Meet your Veep...a brave new world

[Lake Pirate]

There is MUCH speculation as to who will run with Kerry. Many insders say quite confidently that it will be Anderson. In light of Hillary's coming out on taxation it is compelling as to where she fits in with Kerry and the party's current issues. Health care is a platform for this years candiddate. It seems to be an issue with the public. Everyone knew she was trying a radical health care plan when Starr hit her with the Men in Black, Robo Cop and the Wild Bunch. This distracted from her plan and put her in a defensive position for the rest of Slick Willy's tenure.
So... if JFK picks her, he has two major campaign issues covered. The war (he is handling that) and Health Care (she can pick up where she left off).
Kerry and Clinton in '04? Could be quite a challenge for the tightie righties?

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Kerry and Clinton in '04? Could be quite a challenge for the tightie righties?
Nothing we can't handle... handled it before... kicked the loonie lefties down the street like an empty can of beer...:rolleyes:

[Mandelon]

While the thought of a Kerry/Clinton ticket would excite the lefty libs the vast majority of "normal Americans" would simply say no.

[InKahntrol]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Nothing we can't handle... handled it before... kicked the loonie lefties down the street like an empty can of beer...:rolleyes:
I'm curious, when did this can kicking happen? When the first George Bush got his butt handed to him in '92? How about Dole in '96? Oh wait, the can kicking must have been in 2000, when the Democrat actually won the popular vote. Yeah, thats right....

[Lake Pirate]

How can you be so sure? Nader is a free agent and could steal left handed votes but... women make up half the population? You don't think Hillary would make them think twice? She's got the Dem's...she IS a woman (that would pick up votes)...she has proven she can pull the minority vote... there is corroborating evidence America is feeling less confident of the way Bush is handling Iraq. All of these are real factors. Confidence is nice but is it realistic? You may be in for a bigger fight than your collective ego's are prepared for? Just sayin'. No need to get all your panties twisted up.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by InKahntrol
I'm curious, when did this can kicking happen? When the first George Bush got his butt handed to him in '92? How about Dole in '96? Oh wait, the can kicking must have been in 2000, when the Democrat actually won the popular vote. Yeah, thats right....
No it was in '94 when everyone was disgusted with Clinton and the republicans took the congress back...
Remember the "Contract with America"?
Did we end up with National Health Care???... good thing for the clintoons that they were watching the poles or Dole would have won in '96

[HM]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
....Health Care (she can pick up where she left off).....
That is quite possibly the funniest thing you have said yet!! You can't be for real.....ignorance of this level has to be a joke.
But you know me....blah blah blah, you know the type (who is into truth, facts, logic, blah, blah blah).
Keep up the good posting, you have given me lots of laughs!!:D

[Mandelon]

I can think of only a few women that I know who actually like Hilary. I am sure she can pull the left leaning voters from Calif, NY and other confused places, but the states in the middle...no way.
She just announced her thoughts on taxes and reallocation of our hard earned funds. Apparently an attempt to buy the support of those on the receiving end of those funds.
I think she would be a negative on his ticket. You just gotta love those "Limosine Liberals" who decry how the rich are bad for America while pocketing millions every year from their portfolios, businesses and political connections.
I just don't see a Clinton back in the White House.

[summerlove]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
No it was in '94 when everyone was disgusted with Clinton and the republicans took the congress back...
Remember the "Contract with America"?
Did we end up with National Health Care... good thing for the clintoons that they were watching the poles or Dole would have won in '96
Is the Dr. In or is he out smoking pot?;)
GIMMEABREAK! Let's see - Bush Sr. won election in his second term after soundly defeating the Iraqi army after their invasion of Kuwait. Oh wait, no he didn't, he screwed that up and lost - he had the highest approval rating mid term of almost any president in US history and he lost to a guy from Arkansas? How proud you must be!;)
Oh, and that guy from Arkansas not only won, he kicked his kiester all the way back to Texas. Then, when the Reps ran Dole against him, he won again! In spite of the Monica situation, which had come to light by then. I guess he was so hated that he won in a landslide! Next, we have "W" who wins in FL and ends up with the Electoral vote - yes, that's the system we have and I don't bitch about it - but I will say with a smile that Gore had the popular vote!
Fast forward to today - mark my words, because you heard it here first - Bush is going to lose in November. His complete mishandling of the war in Iraq will overshadow everything. It won't matter who JFK's running mate is....

