I have to agree that Mitt Romney feels like a GOP Kerry at this point, even down to the looks and mannerisms. The only difference is Romney doesn't have long winded speeches.

 

I would also have to say that I see more comparisons between Obama and JFK than Obama and Reagan, but that's just me. Both were very young and politically inexperienced when they ran for president. Both were members of groups that had never occupied the White House before (JFK- Catholic, Obama- African-American). Of course, Obama doesn't have the benefit of a heavily connected family, but that may be a good thing in this era.

 

I swear to god, if Hillary somehow wins the nomination, it would be the equivalent of punting on 1st and 10 in the Super Bowl with 2:00 left, when you are down by just under a touchdown. In other words, it would be a disaster for the party. You could tell from the debate yesterday that the Republicans are salivating at the possibility of running against a polarizing figure like Hillary.

I automatically disregarded any of the candidates that raised their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution.

 

Talk about a bunch of morons.

 

 

Agreed. BTW, the three were Senator Brownback,Gov. Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Three who have zero chance.

 

Not sure what relevance does this have, or why the question was asked.

I automatically disregarded any of the candidates that raised their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution.

 

Talk about a bunch of morons.

 

 

Agreed. BTW, the three were Senator Brownback,Gov. Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Three who have zero chance.

 

Not sure what relevance does this have, or why the question was asked.

 

It is relevant because we can't have someone who disregards science entirely running our country. We tried that.

I automatically disregarded any of the candidates that raised their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution.

 

Talk about a bunch of morons.

 

 

Agreed. BTW, the three were Senator Brownback,Gov. Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Three who have zero chance.

 

Not sure what relevance does this have, or why the question was asked.

 

It is relevant because we can't have someone who disregards science entirely running our country. We tried that.

 

Exactly.

 

We don't need a president that doesn't believe in evolution.

Romney is useless. He's such a slimeball.

 

I can't listen to the guy talk. He just sounds like your prototypical overly-political, BS-spouting, fraudulent politician. God, he's such slime.

 

You guys are right; he's a lot like Kerry. His mouth opens and nonsense just starts pouring out. He can talk for five minutes and I still won't be able to identify anything credible he's said.

I automatically disregarded any of the candidates that raised their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution.

 

Talk about a bunch of morons.

 

 

Agreed. BTW, the three were Senator Brownback,Gov. Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Three who have zero chance.

 

Not sure what relevance does this have, or why the question was asked.

 

It is relevant because we can't have someone who disregards science entirely running our country. We tried that.

 

Exactly.

 

We don't need a president that doesn't believe in evolution.

really? I don't want to turn this into a debate against evolution.

 

But there is a large number of scientist that don't believe in it. And they are good MDs, geologists, physicist, etc.

Romney is useless. He's such a slimeball.

 

I can't listen to the guy talk. He just sounds like your prototypical overly-political, BS-spouting, fraudulent politician. God, he's such slime.

 

You guys are right; he's a lot like Kerry. His mouth opens and nonsense just starts pouring out. He can talk for five minutes and I still won't be able to identify anything credible he's said.

i agree wholeheartedly...romney sucks...no other intelligent way of putting it

I automatically disregarded any of the candidates that raised their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution.

 

Talk about a bunch of morons.

 

 

Agreed. BTW, the three were Senator Brownback,Gov. Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Three who have zero chance.

 

Not sure what relevance does this have, or why the question was asked.

 

It is relevant because we can't have someone who disregards science entirely running our country. We tried that.

 

Exactly.

 

We don't need a president that doesn't believe in evolution.

really? I don't want to turn this into a debate against evolution.

 

But there is a large number of scientist that don't believe in it. And they are good MDs, geologists, physicist, etc.

 

Like who?

I automatically disregarded any of the candidates that raised their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution.

 

Talk about a bunch of morons.

 

 

Agreed. BTW, the three were Senator Brownback,Gov. Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Three who have zero chance.

 

Not sure what relevance does this have, or why the question was asked.

 

It is relevant because we can't have someone who disregards science entirely running our country. We tried that.

 

Exactly.

 

We don't need a president that doesn't believe in evolution.

really? I don't want to turn this into a debate against evolution.

 

But there is a large number of scientist that don't believe in it. And they are good MDs, geologists, physicist, etc.

 

Like who?

you can google the information yourself. no need for me to name names.

 

btw, Is not like the theory of evolution is the base of science. Explain to me why a scientist need to believe on evolution to be good in his field?

It's hard to believe any credible scientist would not believe in evolution. Give me a link.

