Hillary open to VEEP seat

Saying the fed is free from political influence is the same as saying the Supreme Court is an unbiased entity.

Both tend to be pressured or manipulated by the government-of-the-day.

At this point any claim about what a presidential hopefull is going to do when he becomes president is propoganda. And yes he will probable be pro choice and anti gun.

David S. Wallens wrote: When I went to the Runoffs in '06, we had cookies and punch at her place. Seriously. She asked me and Steven Cole Smith if we'd like to see the backyard. Two minutes later, here's the governor of Kansas dropping trou and showing us her poop-chute.

now that's showing someone the backyard! but is she a candidate i could get behind?

GlennS wrote: At this point any claim about what a presidential hopefull is going to do when he becomes president is propoganda. And yes he will probable be pro choice and anti gun.

I don't think his voting record (albeit unusually short) is propaganda. It's fact.

In a very brief time, he has proven what he is about. He makes Ted Kennedy look conservative.

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle' Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was. The old rancher said, When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there!

clarification: Farmers and ranchers sometimes put a turtle on top of a flat fence post. When you put him up on a post his legs won't reach anything so he can't move. Ya gotta wonder who put Obama there and what they want from him.

carguy123 wrote: While 'post turtle'

That's easy.

You put the turtle up there so he can get a better view of what's going on for miles around. Then, the other turtles take him down and find out what's true and what's bull sh!t they've been told before.

Bull sh!t like:

• fighting failed wars for no gain

• failed economies

• erosion of civil rights

• a growing gap between rich and poor as opposed to a gradual rise of all economies

• a gradually more oppressive government bent on furthering itself.

It's very simple once you realize why the turtle was put there in the first place.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Someone had to put him up there and someone has to take him down. So who's the power behind the throne going to be?

Except for the war part you've just summed up the Dems. The Dems wouldn't have balls enough to go to war over something as trivial as, oh let's say, playing airplane roulette with skyscrapers and the Pentagon.

They'd talk about it, and talk about it and talk about it until people got tired of listening to it.

carguy123 wrote: ...You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there!... ...Ya gotta wonder who put Obama there and what they want from him.

How exactly is this different from every other presidential candidate in history?!

Nothing new here, don't act so surprised. Besides, lets not over react to how much power the president actually has. It's not like things are going to change any significant amount no matter WHO gets in... there is just way to much inertia in the government at this point. Any changes will have to be very slow (unfortunately). This of course is why Ron Paul, although very interesting, would get almost nothing he would want done.

The same way Ross Perot would have gotten nothing done.

Even Roosevelt's Bull Moose party was doomed.

It's the checks and balances of our system that is supposed to prevent a "kingship". The Pres. is supposed to curtail the power of the congress & vice versa.

What a wild card Pres does do is send a message. No one knows how he/she will react. About all the pres can do proactively is influence public opinion which can be a strong power.

While I would love to vote for a wild card, I won't any more. Voting for Perot got us the Clintons. Shuddderrrr!

Xceler8x wrote:

carguy123 wrote: While 'post turtle'

- fighting failed wars for no gain - failed economies - erosion of civil rights - a growing gap between rich and poor as opposed to a gradual rise of all economies - a gradually more oppressive government bent on furthering itself.

I swear I don't know how you make this list and then decide that Dems are the answer. I'll grant you the war thing. The rest are equally berkeleyed by D's and R's, or moreso by D's.

Failed Economy = the result of an oppresive tax system that discourages productivity. Erosion of rights = Gun rights, rights reserved for the states, etc.
Income gap = See also, failed tax policy.
Oppressive government = See above.

While I guess it would be cool if we had a governement that did exactly whatI want all the time, it ain't gonna happen. The single biggest interaction I have with the government is that roughly half of my money is stolen from me every year. Let me keep my money and I'll vote for Jerry Garcia singing Kumbaya on the floor of the Senate while burning insense in the press room and throwing a hippy orgie in the oval office.

People remember what happened most recently. Contrast the Clinton presidency to the Bush presidency. Most people would associate Bush with every item on that list before Clinton.

During Clintons presidency there was a strong economy and only the occasional lobbing of cruise missiles. Not sure if he had anything to do with taking away civil rights.

We all know how things have gone differently under Bush.