy beans were at an all time high. Food prices are already getting to where many Americans are having to make some tough choices. I know my wife is every time she goes shopping for groceries. Due to failed policies such as bio fuels food grains were already near shortage levels. Where is the plan to deal with up coming food shortages? Are you ready to pay $8 for a loaf of bread?

We are facing an unprecedented time in our country. You can vote to keep things as they are, and watch your freedoms slowly slip away along with your prosperity and possibly your life. The choice is up to you and how badly you want change. I know how I am going to vote as well as everyone in my extended family, and all of those that they talk to who truly want change. And Gentlemen, I can assure you it will not be for any one who has an R or a D by their name.

Best Wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

IF McCain and Obama are so sure of their positions why have they each refused to Debate Bob Barr ?

[singleshotbuff]

I have read all the replies, and am still at a loss as to what should EARN my vote for B.O.

Someone apparently didn't read what I wrote, I know that B.O. is ELIGABLE to run for president by age and citizenship. But being able to run for president doesn't QUALIFY him to hold that office, IMHO. Hell, I'll be eligable to run for president next year (I'll be old enough and I'm a citizen) but I sure as hell am not QUALIFIED.

I am the first to admit that I am not at all happy with the current administration, nor am I thrilled about the prospects of a McCain presidency. Having said that, voting for "change" soley for the purpose of change is IMHO foolhardy. Change for the better, yes, change just for the sake of change? Seems risky to me when our very rights and way of life hang in the balance.

people try to convince me that voting one issue "the gun issue" is short sighted. IMHO, without this one "issue", all others are moot.

GWB has been no "friend" of gunowners, I'll admit. However, under his "rule" the (IMHO illegal) assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset. In essence I feel like my gun rights are stronger and in a better position than they were under 8 years of Clintonian rule. Not perfect or secure mind you, just better than the alternative (Al Gore).

I can't speak for any history beyond my voting lifespan (I'm 34 years old), but it seems to me that the most draconian gun laws that I have experienced were passed under democrat rule. Please correct me if I am wrong. As I recall;

The FFA of 1934 was passed under FDR (control of full auto and short barreled goodies, amongst other stuff) a democrat.

The GCA of 1968 (the foundation of all modern gun control laws IMHO) was passed under LBJ a democrat.

The AWB of 1994 (worst gun control law ever allowed by the american people) was passed under WJC, a democrat.

Maybe I'm a dummy, but seems like a trend to me.

I won't argue that all repubs have been "gun friendly", but the most notorious gun control laws that I can think of (remember I am fairly young) have come at the hands of the democrats. So the "lesser of the evils" argument seems pretty clear cut to me. But, what do I know, I just love my country and my rights.

Sorry for trying to inject logic and reason into the political debate.

SSB

[Mumblypeg]

Sadly it seems that we have to hit rock bottom before we start back up. If B.O. is president, I believe that we will surely be there. Home town here did the same. Voted for change. They got change alright! Took all the money and left the city broke and now the people that had run it OK for years have to come back in and try to get it back up and running. Most of the people that I know that have money worked hard for it and I'm tired of this take from the rich and give to the poor mind set just so those poor bast---s will vote for them. Not that I have much money. Would have a lot more if them Dem R Rats hadn't taken it. POST TURTLE!

[Boerrancher]

people try to convince me that voting one issue "the gun issue" is short sighted. IMHO, without this one "issue", all others are moot.
SSB

Once again, that is why I am voting for the man with the (L) beside his name. There is no party in the country stronger on the second amendment than the Libertarians. I don't think we would have such an easy access to a CCW permit here in MO had it not been for the Libertarians. It was the Libertarians in the state house that eliminated the 40 years of having to beg your County law enforcement for a permit to buy a hand gun. Yes we have a Rep Gov, but that was because, there was not a Libertarian running for the slot against incumbent Gov, Bob Holden (D) He was such a failure, he was a one termer, and couldn't draw 35% of the popular vote.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch and Vote for Barr in 08

Joe

[Bret4207]

Joe has made some convincing arguments in favor of the Libertarians. I may just vote for Barr. In NY State any vote other than a democrat vote is wasted anyway. Perhaps I'll vote for a 3rd party. I don't like the Libertarian stance on drugs at all, but maybe it's time to chance it. No matter who gets in office there'll be gridlock.

[Mumblypeg]

I would vote for the 3rd party candidate if I thought he had a snowball's chance of winning but in this case a vote for a 3rd party would just be a vote for the very person that you didn't want to get it. It would like getting into a fight that you know you can't win. Better to take a shot, run and come back later when you can win than to just sacrafice yourself. I think I'll just become a mountain man when I grow up...

[WildmanJack]

Well guys, IMHO by the time somebody gets to the point of running for President of these United States, they are bought and paid for by big business. They have practiced their lies till they actually believe them. They will tell you anything but do what they want. They forget that they work for us not for themselves. I don't think politicians start off that way, but it's not long before they get that way. Thank God they're noses don't grow when they lie or there would be massive traffic jams in Washington.. They are all a bunch of bums..

[Junior1942]

>Thank God they're noses don't grow when they lie or there would be massive traffic jams in Washington..

Yes!!!!

