01-20-09 [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

nifocinphx

12-09-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by NakedGary, December 09, 2006 06:55 AM:

nifocinphx

I recently came across a review of Shangri La Ranch and it said it was family, married couples only and no singles allowed.

I was just on your link to the site and it says:

"We are a family friendly facility that welcomes everyone interested in naturism."

Is this a recent change or an old review?
NakedGary -

I suspect that it's an old review and not a 'recent' change. I'm single and my avatar photo was shot at Shangri La in January, 2002. I'm a member of Shangri La and have been (married or single) for better part of 38 years.

nifocinphx http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/user.gif

nifocinphx

12-09-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Nu, December 09, 2006 02:52 PM:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:

Yeah, what everyone else said, plus the bumper sticker on Mrs. USMC's car.
Wow, this is spreading.
Saw the same bumper sticker here in Canada. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That bumper sticker sure is spreading, Nu. It's already been posted on the
Bumper stickers (of the week?) (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2700016152/m/4290040614?r=2050041464#2050041464) thread http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

tiger79, thanks for the countdown clock link that you posted earlier today.

nifocinphx http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/user.gif

FireProf

12-09-2006, 06:40 PM

I'll have two things to celebrate.........

Bush outta here and.................

Me outta here!!!! I will be so close to retirement.......like less than 30 days on this date!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Pete Knight

12-10-2006, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by FireProf:
I'll have two things to celebrate.........

Bush outta here and.................

Me outta here!!!! I will be so close to retirement.......like less than 30 days on this date!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif
Hey, you don't escape that easy, the government will be taxing your pension, taxing your death, and I'm pretty sure there is a toll booth at the 'Pearly Gates' so no matter who is in the 'White House' it will affect you, retirement or not.

Pete Knight

Daveinct

12-10-2006, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
Hey, where can I get one of those future cameras? Is it a Minolta? Must be one heck of a zoom lens on it.

Dave

FireProf

12-10-2006, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FireProf:
Hey, you don't escape that easy, the government will be taxing your pension, taxing your death, and I'm pretty sure there is a toll booth at the 'Pearly Gates' so no matter who is in the 'White House' it will affect you, retirement or not.

Pete Knight

Thanks.........didn't know I knew so LITTLE about my country, my life and my retirement system. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

FireProf

NudeAl

12-10-2006, 07:47 AM

[quote]I'll have two things to celebrate.........

Bush outta here and.................

Me outta here!!!! I will be so close to retirement.......like less than 30 days on this date!

Hey FireProf,
Same here, except my date should be in April of 08. A couple of catches though, I might get another all expense paid trip to the big sand box between now and then and I 'll have to figure out what I want to do when I grow up, my military retirement won't quite pay for my hobbies. Anyway I may yet see you on the beach at San Onofre one day.

FireProf

12-10-2006, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by NudeAl:
[quote]I'll have two things to celebrate.........

Hey FireProf,
Same here, except my date should be in April of 08. A couple of catches though, I might get another all expense paid trip to the big sand box between now and then and I 'll have to figure out what I want to do when I grow up, my military retirement won't quite pay for my hobbies. Anyway I may yet see you on the beach at San Onofre one day.

Then I stand corrected! I have three things to look forward to. Those first two and finally meeting you in person!

I truly hope you do not have to return to the middle east and hope your days to retirement go quickly. I hope this because I will then have less than a year to go!!

I was going to go in March '08 myself but a good friend showed me some figures and it may be beneficial to stay one more year. It will pay for our annual trip to St. Martin and Club Orient, so that's the incentive! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

12-10-2006, 04:16 PM

Sheeeshhh, will we make it to then?

As Kool N Gang sang:

Celebrate good times, come on! (Let's celebrate)
Celebrate good times, come on! (Let's celebrate)

There's a party goin' on right here
A celebration to last throughout the years
So bring your good times, and your laughter too
We gonna celebrate your party with you

Come on now

Celebration
Let's all celebrate and have a good time
Celebration
We gonna celebrate and have a good time

It's time to come together
It's up to you, what's your pleasure

Everyone around the world
Come on!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif Allie

Garry

12-11-2006, 02:16 PM

OH WELL, It was fun while it lasted!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

shomymojo

12-11-2006, 02:25 PM

my decision to party will really depend upon who takes his place...and NOT http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif HILLARY !!!...LOL http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

FireProf

12-11-2006, 04:00 PM

Naturist Mark

12-11-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by shomymojo:
my decision to party will really depend upon who takes his place...and NOT http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif HILLARY !!!...LOL http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Just curious ... why not Hillary?

