I really hope that we Americans don't hold guns, games, and internet dear to their hearts. Obama is better but I might vote for Clinton.
i doubt i could vote for clinton, just because im a hardcore republican, and at the NYLC confrence, i met her in DC, and she was a complete B*****
Just because you're a part of a party doesn't mean you're totally bound to them. I considered voting for John McCain and I am definitely not a Republican.
In my humble opinion, the democrative party and the republic party are two faces of the same coin. Either way your going to get ------ed in the ass. Ralf Nader FTW!
i dont rly care much about politics tbh but if there is going to be a female president anytime soon its goinna be her but i dont think she will win tbh.
OK, excuse me. Under her policies, I would not be able to buy a handgun because it would make me "more likely to commit a crime" than if I owned, say, a deer rifle. I would not be able to buy a weapon with a pistol-grip because that would make me more likely to immitate the North Hollywood shootout. I'm not big on gun regulation because it just plain doesn't work. There are too many guns on the streets to be even marginally effective. The UK has a total ban, but they've still got it, albeit not as much because they're not out there. Banning handguns, as she vocally supported San Fransisco's attempt at doing, wouldn't help one bit. Making me put a choke in a shotgun that only allows three rounds... hell, I can grab a baseball bat and start killing people. None of this works. Banning video games is... stupid. Guns, video games, music, the whole lot won't stop killing. So long as there is some pissed off idiot out there, killing will occur, whether it be with a stick or with an M-16. Unfortunately, she's supported the "regulation" of "violent" music, she's supported the "regulation" of firearms because it will supposedly prevent crime (though the average year under her husband's era's Brady Law had more gun crime than did 2005, a year after it was repealed), and she's supported the banning of a video game over a third-party modification that showed nudity. The woman has some pretty stupid policies, regardless of what she *says* she supports. One look at her voting record and previous statements tells me that. Life isn't about video games. However, the American values that I was raised on happen to give me the right to Life, Liberty, Persuit of Happieness, and the whole list of fun things my Constitution happens to guarantee. And if playing a video game makes me happy, so long as it's within the law, I'm damn well going to play it, regardless of whether it *might* make me walk into Wal-Mart and start killing people.
Well it will definitely be interesting what happens, so far the two leading contenders, is a woman, and the other black. America has never had a black or female president.
i didn't mean to say i wouldn't vote for her because i was republican, im just saying that i am, and also she is a bitch...ive talked to her
What do you expect? Its Hilary Clinton, the queen - sorry, co-queen - of the liberal scum. Less than five years ago, she supported going into Iraq to stop the so-called terrorist threat, but went back on her support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2004. She is like any modern liberal: she'll only sway in the opposite direction of her conservative peers to appeal to the dying out Republican dynasty. Her policy on pulling out of Iraq will also due terrible things, including shatter our international policy - another step for us to fall back on as a superpower and making rooms for competitors like China (but thats a different story). Honestly, I think we either need a new approach or a decent conservative candidate. Guilianni (Mr.Liberal-in-Disguise) and McCain are nowhere near what we need. If Bush wants to give the Republicans any bit of a chance, he should try this (afterall, not much more than we can lose then we already have done): 1. Rewrite the rules of engagement. The new rules are so one-sided that our troops stand no chance and risk being court martial if they do the right thing. This will allow our troops to actually fight the insurgents. 2. Bolster forces in the aerial and tank divisions. No more of this infantry/ground troop crap thats getting our boys killed. The advancements in tanks and jets will allow us to do our job better without risk of casualties. 3. Confront support from NATO and EU forces in using peacekeepers to help evacuate Iraqi civilians from targeted areas within the Sunni Triangle and in Sadr City. This will allow us to use the heavy firepower to combat groups of insurgents w/o the risk of innocent bystanders. 4. After a full-on attack of the targeted areas, call in the ground troops to sweep the ruins for any remaining cells that might still be left. This will also allow us to strike at the head of the Mahdi Army, Muqtada al-Sadr. Once hes knocked down, we can push back al-Queda forces in order to secure Iraqi territory. 5. Establish peace missions in Iraq with the support of US and NATO troops as well as place the Iraqi parliament under strict surveillance by UNDP (United Nations Development Program) and peacekeepers. I hate to sound like a warmonger, but these aren't people who were like the enemies in WW2. These people are dangerous in the aspect of one thing: faith. Their faith in right-wing extremism of Islam has stolen their fear of death, thus making them a dangerous force that can only be dealt with by force.
Oh because every 'real' Republican has to be a good God fearing, criminal smiting, baby savior? He's a registered Republican, he's a Goldwater Republican, he's an old fashion pre-Reagan Republican.
... and that's why everybody needs to register independant. Both parties have idiots, both take the exact opposite stance as the opposing side, and that's the way US politics happens.
