UConn James Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 I'm actually leaning toward Romney. I could really give a sh-- that he's Mormon. Whether it's cleaning up the Olympics, running his business, taking action during some major flooding and dam break in Mass. and then getting out of the way and letting the construction people do their jobs, and then w/ the Big Dig falling concrete ceiling ties he finally was allowed by the legislature to intervene and fire people (for the Big Dig, he gets way too much criticism for something he inherited and by law could do next to nothing about). Worked across the aisle to institute mandatory health insurance (even when covering the uninsured, something that actually made fiscal sense in Mass when you look at the numbers). He has always been a problem solver. That's what a president needs to be above all other things.
Johnny Coli Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 I'm actually leaning toward Romney. I could really give a sh-- that he's Mormon. Whether it's cleaning up the Olympics, running his business, taking action during some major flooding and dam break in Mass. and then getting out of the way and letting the construction people do their jobs, and then w/ the Big Dig falling concrete ceiling ties he finally was allowed by the legislature to intervene and fire people (for the Big Dig, he gets way too much criticism for something he inherited and by law could do next to nothing about). Worked across the aisle to institute mandatory health insurance (even when covering the uninsured, something that actually made fiscal sense in Mass when you look at the numbers). He has always been a problem solver. That's what a president needs to be above all other things. You might want to talk to the people of Mass who would vehemently disagree with you as to how competent Mitt Romney is. That being said, as a Democrat I would be dancing a jig if he was the GOP nominee. Under his watch our state actually became more Blue.
Chef Jim Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 It seems to me the conservative politician that seems most against illegal immigration is that hawk Bill Richardson. But thanks for reminding the liberals. And it seems to me the "conservative" politician that seems the most FOR illegal immigration is that guy living in that big white abode in DC.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 You might want to talk to the people of Mass who would vehemently disagree with you as to how competent Mitt Romney is. That being said, as a Democrat I would be dancing a jig if he was the GOP nominee. Under his watch our state actually became more Blue. That's because anyone with an ounce of !@#$in intelligence has been moving out. But as Massachusetts faces yet another period of economic reinvention, demographic trends now raise disturbing questions about the long-term viability of this virtuous circle between innovation and economic prosperity in the Commonwealth. Massachusetts, to put it simply, is losing people. And many of those leaving are precisely the people upon whom the economy has always depended to provide the state's leading industries with the skilled labor, innovative capacity, and ''Yankee ingenuity" that have made Massachusetts a leader in the global innovation economy. According to US Census Bureau estimates, Massachusetts is the only state estimated to have lost population between 2003 and 2004. Indeed, since 2000, Census population estimates indicate that the population of Massachusetts has grown at an anemic rate -- 1.06 percent between 2000 and 2004, which is the eighth slowest rate in the nation. And who are we losing? According to the 2000 Census, Massachusetts migrants leaving the state are younger, better educated, more likely to be employed in a knowledge-intensive industry, and less likely to be married, to have children, and to own a home. Significantly, those residents who were born in the state were much less likely to leave Massachusetts than people born in other states. And even those native-born Bay Staters who did move out of state were more likely to move to a neighboring New England state such as New Hampshire and Rhode Island, suggesting a desire to stay closer to home. But don't let me stop you from jerkin yourself over the great socialist state of Taxachusetts...
Orton's Arm Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Tom Tancredo. If he loses the primary, I hope he runs as a 3rd party candidate. The purpose of this post is twofold: 1) To express my views. 2) To see how long it takes this thread to develop into abstract b.s. TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seems like a good candidate to me. We need to do something to address the rampant leadership failure this country faces. And the Hillaries and Obamas and Edwards' and McCains and the other members of the herd ain't gonna cut it. They're too much a part of the Establishment, and the Establishment's too corrupt. Tancredo is a man with some integrity.
Cornerville Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Seems like a good candidate to me. We need to do something to address the rampant leadership failure this country faces. And the Hillaries and Obamas and Edwards' and McCains and the other members of the herd ain't gonna cut it. They're too much a part of the Establishment, and the Establishment's too corrupt. Tancredo is a man with some integrity. For once HA I agree with you
/dev/null Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 since everyone is talking about who their choice is 1. Hagel 2. Newt 3. Biden 4. Rudy 5. McCain 6. 3rd party - Could easily shoot up to #1
JimBob2232 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 1. Rudi 2. Rudi 3. Gingrich 4. Ron Paul 5. McCain 6. Romney 7. Thompson (could move up) 8. Kusinich (for entertainment value) 9. Hitler 10. Hillary
/dev/null Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 8. Kusinich (for entertainment value) I forget, is he running for President or Mayor of the Lollipop Guild
JimBob2232 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 I forget, is he running for President or Mayor of the Lollipop Guild There's a difference?
/dev/null Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 There's a difference? I see your point. The current President has a brain the size of a lollipop and his predecessor, well you know
Bill from NYC Posted March 17, 2007 Author Posted March 17, 2007 Must be why they elect one every four years. Best post of the thread by far. In fact, that little sentence is one of your best posts of all time.
Chilly Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 I'm surprised Ron Paul hasn't gotten mentioned, cept for a #4, given all the right-wing libertarian types on this board.
JimBob2232 Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 I'm surprised Ron Paul hasn't gotten mentioned, cept for a #4, given all the right-wing libertarian types on this board. Well, i think what you are seeing, at least thus far in the election season (if you can call it that), is that people are looking for a leader. We are sick of having presidents who are not leaders. On the republican side, both Rudi and McCain fit that bill nicely. I dont agree with Rudi on alot of issues, but I respect him and trust him, I have seen him in times of crisis, I have seen what he did with new york, and he passed these tests with flying colors. Sure I would rather have someone with the political positions of Ron Paul, but when it boils down to it, I think Rudi is the better man to lead this country NOW. We are in a world of hurt, and issues that once seemed significant (gun control, abortion, etc) are insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
Nanker Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 It's U.S. Grant. I noticed Ron Paul lost his luster here after I showed them he was anti-war, lol Ron Paul? I thought that was Ru Paul. No wonder. It's beginning to make sense now.
PastaJoe Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 1. Hillary 2. Biden 3. Richardson They're the only candidates that I would feel excited to vote for, other than them my vote would be against whoever least represented my views. If everything were equal I think Biden is the best qualified. But given that money talks, I see Hillary running with someone like Richardson or Wesley Clark. If Gore entered he'd be on the list, and the only potential Republican I would feel comfortable with as president is Chuck Hagel. The other Republican frontrunners are falling over each other trying to appease the evangelicals, and I've had enough of their influence on policies.
JimBob2232 Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 Really? You would actually be EXCITED to vote for hillary? You must be one of about 50 people in that camp. I'm sure she will get alot of votes, but you are the first person I have ever heard express excitement about her candidicy.
UConn James Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 1. Hillary2. Biden 3. Richardson They're the only candidates that I would feel excited to vote for, other than them my vote would be against whoever least represented my views. If everything were equal I think Biden is the best qualified. But given that money talks, I see Hillary running with someone like Richardson or Wesley Clark. If Gore entered he'd be on the list, and the only potential Republican I would feel comfortable with as president is Chuck Hagel. The other Republican frontrunners are falling over each other trying to appease the evangelicals, and I've had enough of their influence on policies. If (big if) Hillary gets the nomination, she would not pick Wes Clark to be her VP, nor would he accept if she did. Lots of sh-- went down with him and Bill & his administration during the Bosnia war.
Recommended Posts