[Boerrancher]

I would vote for the 3rd party candidate if I thought he had a snowball's chance of winning but in this case a vote for a 3rd party would just be a vote for the very person that you didn't want to get it. It would like getting into a fight that you know you can't win.

That is what those in power want you to believe. The only reason why people believe it is because we have been taught that there are only 2 real political parties. Think about it. It is as I said earlier with a grass roots movement a third party could win. While sitting in the VA office today I converted 2 more people to Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party, all it takes is knowing your facts and presenting an honest argument as to why the two party system has failed and how a third mainstream party can do what the other two won't do.

Someone mentioned the drug issue. I hate drugs, I have seen the results of them while living in the Meth capitol of the US. But, if that is what floats your boat, then more power to you. Just know that the Tax payers are not going to foot your rehab bill, or your Doctors bills either. If you OD from it and die oh well. Not my tax dollars going to put you in the dirt you can be tossed in a ditch somewhere to rot. If you get out on the highway and drive while under the influence, then you go to jail, because that is where you crossed the line and violated my right to a safe highway. It is called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

If you are an unwed mother of 6 children by 6 different fathers, don't ask me for my tax money to feed you and your children. They are not my kids. I take care of and support my children. You should do the same, and get the fathers to do like wise. Also you should have stopped having babies after the first one, as by then you should be mature enough to know how they are made. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

My parents raised me to take responsibility for every thing I did good or bad. I was allowed to fail many times, and most often they didn't bail me out when I did. I thank them now for that because when I was a teenager I thought they were being mean, but they were preparing me for life, and I am a much stronger person because of it. When I was a teenager I was never told "NO, you can't do that." They did explain the consequences of what ever it was and I knew I would have to live with that choice. That is how Government should be. Nothing more nothing less. You make the choice. You live with the consequences.

The Libertarian way of doing business is "you make the choice you live with the consequences of that choice" It is about as close to the idea of what the founding fathers had when they founded this great republic. If you doubt what I am saying, read the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and many others. There was a reason Jefferson warned us about so many things that have cropped up in the last 100 years, because those very things have lead us to where we are today.

No the Libertarians are not perfect but they will attempt to slowly reverse the continuing trend of government interference into the lives of private citizens. As far as the second amendment is concerned, we believe that if you want to own a 155mm howitzer, and can fire it with out injuring anyone or destroying another's property, then go for it. If you want a fully auto, go for it, just like with the howitzer, be prepared to deal with the consequences of your aftermath.

I in no way want to trick any one into voting for something they don't believe in, that is the job of the current batch of politicians in D.C. I just want people to be informed that there are other choices, and that it can be a winning choice if enough people truly want to change the way things are done in Washington. I love my country too much to not attempt to change the failing system that will eventually lead to our very demise.

Best wishes from the Boer ranch and Vote for Barr in 08,

Joe

[Lead melter]

This thread got hijacked somewhere along the way. It started with Post Turtles and is headed toward the usual Republican/Democrat issue along with the military action in Iraq issue.

While I may or may not agree with the Iraq issue, I see a couple more issues that scare me even more than desert warfare. In the past of the U.S. the result of an attack on our property/people has been pretty straightforward...you attack and kill, we attack and kill. We have just used a bigger hammer in MOST of our previous military engagements.

The first issue that scare me more is the No Child Left Behind educational program where the brighter students are saddled with the less gifted in order that the standard for ALL students is brought to a level that is considered proper by the federal and state governing bodies. There is now little, if any, room left for the individual to excell scholastically. Each student is standardized, conformed, and conditioned to believe that what is good for the "collective" group is good for the individual. Does anyone see the implications of the word "collective"? Perhaps a refresher course in Cold War diplomacy may be in order.

No, my children are not the intellectually gifted of the populace. They are in fact right in the average. But by their own words, there is no reason to try to do well because those that are the best scholastically are grouped with the worst and talent and ability are wasted just trying to bring the lower performers up to an "average" grade. Sounds like a normal "collective" ideology to me.

The other issue that frightens me is the modern-day jackboots called Homeland Security. While I do admit there is need for a national security agency, it seems we already have that. It's called the National Security Agency. I can't see where an eighty year-old man with steel screws in his knee replacement should have to be taken to a detention room and basically strip searched in order to provide proof that the metal detectors at the airport are reacting to the screws rather than the pipe bomb he has stuck up his butt with plans to blow up the airplane he will be riding to visit his grandchildren. Nor can I reason why a tube of toothpaste larger than trial size is not allowed on an airplane. Nor can I see why a bottle of water can't be taken through the boarding gates, but can be purchased on the other side. And woe unto the person who tries to smuggle a set of murderous fingernail clippers or a book of matches on board an airplane.

Now maybe you might see me as overreactive to some of these issues, but you can mark my words, if this agency is allowed to continue as it now grows, in 20 years you will need to show your "papers" in order to cross state lines and have to apply for permission to move from one city to another. Gestapo is the word that comes to mind first. Or is it KGB?

But then again, since we have all been standardized, we won't really know any better now will we?

[Boerrancher]

Yep, they are all Post Turtles, every single one of them in government now. I can easily see how a conversation about Post Turtles, can turn to a discussion about Democrats and Republicans.

Best wishes from the Bore Ranch

Joe