# Hillary or Obama



## 3Reds (Feb 12, 2007)

OK since it looks like McCain is going to win the republican primary, should we cross over and vote in the democratic primary to help choose his opposition? Who would you like to see running against him?

3reds


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I'd prefer Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama, based on their overall positions. She is very slightly more moderate than he, though both are quite liberal. However, I do think Obama would bring some measure of civility to politics, while Clinton would bring the very opposite.

However, since AZ already had its primary (from which I abstained), and since I have no plan to vote for _any_ of the three candidates mentioned, I won't be switching my affiliation to Democrat. I will very likely switch to Independent when I get home, though, since a party that nominates Sen. McCain can no longer be my political home.


----------



## Ram Rod (Jan 16, 2008)

> should we cross over and vote in the democratic primary to help choose his opposition?


Personally I think we should drop to our knees and pray to God for the future of this great nation. Divine assistance is what it's going to take to turn the tide IMO.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2008)

Tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum? Some choices.


----------



## Dsig1 (Dec 23, 2007)

I think that Hillary is a much tougher opponent for Senator McCain. In most polls, she would win the general election over him. Obama is riding a huge wave but McCain has too much experience for Obama. McCain is also a pretty moderate guy so he can sway the swing voters who want change. Also, I think if Hillary wins the nomination, Obama would be the VP choice and he would accept making it a very tough ticket for republicans to beat. If Obama gets the nod, I don't think Clinton will go on the VP ballot, thus leaving him out there alone or with Edwards but I think McCain can win that battle.

Republicans should be praying for Obama to win the nomination.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Well I think Obama could do the most out of ALL of the candidates when it comes to "International Relations" (something this country could really use right now whether you can admit it or not). Clinton has more experience but Obama is one hell of a public speaker.....quite the contrast from the current office holder. 

One way or another this is going to be one of the more entertaining elections. (If your looking for any sort of silver lining). You've got an African American, a Woman and a Maverick. For better or for worse it looks like history will probably be made in this election.

I know that 99% of this board can't stand any of the choices, but truth be told any one of them would be a major improvement compared to Bush.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Fred40 said:


> ...Clinton has more experience ...


I Hate this retoric. I feel it is like Bill Clinton saying he has more experience giving birth because he was at Hillary's side when Chelsey was born. (Don't know if he was or not, not my point).
She is a junior senator from NY!!!!!!!!!! (hate to admit that)

There are only 3 people alive who can claim to have experince as president: Geroge H Bush, Bill Clinton And Geroge W Bush.

Overall, I'm ready to write in vote for Jessie Ventura. It would be nice to have an intelligent President again


----------



## XD_Hokie (Dec 29, 2007)

Hard, bad choices, but Obama thinks no one should be able to carry a conceal weapon. A 3rd Clinton presidency would be a zoo, and maybe that will keep anything of negative substance from happening. I would love to see Bill in a nice Jacalyn Kennedy red dress though for the inaguration!


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2008)

XD_Hokie said:


> Hard, I would love to see Bill in a nice Jacalyn Kennedy red dress though for the inaguration!


Did ya see Rudy Julie-Annie in his!


----------



## SigZagger (Aug 16, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> Clinton has more experience but Obama is one hell of a public speaker.


Can you tell me exactly what experience she has? I know the media is struggling with her "so-called experience" as well. And regarding Obama the public speaker. Yes, he is a good public speaker, but many in history have pulled the wool over voters eyes just on that alone. Don't be fooled, just because he dresses well and speaks well. Unfortunately, IMO, I believe Bush has pissed off to many republican voters and they may jump ship.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Ram Rod said:


> Personally I think we should drop to our knees and pray to God for the future of this great nation. Divine assistance is what it's going to take to turn the tide IMO.


:smt023 Ain't that the truth!


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

We should all write in Wandering Man for president.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> Obama is one hell of a public speaker.....


So was Adolf Hitler... What's your point...?