[KrazyKa]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
It seems to be an issue with the public. Everyone knew she was trying a radical health care plan when Starr hit her with the Men in Black, Robo Cop and the Wild Bunch. This distracted from her plan and put her in a defensive position for the rest of Slick Willy's tenure.
ummm Health Care got shot down first term....impeachment was 2nd term...
From PBS....
May 31, 1993 - The Clinton Health Care Task Force is officially disbanded.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html
Try to keep up...

[Lake Pirate]

You could be right? I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility. No one would have thought she could be a Senator in New York either. I remember tons of threads (other boards) talking about what a joke it was and that she wasn't even a resident of the state. The righties predicted she would get slaughtered. But...she didn't. never underestimate your opponent and never second guess the people. Anything could happen. And for the record... no one knows how her health care system would have worked out. It was dropped because of other reasons...not the program itself. The right was dictating congress and the senate (remember that?) At the time it was very popular among dem's and there is still a few of us left.
Limousine liberals? Confusing us with socialists? Correct me where I'm wrong but I never read where supporting community and national programs for the indigent disallows personal wealth?

[summerlove]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Correct me where I'm wrong but I never read where supporting community and national programs for the indigent disallows personal wealth?
Very well said! And I agree 100% (imagine that) ;)

[HighRoller]

2000? You mean when the Democratic candidate attempted to slide in through the back door by taking an electoral matter to the supreme court? Now I remember. Then he lost his court battle and accused Bush of stealing an election from him.
And when you have the best healthcare system in the world, it's always a good idea to let it be redesigned by the very entity that cannot even successfully run a railway system, a mail system, a retirement system and social programs.
I say let Hilary get voted in so everyone can see what a maniacal power hungry fanatic she really is. She's a socialist, in thought, word and deed, and a bigger sociopath than her husband. She's also an admitted liar and allowed her husband to repeatedly commit adultery on her while she looked the other wayso she could hold onto her power. She attempted to hijack the medical system the first time around by holding secret meetings that she was not authorized to even attend, and when the American people learned the details of her socialized medicine plan, they freaked!! Hilary Care is a return to 1950's communist Russia, so good luck. Between Lurch and the wicked bitch of the west the Dems have a fine ticket. Do two lefties make a right?

[HighRoller]

Correct me where I'm wrong but I never read where supporting community and national programs for the indigent disallows personal wealth?
When you discriminate against a person because of their income, and tax them at a higher rate, you are disallowing them a fair opportunity to realize the same amount of wealth. It's funny how a person who would obviously be against discrimination based on age, color or religion is so in favor of income discrimination. That's what tax brackets are. So excuse it any way you try, but you can't.
I've already explained how the wealthiest tax brackets are unfairly burdene, and ignorant people caught up in the class hatred politics of the left want them to pay more. I think they ought to take the tax brackets and flip them upside down! The less you make the more you pay! Think that would encourage people to get off their asses? Hell yeah it would. everyone in the country would want to make 100K a year to get a tax break instead of laying on their lazy asses, being sure not to work too much because they won't get their "earned income tax credit". If anyone earned a tax credit, it was the top half of the tax bracket, not the bottom half. They don't even contribute so they can shut up at their earliest convenience as far as I'm concerned.:D :eek:

[summerlove]

Originally posted by HighRoller
And when you have the best healthcare system in the world, it's always a good idea to let it be redesigned by the very entity that cannot even successfully run a railway system, a mail system, a retirement system and social programs.
Huh????:confused: Really, now HR, if you think we have the best health care system in the world, just ask your doctor about that! Now, we may have the best healthcare, but not the best system...

[Lake Pirate]

A very witty reply. Incorrect and uninformed, but witty. Had you read the other thread (on taxation) you would note that I am for equal taxation amongst the populace. I liked Forbes plan of ten percent across the board.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by HighRoller
When you discriminate against a person because of their income, and tax them at a higher rate, you are disallowing them a fair opportunity to realize the same amount of wealth. It's funny how a person who would obviously be against discrimination based on age, color or religion is so in favor of income discrimination. That's what tax brackets are. So excuse it any way you try, but you can't.
Damn well said! The Progressive or as I like to call it Opressive tax system is absolutely unfair to everyone. And no I am no where near the top tax bracket. I was there one year only in my life. A flat tax is the only fair way to implement an income tax. Otherwise you have people deciding how rich is too rich... and who those "too rich" people get to carry.

[KrazyKa]

Originally posted by summerlove
Now, we may have the best healthcare, but not the best system...
Can you define the distinction between the two for me, please?

