Apparently, SUperman, you don't read many of my posts. GW is hardly "my" President any more than he is your President.

You are absolutely right that the Republican party has lost it's way and no longer represents conservative values.

I even hesitate to call myself a conservative now, since nothing that has been created by either party over the past 60 or more years is worth conserving!

That said, Hillary is still evil and power thirsty.

Concur! Anyone other than Hillary Clinton is just the lesser of two evils.

I'll buy that. Sadly, liberal politicians are just as beholden to corporate interests as the bad guys. Still, the Democratic Party used to be the party for the little guy. The independent. And the Republican Party used to be, and still is, the party that belongs to industry and investors. I get my amusement from the folks that recently bought into the propaganda that the Republican Party defends the little guy. Protects his freedom. Now that's funny.

I think this hatred for Hillary is interesting. Quite frankly, by almost any measure, her husband was the most effective President we've had in a long time. I suspect Hillary actually knows how to run a government. And I suspect she also knows how to win an election. So I won't be surprised if she wins, and then does a good job of starting to repair the damage done over the last 6.5 years. Notwithstanding you guys' curious hatred.

Does anyone but me stop and think when you feel hatred? Does this suggest anything special? Hatred. Does it make you wonder where the hatred is coming from? I didn't think so. Enjoy your hatred, guys.

See if you can get agreement from the families of those killed in an aspirin factory in the Sudan, who died so Bill could look tough on terrorism and deflect attention away from a scandal that was about to erupt.

Secondly, the democrats have not been the party of the "little guy" they are the party of exploiting the little guy by maintaining his dependence on government. They have preached the theme of a government program to address every problem at the expense of individual liberty. They have always tried to attract votes by means of dressing up a collectivist agenda.

Republicans have demonstrated over the past 12 years that they are capable of the same and have failed to reduce intrusive government and restrictions on personal liberty.

The difference between you and me is that you still have a dog in the partisan debate. I don't.

I'm unhappy with both sides of the aisle. We agree on that. And you do seem to have some grip on the agendas and mistakes of both sides. I have a real problem with the party that seems more inclined to regulate people than business. And.....with all due respect to capitalism and its pure followers, I don't think this survival-of-the-fittest economy is going to win in the long run. I think a stable, long term political/economic system will need to accept a certain amount of what you would probably call 'socialism.' I do not think that a shared, community-based problem solving system is the demon that you have been taught to believe it is. And I think this country needs to shake loose of the forces that work toward keeping people from solving the problems together. The current divisiveness in our nation is deliberately anti-socialist. Socialism is the opposite of the divisiveness you see. The divisiveness you see is for the deliberate purpose of politics and commerce.

I'd love to see Obama and Hillary debate. The essential humanity of Obama will undo Hillary. He is passionate and likeable. While we may not agree with the finer points of Obama's message, his kindness will be a stark contrast to Hillary's cold countenance. Obama in 6 rounds by K.O.

FINALLY, someone has come out with a 100% bipartisan political bumper
sticker. The hottest selling bumper sticker comes from New York State:



"RUN HILLARY RUN"

Democrats put it on the rear bumper.

Republicans put it on the front bumper.

Careful here guys. This thread has the potential to be the first intelligent political discussion ever on PPOT.

I do not want my good name associated with an intelligent political discussion.

Government is not a "shared, community-based problem solving system". One need look no further than the results of government programs. That is exactly why Thomas Jefferson warned of the need for limited government.

The folly of government programs is obvious when you judge them on their effect and not on their supposedly good intent. Socialism has failed to solve even a single social ill anywhere in the world, much less in the US. Massive government spending has failed to solve the problems of poverty and drug abuse and government regulation of industry has devastated global competitiveness and cost more jobs.

The reason we have so many in Washington willing to steal our country's future is because there are voters who can be bought.

For once, I wish FastPat were here:

"If you would not confront your neighbor demanding his money at gun point to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, why would you pay the government to do it for you?"

When I was in Europe last week, I read several English foreign papers and you get a very different perspective of lots of things American. For example, did you know that the US is Egypts largest source of foreign aid? Billions each year. What does Egypt do with our largess? Why they give free housing to thousands of people who don't or won't work. Apparently in Egypt, you get a house guaranteed whether you work or no, cause they're socialists.

They want to displace, (sorry, I meant move) several thousand people whose septic systems (leach beds) are leaching into old ancient egyption tombs in the Valley of the Kings. To get them to move they are giving them several houses per family because when they moved in 30 years ago it was the hubby and wife, and now they have 4 kids and they want a house for each of their kids as well, cause they still live at home. This is where your US tax dollars go, freely given for decades under Dems and Reps.

Do you really stop, or do you just feel it when you contemplate Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or the President?

I don't hate Hillary. She is not a good person, I would go so far to say she is a bad person, but she is one of the "Good Guys" to you, hmm.

I think Edwards would be weakest candidate of the ones I see as a front runners.

I think Hillary will win nomination but I don't know if she can win it all. Her negatives are even with her positives in polls I have seen.

Obama has a chance I think, seems to be a genuine guy and has not been around long enough to have that many skeletons in his closet, things that are not true of Hillary. You get Obama and Hildog on the same stage and it will be JFK and that shifty looking SOB Tricky Dick all over again.