 

Romney is useless. He's such a slimeball.

 

I can't listen to the guy talk. He just sounds like your prototypical overly-political, BS-spouting, fraudulent politician. God, he's such slime.

 

You guys are right; he's a lot like Kerry. His mouth opens and nonsense just starts pouring out. He can talk for five minutes and I still won't be able to identify anything credible he's said.

 

I agree. They may not be as slick, but Giuliani and McCain provide much more substantive answers.

It's hard to believe any credible scientist would not believe in evolution. Give me a link.

 

A List

 

The following quotes are mostly from evolusionist scientist. Very interesting quotes, and it points out that the theory is far from perfect.

 

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)

 

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)

 

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard Professor of Paleontology)

 

"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)

 

"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)

 

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)

let's keep this on-topic guys. feel free to start another thread.

None of those quotes indicate a repudiation of evolutionary science. They only indicate the existence of a debate that everyone agrees and always has agreed upon. Evolution is a theory, various aspects of it are debated. That doesn't mean nobody believes the theory in its form.

 

let's keep this on-topic guys. feel free to start another thread.

 

You're right. I apologize. I'll stop posting about it.

Obama will still beat Fred Thompson. As long as he has a decent VP candidate, he will be able to beat any potential GOP candidate, IMO.

 

Thompson is likely going to gain ground after this debate, I would imagine. I'm sure guys like Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo will be non-entities after this debate.

 

Obama has no chance, nil, none, nada, zip, zilch. He is a ghost in an empty suit, and once he is actually put to scrutiny he will fade faster than Dean. There is no state that Kerry didn't win that he could expect, and MN, WI, and NH would be at real risk due to his anti-gun views

 

Hillary probably would not win any state that isn't an auto-dem state, she is despised in the battleground states. She has a chance in Ohio, but she makes WI, MN, PA and MI risky.

 

John Edwards should stick to talking to the dead. He's worthless. He has no southern credentials at all. No southern Democrat can realistically win without carrying his home state, and he wouldn't win his neighborhood, much less North Carolina.

 

Richardson is your guy. He will take NM back from the GOP, and will likely take away AZ and put CO and NV at risk (a winning scenario) and MO and OH would be up for grabs, his hispanic credentials will help in FL, the Republican President of the United States used him for a mission to North Korea, and he has no baggage other than thefts at Los Alamos while he was Sec. Energy.

 

On the GOP side:

 

McCain would retain AZ and CO against Richardson but is DOA in OH and MO... so he's a loser

 

Rudy could never get the primaries, but even if he did, he has a lot of baggage. His only hope would be to swing NY or NJ, which is a tall order even for him.

 

Romney is underrated, and shined in the debate, he would turn NH back to red and really contend in MA, he would hold up well in all other battleground states. His biggest problem, being a Mormon, will fall away much like Kennedy's Catholic problem. Once it is made clear that the LDS church would have no say, he's home free. If he faces any current Democrat other than Richardson, he wins.

 

All the other guys currently running are clown shoes with no credentials.

 

Fred Thompson is a strong candidate if he runs. He can beat any Dem, even Richardson. He has the voice, the demeanor, and the gravitas. He didn't build up much baggage in the Senate, and people know him by sight. The Reagan comparasons will be constant and that can only help him.

I am now currently hoping for a Thompson-Paul ticket.

 

:: not going to get it ::

Wouldn't happen because of their differences on the war.

 

Thompson and McCain are good friends, but I don't see McCain becoming the VP for anyone.

wow Eric, for a party having to sit through a president this bad you're awfully optimistic about the Republican chances. Don't you think so many independents trending democratic lately could turn some swing states? I think you'll see the results of the midterm elections playing out again.

 

Richardson is a guy I think could contend but people just don't know him yet. He's got foreign policy experience, he's a governor (rather than a senator, always a plus), and he's generally regarded as being pretty fiscally conservative in his state. I'm not sure I take his "hispanic cred" to help as much as you do, but who knows.

 

How in the world you guys have decided Obama is all flash & no substance I have no idea. I'm not sure who I plan on voting for but were you expecting to hear detailed policy spelled out at this point from all the candidates already? I have no idea who I'm voting for but give the candidates some time, sheesh.

You know I luff you HC but we both know agruing/discussing the merits of a political candidate by a republican about a democrat and vice versa is a waste of time.

The only flaw in your argument, Eric, is your assumption that a winning scenario comes from securing the Southwest.

 

 

A winning scenario is winning the South. This has been pretty much a fact since the Civil War.

 

 

I'll even pull up the graphs later if you want proof.