[Lake Pirate]

You take what I know about healthcare worldwide and fill a short sentence. However... complacency in the face of a population explosion and a teetering (at best) economy is fool hardy.

[vodkarocks]

I surprised dems say Clinton won by a landslide, if I remember right didn't he win both terms with the lowest % of votes ever.

[Mandelon]

I believe Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote. Even less than Bush......

[MagicMtnDan]

WALLET PIRATE and Hillary - two peas in a pod

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Mandelon
I believe Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote. Even less than Bush......
Wow........ now that's a mandate!!!!!!!!

[Lake Pirate]

Why does it matter if he won by 43% or 99%? The topic is slightly different than voter count semantics.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Why does it matter if he won by 43% or 99%? The topic is slightly different than voter count semantics.
Shit happens

[HCS]

I'm voting for Ralph Nader. He's the man!:D

[Lake Pirate]

Ahhh... thread drift to divert from the fact that Hillary will whip y'all's asses from here to tomorrow this election. I get it! :wink:

[summerlove]

Originally posted by KrazyKa
Can you define the distinction between the two for me, please?
Healthcare is the type of care we receive from the medical community - the professionals, doctors, specialists, etc.
Healthcare system is insurance companies that continue to raise rates, deny claims, and prohibit procedures. etc....

[058]

Ya just gotta love the way these guys toss around the "JFK" initials like he is the second coming of John F. Kennedy....what a fu*kin' joke.:yuk:

[Dr. Eagle]

Screw Nader, I'm voting the what's his name.. the peace and freedom guy... scuze me while I depart in my VW Micro Bus.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Ahhh... thread drift to divert from the fact that Hillary will whip y'all's asses from here to tomorrow this election. I get it! :wink:
Hilly is dispised by about 60% of the country... myself included. Only liked by Extreme Liberals, my sister, and those that watch Oprah...:p

[HCS]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Screw Nader, I'm voting the what's his name.. the peace and freedom guy... scuze me while I depart in my VW Micro Bus.
Green party?

[HCS]

Originally posted by summerlove
Healthcare is the type of care we receive from the medical community - the professionals, doctors, specialists, etc.
Healthcare system is insurance companies that continue to raise rates, deny claims, and prohibit procedures. etc....
And causes taxes to go up.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by HARDCORE-SKI
Green party?
No Peace and Freedom... not Green...;)

[Lake Pirate]

Never underestimate Oprah either!
How do you know we don't toss around the JFK thing to piss you off?

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Never underestimate Oprah either!
How do you know we don't toss around the JFK thing to piss you off?
As in John F. Kerry (the french looking guy) not John Fitzgerald Kenedy?

[058]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Never underestimate Oprah either!
How do you know we don't toss around the JFK thing to piss you off? Doesn't piss me off, to me its just pathetic, both JFKs are/were miserable pukes.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by 058
Doesn't piss me off, to me its just pathetic, both JFKs are/were miserable pukes.
True, one was a philanderer and the other a war criminal.......

[HCS]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
As in John F. Kerry (the french looking guy) not John Fitzgerald Kenedy?
You mean the Herman Munster looking guy.;)

[summerlove]

Originally posted by 058
Ya just gotta love the way these guys toss around the "JFK" initials like he is the second coming of John F. Kennedy....what a fu*kin' joke.:yuk:
Kinda like George Bush used his old man's name to get to where he is today....:confused:

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by HARDCORE-SKI
You mean the Herman Munster looking guy.;)
Wasn't Herman Munster French?

[Lake Pirate]

I'd agree on the first one. Neither of us are in a position to judge the latter. Hubert Humphrey may have been a great Prez...but, we'll never know.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
I'd agree on the first one. Neither of us are in a position to judge the latter. Hubert Humphrey may have been a great Prez...but, we'll never know.
I am not judging, only repeating what Mr. Kerry said himself...

[KrazyKa]

Originally posted by summerlove
Healthcare is the type of care we receive from the medical community - the professionals, doctors, specialists, etc.
Healthcare system is insurance companies that continue to raise rates, deny claims, and prohibit procedures. etc....
Isn't it possible that the former is a direct result of the increased effeciency/profit margins the latter brings to the overall health care picture?

[beached 1]

trying hard to stay out of these..
but I would be surprised if Hillary were to run with Kerry. IMO, it looks like she and Bill are hoping kerry looses so she has a shot at 08. If not then Bill has some crappy timing for his book tours and stealing Kerry's spotlight. If I were Kerry, I would be pissed.

