Slick Hilly

This is the smartest woman in the world ?

And it seems like all the lib networks are attacking her as hard as the other candidates.

Expect her to play the "those big men ganged up on the little girl in the room" card in 3....2....1....

 

She sounds like George W. Bush.

One step forward,

oopps,

one step back,

opps,

two steps to the right,

ok...opps,

three steps to the left,

All of these clowns are just the same.

I suggest we abandon the main stream.

 

She's trying to dance the Clinton sidestep, but doesn't have the master's touch. Ends up tripping all over herself.:laugh:

 

George Wallace, a third party candidate who carried several states in the 1968 Presidential election, once said, "There is not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats."

While there are surface differences, or appearance differences, the fact is that they are united by one thing. Between the two parties, they hold 100% of the power in this country, and woe unto anyone who tries to challange it.

Both parties are evil to the core. Neither care a thing about serving the American people. Both are self indulgent, power hungry pigs.

It takes an electron microscope to detect the difference in evil between the two, but the Democrats still win by a hair.

Our standards as Americans has gotten so low that out of 300 million citizens, welll, look at the collection of clowns lined up to lead us. Have you seen either party's Presidential debate lately? Do you honestly see a leader in any of them, especially the ones who have a chance at the nomination?

Until we as a people insist on excellence in our leaders, we are going to trot out the same old, inept parade of leaders we have had for decades. Isn't who we elect a reflection of us? Do you like the present image? Do you like the image shaping up in 2008?

 

When did 1968 George Wallace become a source? I think that he meant that both parties had joined together to pass civil rights legislation in 1964.

 

No one said it was a source. If you will read the post, I believe it said quote.

As it relates today, both parties are interested in one thing and one thing only, power. That also includes your sainted Indiana Republicans.

 

Why would you quote 1968 George Wallace's complaint about the passage of the 1964 civil rights act?

 

That is strictly your opinion, and not accurate. Wallace used the phrase many times in the 1968 election to criticize both Nixon and Humphrey.

 

Ain't the question whether the quote was accurate or not?

 

No, the statement was racially motivated. Wallace had been a Democrat. He later recanted.

 

Maybe or maybe not. Had I been voting age in 1968 (just barely short), I would probably have voted for Nixon.

The point of the quote for today is that all those Republican candidates you talk about carrying Indiana exhibit many of the same symptoms that the Democrats do, such as the present occupant spending like a drunken sailor, and not having a clue how to protect the borders, except with amnesty, to mention a few.

 

Wallace was talking about how the GOP supplied the votes that the Democrats did not have to pass the civil rights act of 1964, a fact now denied by Democrats and blacks.

Actually, Nixon presided over the largest GOP increase in spending before Bush. Saturn, since you are from Kentucky, the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, you know that we Hoosiers have a long history of voting GOP, especially in presidential contests. And I am sure that you know that Ron Paul probably has no more support in Kentucky than in Indiana. You have GOP US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, a man in whom I have great confidence.

It is true that Bush has been a moderate and has been domestically weak since Gore's legal challenge of the 2000 election. However, Bush and Cheney are lame ducks. Cheney would make a good president but he is too ill to continue beyond this term.

Hillary has a great deal of baggage and seems unable to answer a clear question of any sort. Therefore, all the GOP has to do is to pick a good captain and work for victory. Don't you support Fred Thompson for President?

 

It is my sincere hope that the GOP will nominate a good candidate. That would not be Giuliani or Romney. Whoever they nominate, I will never vote for the present field of Democrats. Electing a Democrat is not the answer to a liberal Republican.

You are kind calling Bush a moderate. Anyway, you are correct. Back in the days before 1968, there were many southern Senators who were basically for segregation. I do not know that I would call them conservative, maybe evil. They certainly were not the Democrats of today, just as evil in a different way.

To answer your question, Fred Thompson would be acceptable, as would Huckabee, maybe a few others. Our primary is way after the decision will be made who the nominee is.

 

Kentucky is a beautiful state.