Obama is an idiot with absolutely no experience, which in todays world is extremely dangerous...

Hillary is an idiot and a marxist...

McCain is an idiot who is really a liberal pretending to be a conservative...

All three will raise taxes, All three want to grant amnesty to 11-30 million illegal Mexicans, All three want an open southern border with Mexico, All three want a weapons ban.

and then there is this...



> * Obama will be assassinated if he wins: Nobel winner Lessing*
> 
> STOCKHOLM (AFP) - If Barack Obama becomes the next US president he will surely be assassinated, British Nobel literature laureate Doris Lessing predicted in a newspaper interview published here Saturday.
> 
> ...


and this is coming from someone who won the Nobel Peace prize, but then again, we all know they just give those things to just anyone...


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I certainly hope the US has moved well beyond the racially/politically motivated assassinations of the 1960s.

But I also have a hard time lending much credence to the pronouncements of Nobel Laureates, considering that Nobel committees have also honored such "luminaries" as Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Yasser Afafat and Nelson Mandela, and in literature a long string of weirdo socialists and existentialists. (Though I concede that they have also honored Hemingway, Churchill and Solzhenitsyn for literature.)

I am sure the run-up to this election will produce a lot of sound, fury and saber-rattling on the internet - signifying nothing, as usual. And I am sure we will see the reemergence of the awful "_Charleton Heston is my President_" type of bumper stickers, should the Democrats win the day. I don't think "_John Sigler is my President_" has quite the same ring to it, though.

And of course we'll start seeing even more of the chest-pounding "_The Day We Lose the Second Amendment Is the Day We Start the Second Revolution!_" drivel. I can't quite figure out why the same people who insist we have to keep the military in Iraq to fight terrorism - to "fight them in Baghdad instead of Boston" - are so willing to turn America into their own private battlefield.

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Republic has endured bad presidents in the past, and it will endure them again. There seem to be only bad choices in 2008, so I will be sitting this one out unless something changes.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

niadhf said:


> ...
> There are only 3 people alive who can claim to have experince as president: Geroge H Bush, Bill Clinton And Geroge W Bush.
> ...


Ford and Reagan are no longer with us but Carter is.


----------



## OJ (Dec 25, 2006)

How about Obillary?????

:smt083


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> I certainly hope the US has moved well beyond the racially/politically motivated assassinations of the 1960s.
> 
> But I also have a hard time lending much credence to the pronouncements of Nobel Laureates, considering that Nobel committees have also honored such "luminaries" as Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Yasser Afafat and Nelson Mandela, and in literature a long string of weirdo socialists and existentialists. (Though I concede that they have also honored Hemingway, Churchill and Solzhenitsyn for literature.)
> 
> ...


You may not like any of the choices......but I still say any one of them would be an improvement over Bush. I honestly think George W. will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we've ever had........and that's saying a lot.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2008)

Fred40 said:


> George W. will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we've ever had........and that's saying a lot.


This is true!


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

MLB said:


> Ford and Reagan are no longer with us but Carter is.


DOH!!!
I stand Corrected.:smt033


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> You may not like any of the choices......but I still say any one of them would be an improvement over Bush.


Perhaps. But since one of the three of them is going to be president anyway, they can do it without my support and the tacit approval of my vote. Not that I am deluded enough to think my one vote makes a difference, anyway, so it's more for me than for them.



> I honestly think George W. will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we've ever had........and that's saying a lot.


Maybe. I think we will see a big effort by the "neocon" wing of the GOP - as represented by _The Weekly Standard_ - to rehabilitate his image as the years go by. A lot of that rehabilitation will depend on the ultimate outcomes of Afghanistan and Iraq. President Truman sent us to another war-without-end in Korea, and left office with low approval ratings, but he has subsequently been rehabilitated.


----------



## SigZagger (Aug 16, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> You may not like any of the choices......but I still say any one of them would be an improvement over Bush. I honestly think George W. will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we've ever had........and that's saying a lot.