[summerlove]

Originally posted by KrazyKa
Isn't it possible that the former is a direct result of the increased effeciency/profit margins the latter brings to the overall health care picture?
I'm going to lunch.....;)
...and no!

[058]

Originally posted by summerlove
Kinda like George Bush used his old man's name to get to where he is today....:confused: I guess the Adams father/son did the same?

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Originally posted by summerlove
Fast forward to today - mark my words, because you heard it here first - Bush is going to lose in November. His complete mishandling of the war in Iraq will overshadow everything. It won't matter who JFK's running mate is....
He will win because we have a very uninformed eletorate that takes whatver the meadia spoonfeeds them. He will not necessarily do any better or worse on the major issues, aside from raising our taxes.

[Mandelon]

Just because Hilary is a woman......doesn't mean that she will automatically get womens' votes. So many people I know are completely turned off by her. I just don't see it happening.
Let's hear what Kerry would have done differently about the war. I heard the libs complain we need to get out of Iraq, now that the transfer is a reallity, I hear them complain about how we are abandoning them.........
Face it, they hate Bush no matter what. They will hate any non -lib candidate, no matter what they do.
I think what we need is better quality candidates, on both sides. Someone we can all get behind.
Put an end to the pork barrel politics, the wasted spending, a real fix for Social Security, etc.......

[HCS]

Originally posted by beached 1
trying hard to stay out of these..
but I would be surprised if Hillary were to run with Kerry. IMO, it looks like she and Bill are hoping kerry looses so she has a shot at 08. If not then Bill has some crappy timing for his book tours and stealing Kerry's spotlight. If I were Kerry, I would be pissed.
Maybe Hillary will give Kerry a blow job.
Then she will have earned 'her' presidential knee pads.

[Keith E. Sayre]

I rarely comment publicly about religion or politics but I have
a couple of questions. Admittedly, being a hick from Utah
and now living in Havasawwwwcitty, I may miss a few things, but it would seem to me that our current political system works like this. The "hardworking, I don't want anything from my government except protection and peace, happy to pay taxes as long as their well used " Americans seem to vote Republican. The "lets have it all for free, everyone deserves everthing, don't worry we'll tax the heck out of someone else for it" Americans seem to vote democratic.
Does this sound correct to you guys?
Then after reading some of the previous posts, I'm a bit confused about the "butt kickings" in some of the elections in the past and/or present. From what I can see, the Republicans
get up there and try to say, let's have a strong America and
try to not tax everyone to death and the Democrats get up there and say we'll GIVE you healthcare, more senior
citizens perks that most of them never earned, and
the minorities and women more. It sounds as though if the Dems get the women, minorities the poor folks and the lazy ones all together, we--the average hard working Americans would get our collective tails outvoted. I'm not certain that I would ever brag about that if I were Clinton
or one of his supporters though. The results of his elections seem to prove that you can be a real piece of junk and still get elected if you promise the folks listed above enough free stuff. What troubles me though is if (as JFK says on his commercials) i f o ur country is going the wrong way with h ealthcare etc, why didn't Clinton or Carter or any of these
other fellows handle it? Just a few questions that I need answers to.
Keith Sayre

[KrazyKa]

Originally posted by summerlove
I'm going to lunch.....;)
...and no!
So what contributes to the superiority of the US Healthcare as a product?

[058]

Originally posted by Keith E. Sayre
I rarely comment publicly about religion or politics but I have
a couple of questions. Admittedly, being a hick from Utah
and now living in Havasawwwwcitty, I may miss a few things, but it would seem to me that our current political system works like this. The "hardworking, I don't want anything from my government except protection and peace, happy to pay taxes as long as their well used " Americans seem to vote Republican. The "lets have it all for free, everyone deserves everthing, don't worry we'll tax the heck out of someone else for it" Americans seem to vote democratic.
Does this sound correct to you guys?
Then after reading some of the previous posts, I'm a bit confused about the "butt kickings" in some of the elections in the past and/or present. From what I can see, the Republicans
get up there and try to say, let's have a strong America and
try to not tax everyone to death and the Democrats get up there and say we'll GIVE you healthcare, more senior
citizens perks that most of them never earned, and
the minorities and women more. It sounds as though if the Dems get the women, minorities the poor folks and the lazy ones all together, we--the average hard working Americans would get our collective tails outvoted. I'm not certain that I would ever brag about that if I were Clinton
or one of his supporters though. The results of his elections seem to prove that you can be a real piece of junk and still get elected if you promise the folks listed above enough free stuff. What troubles me though is if (as JFK says on his commercials) i f o ur country is going the wrong way with h ealthcare etc, why didn't Clinton or Carter or any of these
other fellows handle it? Just a few questions that I need answers to.
Keith Sayre Yep....I think you got it. The Dems say the country is going in the wrong direction because it isn't going the direction THEY want it to go....to a more Socialist [Communist] based country. When you rob from Peter to pay Paul you will not hear any complaints from Paul.

