The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

[hermhater]

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary



WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.






http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080108/w0108115A.html

Crap.

[Chiefster]

[Bike]

Unfortunately, I believe this to be a very accurate statement.

Me too. Lotsa naive Americans in this country.
A larger, more powerful gov't = a smaller, less powerful YOU!

[chief31]

Me too. Lotsa naive Americans in this country.
A larger, more powerful gov't = a smaller, less powerful YOU!

A smaller, less powerful government just means larger, more powerful corporations, which equals a smaller, less powerful you.

If we can find a way to get the money out of politics, then the government would be the better choice. But, since that isn't going to happen, it's six of one, or half dozen of the other.

[Chiefster]

The problem as I see it is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have one political party that wants to regulate industry so much, in the name of protecting individual rights, the environment and wildlife, that it halts the economy. The other political party wants to deregulate industry so much, in the name of creating private sector jobs, jump starting the economy and the pursuit of happiness, that it tramples individual rights, destroys the environment and kills wildlife.

I have come to the conclusion that our Government has not been of, by and for the people in quite some time and that it is filled with individuals that are nothing more than self serving, power hungry people who are in the pockets of political action and special interests groups. Somewhere in the shuffle the American people get lost.

[TopekaRoy]

The problem as I see it is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have one political party that wants to regulate industry so much, in the name of protecting individual rights, the environment and wildlife, that it halts the economy. The other political party wants to deregulate industry so much, in the name of creating private sector jobs, jump starting the economy and the pursuit of happiness, that it tramples individual rights, destroys the environment and kills wildlife.

I have come to the conclusion that our Government has not been of, by and for the people in quite some time and that it is filled with individuals that are nothing more than self serving, power hungry people who are in the pockets of political action and special interests groups. Somewhere in the shuffle the American people get lost.

I think a big part of the problem is that the best potential candidates often can't get elected. It takes a lot of money to run a campaign, and the very wealthy aren't necessarily the best people to lead this country.

You would think that conservatives would have an advantage here in raising campaign money since they tend to be more pro big business, but wealthy liberals like George Soros and the Hollywood elite have a lot of money to throw around, too. And liberals have done a far better job of harnessing the power of the internet and social media to create grass roots support.

Santorum has done a good job of getting his message out there in spite of Romney's bottomless pockets. (I'm not endorsing anyone here.) Candidates with more limited funds need to find creative ways of getting there message out there and, hopefully, the best ideas will prevail. The nomination shouldn't always go to the candidate who can put up the most billboards and buy the most TV commercials.

[Chiefster]

I think a big part of the problem is that the best potential candidates often can't get elected. It takes a lot of money to run a campaign, and the very wealthy aren't necessarily the best people to lead this country.

You would think that conservatives would have an advantage here in raising campaign money since they tend to be more pro big business, but wealthy liberals like George Soros and the Hollywood elite have a lot of money to throw around, too. And liberals have done a far better job of harnessing the power of the internet and social media to create grass roots support.

Santorum has done a good job of getting his message out there in spite of Romney's bottomless pockets. (I'm not endorsing anyone here.) Candidates with more limited funds need to find creative ways of getting there message out there and, hopefully, the best ideas will prevail. The nomination shouldn't always go to the candidate who can put up the most billboards and buy the most TV commercials.

Absolutely agreed! Political office should not be for sale.

[TopekaRoy]

On Monday, Obama 'threatened' the Supreme Court, that they 'better not' engage in judicial activism or 'legislate from the bench' by declaring that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. That is not judicial activism. It is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Judicial activism is the exact opposite; ignoring the Constitution, because you believe a law is for 'the greater good.' The Dread Scott case, which ruled that slaveholders were entitled to keep their 'property' even if they moved to free states; Roe vs. Wade, which found an 'implied' right to privacy, even though it wasn't expressly in the constitution; and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld segregation under the guise of 'separate but equal'--these were judicial activist decisions.

This is not the first time Obama has attacked the Supreme Court for doing it's job of defending the Constitution. In his State of the Union Address last year, Obama chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that limits on campaign contributions violated a persons right to free speech and were thus unconstitutional.

When Obama was sworn in as President he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but when the Constitution has gotten in the way of his personal agenda, he has attacked it. These are impeachable offenses!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deGg41IiWwU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deGg41IiWwU[/ame]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

[Hayvern]

On Monday, Obama 'threatened' the Supreme Court, that they 'better not' engage in judicial activism or 'legislate from the bench' by declaring that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. That is not judicial activism. It is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Judicial activism is the exact opposite; ignoring the Constitution, because you believe a law is for 'the greater good.' The Dread Scott case, which ruled that slaveholders were entitled to keep their 'property' even if they moved to free states; Roe vs. Wade, which found an 'implied' right to privacy, even though it wasn't expressly in the constitution; and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld segregation under the guise of 'separate but equal'--these were judicial activist decisions.

This is not the first time Obama has attacked the Supreme Court for doing it's job of defending the Constitution. In his State of the Union Address last year, Obama chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that limits on campaign contributions violated a persons right to free speech and were thus unconstitutional.

When Obama was sworn in as President he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but when the Constitution has gotten in the way of his personal agenda, he has attacked it. These are impeachable offenses!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

Roy, come on, don't you know that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor and in that capacity he knows much more about the Constitution than even the Supreme Court Judges?

[kcvet]

On Monday, Obama 'threatened' the Supreme Court, that they 'better not' engage in judicial activism or 'legislate from the bench' by declaring that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. That is not judicial activism. It is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Judicial activism is the exact opposite; ignoring the Constitution, because you believe a law is for 'the greater good.' The Dread Scott case, which ruled that slaveholders were entitled to keep their 'property' even if they moved to free states; Roe vs. Wade, which found an 'implied' right to privacy, even though it wasn't expressly in the constitution; and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld segregation under the guise of 'separate but equal'--these were judicial activist decisions.

This is not the first time Obama has attacked the Supreme Court for doing it's job of defending the Constitution. In his State of the Union Address last year, Obama chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that limits on campaign contributions violated a persons right to free speech and were thus unconstitutional.

When Obama was sworn in as President he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but when the Constitution has gotten in the way of his personal agenda, he has attacked it. These are impeachable offenses!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

if SCOTUS follows the constitution as it should Obozocare goes down like the Titanic. attacking them makes him look even worse

[kcvet]

Roy, come on, don't you know that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor and in that capacity he knows much more about the Constitution than even the Supreme Court Judges?

how many rolls ya need ???