She is far from my first choice, but I'm curious about the fear and hatred of her - at times it is downright rabid.

I've asked a few Hillary haters why they dislike her so much, and not one has yet been able to give a coherent reason. The closest I got was "because she didn't divorce Bill" - and this from a devout Catholic (sister of a priest) who doesn't believe in divorce. When I asked why she didn't think it was admirable that Hillary and Bill saved a troubled marriage - she just sputtered and said she thinks Hillary is a lesbian.

So how about it. Why is Hillary such a bad choice? She's smart, capable, has proven herself to be a top notch leader in the Senate - she has a great record for reaching across the aisle and working well with Repblicans in a time when bipartisanship is at an all time low. What is so horrible about Hillary?

-Mark

Baron Lake

12-11-2006, 05:21 PM

As long as she don't mess things up for Obama I guess it's ok if she seeks the nomination. Opps, I forgot to say "Hussien" Obama. Rush told all us ditto* heads to make sure to do that.

*I think this is some sort of reference to an anatomically difficult to assume position.

Clinton/Obama? Obama/Clinton? Gore? Richardson, Schwartzenager,... who else Mark?

b.l.

Naturist Mark

12-11-2006, 06:29 PM

Ahnold can't run for either party. Wasn't born here, eh?

Unfortunately Russ Feingold* has ruled himself out. Other possibilities: Wes Clark, Evan Bayh, John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean*, Tom Vilsack, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Janet Napolitano, Mark Warner*

*Gore, Feingold, Dean and Warner have all said at one time or another that they will NOT be running in 2008 - but not definitely not.

I'm pretty sure that Obama will be on the ticket - But not necessarily at the top.

As for the Republicans - Brownback if they are totally insane and addicted to failure. Otherwise its McCain all the way. And to regain credibility with voters burned by the Republican scandals, he'll reach across the aisle for a running mate - well, almost across the aisle - to Joe Lieberman.

-Mark

usmc1

12-12-2006, 04:03 AM

You know what? Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dean, Biden, et al, for me are all yesterday. I'm thinking about tomorrow and have no nostalgia for Clinton (Chamber of Commerce Democrat).

I'm still holding on to the thought that an Edwards/Clark ticket would be very, very strong.

Edwards is the only politician who has the courage to call a spade a dirty shovel and acknowlege some of the real problems facing us.

His two Americas speech was an act of political courage and honesty that is altogether too rare.

Obama? He's like the X-Mas gift pup, all cute and cuddly but untried and unproven and needing his nose rubbed in it, and put out in the garage a few times before you take your eye off him.

If Korea, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine ignite the nation might find Clark attractive, but right now, I see him as number 2 on an Edwards ticket.

walter05

12-12-2006, 05:47 AM

Since Baron Lake mentioned "Rush Limbaugh" I will use it as an excuse to vent a frustration.

Rush Limbaugh claims to represent family values. He has no children and has been divorced twice. He got into trouble for bringing too much viagra back from a short trip to the Bahamas. It does not sound like he lives family values.

I am a Democrat. I have been married for almost fifteen years and have six wonderful children. He preaches family values and I live them.

missouriboy

12-12-2006, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Just curious ... why not Hillary?

She is far from my first choice, but I'm curious about the fear and hatred of her - at times it is downright rabid.

I've asked a few Hillary haters why they dislike her so much, and not one has yet been able to give a coherent reason.
...
What is so horrible about Hillary?

-Mark Here, read the reasons given by one of the most astute political analysts out there -- Dick Morris (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/7/82642.shtml). His expression is much more coherent than mine, and it's pretty much what I would say if I knew how.

It scares the hell out of me that she would garner the vast majority of the female vote, and then just enough male votes to win.

I'm not against a woman president, but it needs to be for the right reasons, not just because she'd be the "first" woman.

Naturist Mark

12-12-2006, 06:35 AM

I like Clark, but he is very much a DLC type like the Clinton's - in fact he is so close to the Clinton's that most think he is angling for the #2 spot behind Hillary.

Since leaving electoral politics Gore has become a fearless speaker and sharp analyst of nearly every policy matter facing the nation. He has left the DLC triangulation politics of the Clinton's in the dumpster and has found his own progressive voice. Gore has given a series a outstanding lectures that every Democratic candidate should study very closely. The guy is on fire - even though the media continues to ignore him. He says he isn't running - but many think he is positioning himself as an option. He remains the top choice among movement Democrats.