Which presidents are you comparing him to? I hope you are going back to the beginning, starting with Washington, correct? Or, are you simply a Bush-hater, no matter what information you have? Facts please...no opinions.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2008)

MLB said:


> Ford and Reagan are no longer with us but Carter is.


His experience was all bad. Remember the sweaters, gas lines and 18% mortgage rates. Ahhh yes the good times. Easy to see why he was left out.

Re Hillary's experience: The best line I heard about that is she had 8 years in the White House and so did the pastry chef.

Re Obama: He does have the charisma and is a good public speaker that talks in platitudes but offers nothing.

Re McCain: The third democrat in the race. Enough said.

Mike: What will you do when they tell you to turn them all in? Revolution and resistance can happen non-violently by simply refusing to comply. My state of NH has a license plate that's saying is "Live Free or Die". Can you live free without the means to defend yourself?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TerryP said:


> Mike: What will you do when they tell you to turn them all in? Revolution and resistance can happen non-violently by simply refusing to comply. My state of NH has a license plate that's saying is "Live Free or Die". Can you live free without the means to defend yourself?


I don't think they will demand a mass turn-in. Rather, I think they will slowly make it more difficult to own guns, "grandfather in" existing owners, and just let the tradition of gun ownership die out.

I am all for a non-violent revolution, but of course you don't need guns to stage a non-violent anything. We have a chance for a non-violent revolution every time we go to the polls, though, and we don't seem to take advantage of it.

Anyway, if it comes to some battle in the streets against some hypothetical future tyranny, I think explosives will be much more useful than firearms. Such has been the modern history of asymmetrical warfare.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2008)

Fred40 said:


> You may not like any of the choices......but I still say any one of them would be an improvement over Bush. I honestly think George W. will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we've ever had........and that's saying a lot.


That is where I think the Bush bashers are wrong. If you take an honest look at what led up to 9/11 and you see a pattern of America being attacked and the response: this as a police matter and will not happen again. The first World Trade Center, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole all acts of terrorism that emboldened the terrorists.

Remember the stock market crash in 2000 and the 1999 irrational exhuberance? The recession that followed the crash.

These are all precusors to Bush's presidency. Bush went to war to stop terrorism in this country. He took it to the terrorists and as has been the case in the last 40 years this country doesn't have the stomach to fight an extended war. No one wants to see our young men and women die in war but the fact still remains we have been repeatedly attacked, action was necessary and we have not been attacked at home since. The question then becomes what would someone else have done? So let's hear it what would you have done? What would the anticipated results be and how would you accomplish it. Don't bother with what you wouldn't have done what would you have done to protect this country.


----------



## SigZagger (Aug 16, 2006)

TerryP said:


> Bush went to war to stop terrorism in this country. He took it to the terrorists and as has been the case in the last 40 years this country doesn't have the stomach to fight an extended war. No one wants to see our young men and women die in war but the fact still remains we have been repeatedly attacked, action was necessary and we have not been attacked at home since.


:smt023


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TerryP said:


> That is where I think the Bush bashers are wrong. If you take an honest look at what led up to 9/11 and you see a pattern of America being attacked and the response: this as a police matter and will not happen again. The first World Trade Center, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole all acts of terrorism that emboldened the terrorists.


I'm not *Fred40*, and I'm not a Bush-basher, but I'd like to interject if I may.

The attack on the USS Cole by some definitions wasn't an act of terrorism, since the target was a military one and not civilian. The attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't acts of terrorism, either. These are just examples of military actions by irregular forces.

From the US Code, section 2331, chapter 113b: "_..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a *civilian* population_" (bold is mine).



> Bush went to war to stop terrorism in this country.


Agreed, if you're talking about the invasion of Afghanistan. But there was no connection of Iraq with 9/11 and the attack on America. The case for invasion was basically made by saying that Iraq _might_ have weapons of mass destruction that they _might_ provide to terrorists.



