Which Presidential Candidate Best For Pool
- Thread starter Jude Rosenstock
- Start date
Well, it sure aint Hillary...
Now we know for sure than Hillary aint got no balls..But if she could win and hand over the reigns to Bill, we may have something there..After all, Bill sure new how to use his shaft.....
Now we know for sure than Hillary aint got no balls..But if she could win and hand over the reigns to Bill, we may have something there..After all, Bill sure new how to use his shaft.....
corvette1340 said:
I agree with the second part. Our welfare system is way over worked, and a huge money drain for taxpayers.
As far as your argument about 9/11. That one is a little over worked also. The fact that we haven't had an attack since then, is an argument that just doesn't hold water. I would contend we are less safe in this country now than ever. And just as vulnerable.
All that security at airports does nothing to assuage my fears. We are not giving the terrorists the proper credit for having the intelligence to pull something off, just like 9/11 or much worse. It could happen, especially in the climate created by GWB and friends.
I say protect our shores first and foremost. Bolster security at our borders. Increase intelligence on all levels, and have all agencies on the same page. Definitely keep a watchful eye on terrorist regimes, and have a strong well prepared force at the ready.
We should have never been involved in that conflict over there. Billions spent and thousands of lives destroyed. And for what! And all brought on by the LIES of this administration. Of course, we all know that now.
Flex said:
Can you say VETO!
jay helfert said:
Well it seems like you have your reasons why you believe he is the best candidate. Most people I ask that question to really can't give an answer. I was really hoping Ron Paul would have better showings, but it seems like the Ron Paul Revolution is on its last legs. I find myself gravitating towards Obama out of the rest, but I don't know why. I never really hear him say too much about the issues at hand. Obama is however, a tremendous speaker, and I think thats part of the appeal. Considerring how the current President is a horrible speaker, and people are looking for obvious changes. I guess you never really know until they get in office. I remember 8 years ago G.W. ran as someone who was going to unite the parties, kind of like what Obama is saying now, and we are even more divided today than in 2000.
No matter who gets the office next, it will be an improvement.
jay helfert said:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24354
"Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons.""
Jay, is that the kind of "leadership" of which you speak?
14oneman said:
Just so we all can be on the same page, here for your perusal is the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
So this little verse has been the subject of interpretation for many decades now. What do you think it means? I think it means an armed and organized force of individuals who are trained to provide security for all. I don't think this means every individual is a "militia" of one. And I don't think it means individual citizens should have guns to protect themselves against the militia, or "keep it in check". That makes no sense. The individuals are the ones who make up the militia.
Flex said:
Good thing we're using cues and not guns then.
I'm just a lowly pool player looking for an even game.
jay helfert said:
Is that so? You might like to check this out:
http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev020708b.cfm
"On March 18, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the District of Columbia's appeal in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case that struck down DC's almost complete ban on the effective use of handguns, rifles, and shotguns for self defense in private homes. This marks the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court will rule on a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law. The Court's decision will have broad ramifications because it likely will decide, once and for all, whether the Second Amendment protects the individual rights of all Americans to keep guns in their homes or only protects an organized militia's right to possess guns that Congress authorizes.
"Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was proposed to the States by the Congress in 1789. On several occasions, the Congress enacted statutes which explicitly declared its understanding of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing fundamental, individual rights. The Congress has a long history of protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms and has a fundamental interest in protecting the constitutional rights of the American people. "
Flex said:
You are simplifying a long debate regarding a woman's right to abortion in this country. Barack is an advocate of a woman's right to have an abortion, and just when a fetus is a viable human being was part of that continuing debate. And the statements he made were in that vein, and to protect a woman's right to abortion if necessary.
By the way, he also voted for the revised Born Alive bill that passed the Senate.
jay helfert said:
I don't respect his stand on Irac, Jay. He is right. We shouldn't have gone there in the first place BUT we are there now and Obama would immediately withdraw all troops which is tossing a white flag in the air and telling all our enemies they are welcome to the country (Iraq), all its oil and to train the next group of suicide bombers there.
Hillary, is smart enough to admit the troops must be withdrawn slowly as Iraq is more able to defend their own country. None of the Rs would immediately withdraw all our troops, save Ron Paul.
Flex said:
I'm not quite sure what we're arguing about here. Of course, maybe that's why in 2008, the Supreme Court is still adjudicating about the Second Amendment, written in 1789. I put it up there for everyone to read and interpret as they see fit. I guess I just have a different interpretation of those 27 words than you do. And a few other people do as well.