Originally Posted by Chief Bones

Who in the H is Mr H? Certainly nobody I know anything about .. or .. anybody I'd vote for.

I wouldn't worry about it Chief. Republicans have been in power too long, and even worse done far too much damage because of it.
The way I see it, Republicans could run Jesus Christ in 2008 and still lose.... and lose big, not saying that Jesus Christ would be a Republican in this day and age, as Jesus Christ was his last time out pretty much the Worlds biggest Liberal.

Somebody please clean up after Gator

Originally Posted by Padre

Somebody please clean up after Gator

Since you never have anything to offer, except personal attacks on other Forum Members, and I'm placing you on Ignore.

Originally Posted by Gator

I wouldn't worry about it Chief. Republicans have been in power too long, and even worse done far too much damage because of it.
The way I see it, Republicans could run Jesus Christ in 2008 and still lose.... and lose big, not saying that Jesus Christ would be a Republican in this day and age, as Jesus Christ was his last time out pretty much the Worlds biggest Liberal.

Was there any valid point to this at all? Just curious.

Nope he is trolling, but Gator please provide all sources that Republicans have done more damage then Democrats....

On topic:

This guy looks interesting I must do some more research now...Then again hell we should just all vote for Hillary.....

Originally Posted by PJ24

What turns you off about him, the fact that he is an actual combat vet or the the fact that you don't know who he is? Btw, he's out of CA.

-PJ-
What makes you so positive that a combat vet is the 'best' choice for President - I am a combat vet, but I don't think you would chose me to run for President just because of that fact. Let's hold a little reality check here ... I have seen many veterans I wouldn't trust with the power inherent with holding the highest office in the land (sort of like the present occupant of the Whitehouse).

As far as voting for him because -you- like him ... no way in h*ll would that sway me. If (and when) he is on the ballot, I would make the necessary inquiries to determine if he deserved my vote. I have never and never will vote for someone because of someone else's opinion ... doing so would make me a bigger fool than the person who closes his eyes and blindly pokes at his ballot and votes for the candidate who is closest to his finger. I take my voting responsibility serious and have NEVER voted for someone I knew nothing about.

As far as him holding the position of chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in 2003, it will require more than that qualification before I would vote for him for the office of President of the United States. I would have to look at his voting record before I would consider him. The ONLY way his party affiliation enters my decision making is the imperative that his qualifications MUST be better than the person running against him.

It's too bad that more people only look at party affiliation when voting ... choosing the most qualified person might alleviate some of the scandals and vituperation that seem to be the hallmark of partisan Washington politics.

Just for information, I have voted for persons of just about every possible party affiliation there is (short of the Communist/Socialist and Green Peace Parties - they are crackpots and idiots of the worst kind).

Hmm...well, he might has my vote.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

-PJ-
What makes you so positive that a combat vet is the 'best' choice for President - I am a combat vet, but I don't think you would chose me to run for President just because of that fact. Let's hold a little reality check here ... I have seen many veterans I wouldn't trust with the power inherent with holding the highest office in the land (sort of like the present occupant of the Whitehouse).

Just a couple of things.

No where in my post did I say anyone should vote for someone because of their prior service. You claimed he was someone who would never get your vote, now since you also claimed you'd never heard of him the only info you'd have about him would be that that Bulldogg provided you, and that was his prior service. So, you either wouldn't vote for him because he's a combat vet or because you don't know who he is.

As far as voting for him because -you- like him ... no way in h*ll would that sway me. If (and when) he is on the ballot, I would make the necessary inquiries to determine if he deserved my vote. I have never and never will vote for someone because of someone else's opinion ... doing so would make me a bigger fool than the person who closes his eyes and blindly pokes at his ballot and votes for the candidate who is closest to his finger. I take my voting responsibility serious and have NEVER voted for someone I knew nothing about.

If you look back through my post you will notice I made no comments about my personal feelings for or against Mr. Hunter.

As for you, you already said you wouldn't vote for him and you don't know anything about him. That, to me, isn't taking voting responsibility very seriously, in fact, it seems very careless. It seems you would at least want to educate yourself on the guy before making that final decision.

As far as him holding the position of chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in 2003, it will require more than that qualification before I would vote for him for the office of President of the United States. I would have to look at his voting record before I would consider him. The ONLY way his party affiliation enters my decision making is the imperative that his qualifications MUST be better than the person running against him.

I only highlighted the things that should have made him known to you, not things you should vote on him for. In fact, I didn't attempt to sway your "vote" at all with that information.

It's too bad that more people only look at party affiliation when voting ... choosing the most qualified person might alleviate some of the scandals and vituperation that seem to be the hallmark of partisan Washington politics.

Yes, it is too bad, and I agree with you. But I am left to wonder by your first post if that's why you dismissed Mr. Hunter.

-PJ-
NOTE: I said I would NOT VOTE for anyone I knew nothing about - I think that is more responsible than voting for some one because someone else does ...
I'd vote for Mickey Mouse first.

The rest of my post explains how I would go about choosing who I would vote for.

As far as Mr Hunter, he IS NOT presently on the Presidential Ballot, so I don't have to even consider him for anything (up to and including DogCatcher).

By the way, IF Mr H were on the ballot,
then I'd take the time to check him out - until then, why should I waste my time - I don't vote in Republican primaries (or) Democrat Primaries ... it is NOT necessary for me to declare my party affiliation in order to vote where I live.

Originally Posted by Gator

I wouldn't worry about it Chief. Republicans have been in power too long, and even worse done far too much damage because of it.
The way I see it, Republicans could run Jesus Christ in 2008 and still lose.... and lose big, not saying that Jesus Christ would be a Republican in this day and age, as Jesus Christ was his last time out pretty much the Worlds biggest Liberal.

I do think you have over looked one small detail here and that is the Democratic party's impressive ability to take several suitable candidates and then choose the one with the least charisma and chance to be elected.
Like it or not voters of all nations tend to like their leaders to show signs of life while speaking.