what about Hillary makes her the favorite of shaman and freethinker anyway? that idea right there makes me want to vote for Obama.

what about Hillary makes her the favorite of shaman and freethinker anyway? that idea right there makes me want to vote for Obama.
Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think FT supports one of the others. Shaman I know supports Hillary, and I believe dharma likes Edwards?

well freethinker sure defends hillary at every turn, even from obama supporters.

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think FT supports one of the others. Shaman I know supports Hillary, and I believe dharma likes Edwards?
i like them too...Obama is a hell of a public speaker, Edwards is the lawyer i'd want if i was suing someone, and Hillary....i'm sure there's something redeemable about her:D

i just don't think they're what America needs now.

i just don't think they're what America needs now.
What reasoning do you base this on?

What reasoning do you base this on?
most of America is not the south side of Chicago, Shrillary just rubs me the wrong way, and i just don't trust her (suprise!)...and how the hell are we going to get tort reform out of a trial lawyer?

how the hell are we going to get tort reform out of a trial lawyer?
Same way we got it out of Bush. Or Clinton. And thanks for highlighting the absurdity of what passes for political thought in this country.

Same way we got it out of Bush. Or Clinton. And thanks for highlighting the absurdity of what passes for political thought in this country.
it's moving ahead at the speed of government...right along with campaign finance reform:corn:

most of America is not the south side of Chicago
I assume that's your argument against Obama, but I can't see how it could possibly be a logical argument against him... Care to explain further?

I assume that's your argument against Obama, but I can't see how it could possibly be a logical argument against him... Care to explain further?
his voting record has been pandering to his district, not their best interests. we need a leader in the White House, not someone to blow sunshine up our asses. i don't think he can sell the painful choices ahead to undo the damage done by the last 72 years.

72 years? So the last decent president was Herbert Hoover?

You make less sense with each passing day.

72 years? So the last decent president was Herbert Hoover?

You make less sense with each passing day.
social security has been looted by the Feds since day one. it 's not just the administrations since then, it's Congress and and the sense of entitlement that's developed since then.

Looted? You mean to tell me that Congress and the President misappropriate funds destined for Social Security programs for other purposes?

Looted? You mean to tell me that Congress and the President misappropriate funds destined for Social Security programs for other purposes?
:lolhit: You funny, Nap.

Looted? You mean to tell me that Congress and the President misappropriate funds destined for Social Security programs for other purposes?
that's good news and bad news-half our national debt is financed by the social security trust fund.

.....Until Karl Rove (http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0886_is_karl_rove_new_benedict_arnold.html) starts spinning-his-magic.....and, revealing a potential-Whitehouse environment (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/374632633_2916606898.jpg), to "conservative"-Americans. :rolleyes:
Hate to tell everyone "I told you so.....", BUT......it's starting, already (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MSNBC_Analyst_Rove_Obama_attack_almost_0111.html).

Lookin' like Charlie Rangel is tellin' Obama to get real.....and quit fanning an issue that doesn't exist (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)!! :thumbs:

Kids, these days............... :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Travh20
what about Hillary makes her the favorite of shaman and freethinker anyway?

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think FT supports one of the others.

As for me personally, I am dead set against Hillary as a candidate. My point here is not to defend her, but to simply point out to the simpletons who go around saying ""she's a gnarly witch"" that they have NO substantive reason for disliking her other than the fact that they have been brainwashed into believing that she is somehow "evil" or that she is "a communist" or that "she is a bitch".

I do not support her, but not because she is ""a witch"", and not because she is (even if it were true) ""in a marriage of political convenience", and not because ""she's a bitch"". Those are all childish, irrational reasons.

I am against her solely because of her political bent.........which is pretty much the same, on the substantive issues of the day, as all the other ConservaFascists that have preceeded her. She is pro-war, she is pro Corporate America and she will not do the things that will truly help the poor and middle classes. She is, politically, just too much of a ConservaCorporatist for me to support her.

This country is headed in a VERY bad direction; and voting HRC into office will not be a change. It is simply voting for more of the same.

The only thing that would save or could save this country (and it has no chance of happening) is for some person like David McReynolds or Walter Brown or Mary Alice Herbert to be elected.......i.e., for the massive budget for the war machine to be slashed and the vast wealth of this country to be re-directed and applied to things that will be of actual benefit to the People of this country instead of the Corporations.