[Lake Pirate]

What you are quoting Keith (IMHO) is popular concensus and not necessarily fact. It's untrue Dem's want to give everything away and Reps want you to earn it. The spin is as you cited, but I doubt it's absolute with either party. It doesn't seem to matter what a candidate says during an election year (although it should.) Both parties have become very complex and neither can be realistically encapsulated within a sentence or statement. What you read here is partisan rhetoric. Some of it true. Some of it not. It's too complicated nowadays to vote a straight ticket. We need to all be better educated about the precise agendas of our selection and not just up on their campaign promises.

[beached 1]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
We need to all be better educated about the precise agendas of our selection and not just up on their campaign promises.
well said,

[Lady Rat Attack 1]

I'm a female and this is what I think about Hillary :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :yuk: :yuk:

[summerlove]

Originally posted by Lady Rat Attack 1
I'm a female and this is what I think about Hillary :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :yuk: :yuk:
I'm a male and this is what I think about "W" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :yuk: :yuk: and a :( for good measure....

[summerlove]

Originally posted by Keith E. Sayre
The "lets have it all for free, everyone deserves everthing, don't worry we'll tax the heck out of someone else for it" Americans seem to vote democratic.
I think that this is an unfair characterization. There are millions of hardworking democrats that have never benefitted from any social programs, myself included. I'd also reckon that most of those that do receive these types of benefits, be it welfare or other, don't even vote. The problem with the Dem party is that they just don't vote. They complain and criticize the system, but then on the 1st Tuesday in November, they stay home. Yes, there are many dem's that are losers. But, there are also many rep's that are equally guilty of the "L" moniker.
We just have a difference of opinion, and that is what made this country so great - we can disagree without fear of persecution (except here in HB;) )
I have many republican friends who are very successful and espose many of the opinions on these forums and I have many democrat friends who are also very successful and would not consider changing party's.

[Keith E. Sayre]

Lake Pirate: I agree with what you just wrote. But it
irritates me when I see Kerry (and I'm not picking on him)
he simply is the one that most recently comes to mind-- when he gets on tv and starts telling folks that he wants to make health care affordable for the 43 million of us that don't have it and can't afford it. Well--I agree but until I hear a plan that will work and not m ake the mess even worse, I guess I'll continue going without. I find myself wanting to jump into the tv and say "what's your plan?". Then I wonder how many people fall for this type of deceptive advertising? And yes, I
know that both sides do it.
Obviously, our system isn't perfect, but it's better than everyone elses. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to have these discussions publicly. I know that many have di ed to protect these rights. To them, we owe a great deal of gratitude.
Keith Sayre

[Dave C]

VERY TRUE.
But nothing gets people motivated to vote than to vote AGAINST someone who leaves a bad taste in their mouth. A lot of men HATE Hillary. So for every women she picks up, that might be trumped by a Hillary-hating man.
Its shaping up to be a close one.
Originally posted by Lake Pirate
but... women make up half the population? You don't think Hillary would make them think twice? She's got the Dem's...she IS a woman (that would pick up votes)...she has proven she can pull the minority vote...

[Lake Pirate]

Posting about politics is a vicious circle. It always comes down to the fact that we do have the best system going. (Although I would like to know more about the Swiss.)
How 'bout CLINTON AND CLINTON IN '08

[Dave C]

LP
thats scary........ stop it your scaring the kids.

[Dave C]

The same people that are constantly whining about the war in Iraq were the same people (almost 40%) that didn’t want the war in the first place.
The 9/11 commission stated in their report that the Bush Administration has eliminated 2/3'rds of Al Quaeda already. Isn’t that the whole point of this war on terror. Many of us don’t care if they ever find those so called “stockpiles” of WMD’s as long as the leaders of Al Quaeda and Saddam are dealt with.
After all its true that 35% of the population, both right and left, are isolationist anyway. And 35% of the population is left leaning and they hate Bush so much they are looking for any excuse to complain. There is some overlap here but it means that a fair amount of people, probably 50%, will disagree with ANY war when things get a little rough.
Some just want to complain for the sake of complaining.