> He took it to the terrorists and as has been the case in the last 40 years this country doesn't have the stomach to fight an extended war.


The "extended war" would be over already if it was confined to Afghanistan, and not the irrelevant Iraq. The result of the Iraq war has been a serious degradation of our military capacity, which in turn makes us less safe, not more.



> we have been repeatedly attacked, action was necessary and we have not been attacked at home since.


We were attacked at home twice (unless you count the multiple targets on 9/11 as multiple attacks). The rest of the attacks occurred overseas and often against military and governmental targets like ships, barracks and embassies.

But why was action in Iraq "necessary?" Even if we concede that Iraq having WMD was a realistic and serious threat, which is debatable, we had no real justification for staying after we learned that Iraq had no WMD. The result of five years of grinding war has been an Iraq that remains only borderline stable, and a huge degradation in our military readiness. I am not sure we can congratulate the president on either.



> The question then becomes what would someone else have done? So let's hear it what would you have done?


I volunteered for the mission in Afghanistan, so obviously I support it. The Iraq war was quite obviously a big mistake. In the interests of maintaining a strong military posture to counter real threats - once the WMD myth was unmasked - I would have withdrawn from Iraq. Rebuilding Iraq at the expense of American military readiness, in light of the 9/11 attack and the large number of jihadis in the world, seems like a foolhardy enterprise.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

I would have taken us into Afghanistan......period. Certainly Iraq would have been on the radar.......much as North Korea would have been also. But, without clear evidence of WMD's in Iraq I would not have taken out Hussein (Even though he deserved it). When you are the President of the United States you can't just go off half cocked. Half Cocked should be Bush's nickname.

The war in Iraq only BEGINS my problems with Bush. He's a moron plain and simple. The guy does not have a clue on diplomacy. He's dumber than a 5th grader when it comes to modern science. Stem Cell Research was a big peeve of mine......he has cost many lives from that fiasco. Agreeing that "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science classes ("cough" "moron" "cough"). Denying that Global Warming is a reality.......not that I have any answers there, and I'm not even saying people are totally responsible for it... but denying it exists is moronic. The list goes on.....

And to the gentleman who asked for facts not opinion I say :?:

This is all about opinion. I have my reasons (some of which are stated above) for my opinion.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> without clear evidence of WMD's in Iraq


according to this guy... there was. Besides, for 8 "pre-Bush" years we were spoon fed that Iraq had WMDs. According to Clinton/Gore... They did.











Don't even get me started on global warming. I'll just leave you with this...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

and this is from Time magazine... from 1974

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

It's "moronic" to "preach to the sheep" or to "assume" anything at this point, considering the planet has been here for a few billion years. Remember... Dinosaurs roamed the Earth for over 200 million years and it was alot warmer when they ruled the planet, then the planet experienced multiple ice ages. What warmed the planet back then to melt the ice...? I'll tell you.. it's called a "planetary cycle". It goes like this... ...warm...cold...warm...cold...warm...cold, etc. That is fact.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Not saying the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified. I just think the subsequent occupation and experiment in nation building has done grievous harm to our military readiness.

Now we can't respond properly to a _real_ emergency, and our efforts in Afghanistan - against the _real_ al-Qaeda, not some "al-Qaeda in Iraq" that was created by our presence there - are very seriously hampered. We have to go begging to NATO for troops and equipment because of the disaster in Iraq. Had the president and Mr. Rumsfeld listened to General Shinseki prior to the invasion, this may not have happened.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Not saying the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified. I just think the subsequent occupation and experiment in nation building has done grievous harm to our military readiness.
> 
> Now we can't respond properly to a _real_ emergency, and our efforts in Afghanistan - against the _real_ al-Qaeda, not some "al-Qaeda in Iraq" that was created by our presence there - are very seriously hampered. We have to go begging to NATO for troops and equipment because of the disaster in Iraq. Had the president and Mr. Rumsfeld listened to General Shinseki prior to the invasion, this may not have happened.