The only flaw in your argument, Eric, is your assumption that a winning scenario comes from securing the Southwest.

 

 

A winning scenario is winning the South. This has been pretty much a fact since the Civil War.

 

 

I'll even pull up the graphs later if you want proof.

 

That is the historical trend, yes. But if that is what it takes, no Democrat will ever hold the White House again unless and until there is a paradigm shift in American voting. WV has gone entirely over to the GOP, FL and MO have trended towards red for 10 years. The changes in electoral math due to that last census allow the following to happen:

 

All Kerry States, plus NM, AZ, and CO. Northeastern and West Coast Democrats have moved in large numbers to AZ and CO, and those states are now up for grabs when they were solid GOP country for about forever. Richardson can get those states and thus the White House. He is better than any currently declared GOP candidate.

 

wow Eric, for a party having to sit through a president this bad you're awfully optimistic about the Republican chances. Don't you think so many independents trending democratic lately could turn some swing states? I think you'll see the results of the midterm elections playing out again.

 

Nobody is trending Democratic, they are trending anti-Bush. There will be a brick wall built between the candidates and Bush, they are running away from him as fast as possible. My faith lies with the stupidity of the Democratic Party, the only reason Bush won 2 elections are Gore and Kerry. WTF was the party thinking? Hillary and Obama are dead on arrival barring a major f***up by the GOP. If the Dems have the brains to put up Richardson, then President Richardson it will be.

 

How in the world you guys have decided Obama is all flash & no substance I have no idea. I'm not sure who I plan on voting for but were you expecting to hear detailed policy spelled out at this point from all the candidates already? I have no idea who I'm voting for but give the candidates some time, sheesh

 

Obama has said it is OK to abort babies after they are born. That wasn't even a joke. There is nothing to him but socialism, and Americans despise that.

The whole idea that a candidate will automatically win states that a previous candidate of the same party won from the last election is foolish. It just so happens that we have had two straight close elections. But the right candidate can sweep into a number of other states and upset that equilibrium.

 

The most important states in that whole set are definitely Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. If a candidate is not viable in two of those three states, what does it matter where he comes from?

 

Obama has said it is OK to abort babies after they are born. That wasn't even a joke. There is nothing to him but socialism, and Americans despise that.

 

Where are you getting that from? That sounds like a blatant mischaracterization. Partial birth abortions? Guliani is on the same page.

You know I luff you HC but we both know agruing/discussing the merits of a political candidate by a republican about a democrat and vice versa is a waste of time.

 

yeah I know... I should save my breath.

The whole idea that a candidate will automatically win states that a previous candidate of the same party won from the last election is foolish. It just so happens that we have had two straight close elections. But the right candidate can sweep into a number of other states and upset that equilibrium.

 

The most important states in that whole set are definitely Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. If a candidate is not viable in two of those three states, what does it matter where he comes from?

Youre absolutly correct. The last two elections have beeen real close and basically two states won it for Bush and that was Ohio and Florida. I feel for the most part the biggest we know that the core 'Blue' states and the core 'red' states. Like you mention Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida are the biggest 'swing' states. The thing is IF Guiliani gets the Republican nomination, I would imagine that New York state would be Guiliani and if thats the case Guiliani will be very tough to beat.

 

Am I over estimating that Guiliani would automatically win New York?

Where are you getting that from? That sounds like a blatant mischaracterization. Partial birth abortions? Guliani is on the same page.

I don't know, in one of the soundbites from the debate, he said he (now) supports the ban on partial birth abortions.

 

The thing is IF Guiliani gets the Republican nomination, I would imagine that New York state would be Guiliani and if thats the case Guiliani will be very tough to beat.

 

Am I over estimating that Guiliani would automatically win New York?

Yeah, I think you're giving him too much credit.

 

In 2000, he was losing in the polls to Hillary before dropping out for health reasons in his Senate bid. Granted, this was before 9/11, but I still think it's tough to call a state as blue as NY for the Republican nominee.

 

I think he's more likely to beat Obama in NY.

Where are you getting that from? That sounds like a blatant mischaracterization. Partial birth abortions? Guliani is on the same page.

 

Here is the issue:

 

 

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

 

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

 

 

If a woman is induced (not a partial birth abortion) for the purposes of abortion, and the kid is delivered, sometimes (about 50 a year) the child breaths and lives on its own. This is undeniably a child. It was born, and doesn't require anything more to survive than any premature infant. A law has been passed to prevent letting that child die due to inattention. Obama voted no.

 

NARAL even supported this legislation. He is completely out there.