[Lake Pirate]

I dunno. I supported the war in Afghanistan. Early in I figured out we were turning them into one of the largest exporters of gravel on the planet and weren't finding many verifiable terrorists. So, I was on shaky ground with the whole war thing before we invaded Iraq. Again, reliable intel over years has proven that Somalia has been a hotbed of terrorist activities and not Iraq. Try and remember when they said it was a war on terror back before they changed it to WMD. I can't understand why we haven't gone after Somalia even a little bit. Not only have they bragged about being a terrorist harbor but they proved it with the coptor crash incident. Anybody remember that horror?

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
There is MUCH speculation as to who will run with Kerry. Many insders say quite confidently that it will be Anderson. In light of Hillary's coming out on taxation it is compelling as to where she fits in with Kerry and the party's current issues. Health care is a platform for this years candiddate. It seems to be an issue with the public. Everyone knew she was trying a radical health care plan when Starr hit her with the Men in Black, Robo Cop and the Wild Bunch. This distracted from her plan and put her in a defensive position for the rest of Slick Willy's tenure.
So... if JFK picks her, he has two major campaign issues covered. The war (he is handling that) and Health Care (she can pick up where she left off).
Kerry and Clinton in '04? Could be quite a challenge for the tightie righties?
Hillary is a 2 edged sword I think she may bring him some votes, but she might cost him just as many, she is quite a polarizing figure. One thing I know her health care plan was no feather in her cap. Kenneth Starr had nothing to do with it's failure. It met massive resistance from all sides of the health care industry and from many political sectors as well. I have a good friend who was part of the team that worked on developing her health care proposal. While it had a few high points, overall it was a dismal failure on it's own merits (or lack of them).

[CA Stu]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
How can you be so sure? Nader is a free agent and could steal left handed votes but... women make up half the population? You don't think Hillary would make them think twice?
I don't follow this leap of logic.
Let's vote for her because she's a woman?
I don't think voters should care whether a candidate is male or female, it's what their politics are that matters.
Tax and spend hurts as much from either gender.
I'm all for women in government. Margaret Thatcher for VP!
Thanks
CA Stu

[Lake Pirate]

Well... if we're just pickin' women I'd have to go with Ann Richards.
But yes, I do think some women would vote for her because she is a woman. There's prolly men that would vote for her because she's a woman. There's young people that would vote for her because of the historical precedence it sets for their generation. There's more factors than simple issues and qualification involved.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
Well... if we're just pickin' women I'd have to go with Ann Richards.
I'll pick Ann Coulter... much better looking thank you very much!

[Havasu_Dreamin]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
There's young people that would vote for her because of the historical precedence it sets for their generation.
And if that is their sole reason then this generation is dumber than I thought! That is an incredibly stupid reason to vote for anyone for anything! Vote for the person becasue of the issues they stand for, because you believe in those issues, not because it is some stupid a$$ historical precedence for your generation.

[eliminatedsprinter]

So far possable women candidates named have been Hillary, Ann Richards, and Ann Coulter. What about Condi Rice? After all, she has all of them beat by at least 30 IQ points. As a matter of fact, I think Bush is making a big mistake not having her his VP this time around. It's time for Cheney to retire.

[Lake Pirate]

You do realize Cheney and Rummy are running the country?

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
You do realize Cheney and Rummy are running the country?
Nope, I don't sit in on those meetings. I'll just have to take your word for it. What time do you and the cabinet meet anyway??;) :D

[ROZ]

We may be ready to have a woman with authority in the whitehouse, but not Hillary....
We fought the systems in other countries, only to have is begin here.....

[Lake Pirate]

I think the first meeting was around 1975 http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/05/far04017.html but there have been many since. I'll keep ya posted! :)

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by Lake Pirate
I think the first meeting was around 1975 http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/05/far04017.html but there have been many since. I'll keep ya posted! :)
I was talking about when you sit in on the Bush cabinet meetings.;) Because that would be a minimum requirement for a person to really know who is running our country at this time. Not to mention the movers and shakers in business, who are really making things work and are the real driving force behind our nation.
Have a nice evening. I'm off to finish getting ready to head for the lake after work tomorrow.:cool: :D