I agree... :smt023

But, my issues are when people use terms like... "half cocked" or "worst president in history" when it comes to Iraq and for that matter...other issues. Bush used the very same intelligence that Bill Clinton and Al Gore spoon fed the country...and world... for 8 years, the whole DNC backed both them as well. Democrats are nothing more than hypocrites... 95% of them anyway. They all seem to have selectivememoryloss disease.






As for the others issues... I guess past presidents who supported slavery or genocide against native americans or who was in charge and ushered in the great depression were pretty swell guys... 

and when it comes to the topic of Global Warming... that's my pet peeve. This article was released today... Feb. 26th, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Of course, Obama has said that he... if elected... will end Global Warming. What an idiot... That's like me saying... I have the power to cool the sun. Of course people buy into the hype. And until all the data is in...from both sides, it's just that... hype.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Now we can't respond properly to a _real_ emergency, and our efforts in Afghanistan - against the _real_ al-Qaeda, not some "al-Qaeda in Iraq" that was created by our presence there - are very seriously hampered. We have to go begging to NATO for troops and equipment because of the disaster in Iraq. Had the president and Mr. Rumsfeld listened to General Shinseki prior to the invasion, this may not have happened.


+1

For years there has been a draw down on US military personnel and resources.

Putting aside the debate justifying our commitments in the 'Stans and Iraq, I fear for our military capacity to adequately support a third theater of operations. Should a new threat emerge, a redeployment of troops would weaken our existing commitments - putting our sons and daughters serving there at greater risk.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear of any candidate supporting increasing military funding. If you need the cash... eliminate attachment of earmarks to bills in the federal budget. :smt078


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

submoa said:


> I fear for our military capacity to adequately support a third theater of operations. Should a new threat emerge, a redeployment of troops would weaken our existing commitments - putting our sons and daughters serving there at greater risk.


Agreed. As it sits now, we could respond to a naval threat, but pretty much anything requiring a substantial (and I mean more than a few brigades) commitment of ground forces would be almost impossible to sustain.

We have fairly sizable forces in Europe and South Korea. If we aren't going to seriously increase the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps, we need to think about moving those troops. The Koreans have been leaning on us for sixty years. As much as I like the Koreans, it's time to stop sending that welfare check.



> I have yet to hear of any candidate supporting increasing military funding.


To give the devil his due, Sen. McCain has been agitating for some time to increase the size of the active ground components.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> Not saying the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified. I just think the subsequent occupation and experiment in nation building has done grievous harm to our military readiness.


I'm not sure what the alternative would be. If we had invaded and then said oops no WMD's time to go. I have to believe that would have accomplished absolutely nothing or worse. I agree with JS that our intelligence pointed to Sadam having WMD's (he said so himself) and as such an exporter of terror.

I am not an ardent supporter of President Bush by any stretch of the imagination, I think his immigration policy is a farce and his latest revelation on global warming is just knuckling under to the libs. History judges all presidents and if we look at the last 5: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush I'd rate him second in that group.

Mike a point of technicality an Embassy is considered American soil. I also have a hard time making a differentiation between terrorism and an act of war when our military is attacked while we are at peace. I guess that is just another technical point but I know regardless it pi$$es me off.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> I would have taken us into Afghanistan......period. Certainly Iraq would have been on the radar.......much as North Korea would have been also. But, without clear evidence of WMD's in Iraq I would not have taken out Hussein (Even though he deserved it). When you are the President of the United States you can't just go off half cocked. Half Cocked should be Bush's nickname.
> 
> The war in Iraq only BEGINS my problems with Bush. He's a moron plain and simple. The guy does not have a clue on diplomacy. He's dumber than a 5th grader when it comes to modern science. Stem Cell Research was a big peeve of mine......he has cost many lives from that fiasco. Agreeing that "Intelligent Design" should be taught in science classes ("cough" "moron" "cough"). Denying that Global Warming is a reality.......not that I have any answers there, and I'm not even saying people are totally responsible for it... but denying it exists is moronic. The list goes on.....
> 
> ...


I guess I'm a moron.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TerryP said:


> I'm not sure what the alternative would be. If we had invaded and then said oops no WMD's time to go. I have to believe that would have accomplished absolutely nothing or worse. I agree with JS that our intelligence pointed to Sadam having WMD's (he said so himself) and as such an exporter of terror.


I think leaving in 2004 would have been better than staying. Yes, Iraq would have descended into some period of barbarity and anarchy, but it did anyway, and perhaps the barbarity and anarchy (and, yes, "ethnic cleansing") would have resulted in some stable political settlement. Maybe it would have even resulted in the three-state partition that I think is the only long-term solution for Iraq. And it probably would have been better for American security, since our military would not have been ground down and pinned in one strategically irrelevant nation.

I recognize that this is not the way we as Americans like to leave countries that we invade, but in the interests of our long-term security, it would have been a better course. Now we have a beaten up military stuck in a country that means precious little to our overall security picture. Meanwhile, we cannot finish the fight in Afghanistan, China is building a very powerful force, Iran is rattling its saber, and we still have to defend Korea. But we are paralyzed because we think in terms of dime-store aphorisms like "we broke it, we bought it" and "cut and run."

In terms of overall American security, Iraq was better with Saddam Hussein in charge. Regrettably, we didn't know it because our HUMINT capabilities were so degraded, mainly because of President Clinton. But we had Hussein's ambitions contained with a small and easily sustainable force.



> Mike a point of technicality an Embassy is considered American soil.


Good point. I hadn't considered that angle.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> To give the devil his due, Sen. McCain has been agitating for some time to increase the size of the active ground components.


That would be in Iraq only. He only recognizes that the military force we have in Iraq is inadequate.

No candidate acknowledges the fact that our military strength is inadequate to deal with a new front in addition to our existing commitments.

In so far my opinion of the Iraq war is concerned, it should have been partitioned in 2004 into three states: Kurdistan, a Sunni homeland and a Shiite homeland. The US should have been replaced with UN peacekeepers that includes Saudis (to lend needed Islamic flavor). After the predictable invasion by Iran, we would be supporting the UN to defend Iraq and have the moral pretext we need to go into Iran to kick out the fundamentalists.

The biggest argument against this plan is that it doesn't guarantee a US, or more to the point Halliburton, monopoly on rebuilding Iraq.

Military force works best for regime change and sucks in occupation. Its the UN's job to nation build.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

submoa said:


> That would be in Iraq only. He only recognizes that the military force we have in Iraq is inadequate.


Uhhh, no. While he does back the Surge, these are from www.johnmccain.com:

_"John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security."

"John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today."
_
And from his mouth in an interview with _National Review_:

_"Just one other thing. I've been saying for a long time that we have to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. I say that as an old Navy man."_

Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTMxOWRkYjgyNDhjOTU5ZTY2OWU2ZTg2ZmUxMzQ1NjQ=&w=MQ==


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> _"John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security."_


_

I stand corrected. McCain sucks less, but fails to cross the suck/not suck barrier for me not to feel nauseous should I choose to vote for him.

:smt078_


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

submoa said:


> I stand corrected. McCain sucks less, but fails to cross the suck/not suck barrier for me not to feel nauseous should I choose to vote for him.
> 
> :smt078


Heh, I didn't say I was going to _vote_ for him. I think in some ways he is less tolerable that the Democrats, especially on First and Fourth Amendment issues.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> I think in some ways he is less tolerable that the Democrats, especially on First and Fourth Amendment issues.


Amen to that. :smt083


----------