Biden, Vilsack, Bayh, Richardson and Dodd are all warmed over DLC types. Biden is probably the best among them - a great politician and smart guy, one of the most well liked men on Capitol Hill, but his popularity has never extended beyond his own constituents and colleagues on the Hill.

Kerry probably deserves a another look, after all he (like Gore) almost certainly really won against Bush. But the truth is his inability to speak plainly and forcefully, and the deliberate media hostility to him doom his chances. Kerry is a careful measured thoughtful guy where we need someone with fire.

Obama is on fire right now, but who knows if he can sustain it. In his short tenure in the Senate he has acquitted himself well - albeit with a bit too much DLC type caution - he is no progressive firebrand, but is on the right side of most progressive issues.

Kucinich certainly has fire, but his candidacy doesn't have a chance except to serve as touchstone of conscience through the primaries.

Edwards may be the smartest guy in group - yet he speaks plainly and forcefully, and he certainly has the fire. So far the media has been hands off with respect to Edwards, but I fully expect the corporate media will do whatever it takes to marginalize him - this is a guy who built a fortune punishing criminal corporations.

At this point my top choices are various combinations of Gore, Edwards and Obama.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

12-12-2006, 06:38 AM

I'm not against a woman president

Good! How do you feel about President Pelosi? Could happen next year. Which is why the right wing echo machine has already gone into full speed Pelosi demonization mode.

-Mark

nacktman

12-12-2006, 06:40 AM

Forgeting history folks? We've already had a woman as President - the second Mrs. Woodrow Wilson "ran" the government while Woodrow was incapacitated due to life threatening illness - no one and I mean no one got to see or speak to Woodrow without her approval nor did they have access to him as president except via her.

Besides Nancy will be the 'first' female president to actually have the title when that earlier party date arrives - something all the spewing heads ranted on about before November 7th, remember?!

As to my plans for the party - dancing naked in the street is an option. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

missouriboy

12-12-2006, 06:48 AM

How do you feel about President Pelosi? You lamented a lack of coherency about Hillary. I offered some, and now you want to change the subject? Sorry Mark, I ain't takin' that bait.

nacktman

12-12-2006, 06:58 AM

Sorry Mark, I ain't takin' that bait.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif What bait? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif
A straight forward question soliciting an opinion?!

Could it be the fear of real debate on real issues and topics raising its ugly head again?
We had so hoped the trolls and trolling had ceased. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

FireProf

12-12-2006, 08:18 AM

Damn..........I stirred up a hornets nest!!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Bait = sushi!!

Let the debate continue. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Baron Lake

12-12-2006, 10:13 AM

Moboy, practically any mudball can be described as "coherent"

b.l.

Baron Lake

12-12-2006, 10:19 AM

Mark, you are of course right about the Terminator (as thing stand now...but...). It would be absurd to think some actor could be elected Governor of Kalifornia and then go on to become President. Oh God...

b.l.

nacktman

12-12-2006, 11:00 AM

It would be absurd to think some actor could be elected Govenor of Kalifornia and then go on to become President. Oh God...

Tarnation, Baron, now you've gone and awakened all those painfully vivid nightmares again! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

nacktman

12-12-2006, 11:06 AM

Damn..........I stirred up a hornets nest!

Nah, FireProf, just swirled the chum a bit is all ... and in typical, dare I say it, knee-jerk fashion the non-thinking groupthink just kicked in.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Naturist Mark

12-12-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How do you feel about President Pelosi? You lamented a lack of coherency about Hillary. I offered some, and now you want to change the subject? Sorry Mark, I ain't takin' that bait. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naw, I was just running late to leave for work, didn't have time to read Morris' comments.

OK, I've had a chance to read it now. I pretty much agree with Morris in the first half of his article - on why she could win etc. But that is all about electibility - not about why you SHOULD oppose her.

He got into some of those things in the second half. Some are astute observations - she DOES lack the charisma of Bill Clinton - and his ability to put himself inside someone else's head. The stuff about her wanting European style socialism is crap - she is a Republican Lite corporatist - she has always sided with big money - Pharma, Insurance, Oil, and Credit Card companies have all profited from their contribuitons to her - even her abortive health care plan was insanely overcomplicated because she was determined to let it by run by the insurance companies instead of making it single payer.

Dick Morris, who should know better, has fallen into the lazy opposition tactic of painting Hillary Clinton as a radical leftist when in reality she is among the 5 most conservative Democrats in Congress.

But still, I applaud Dick for giving some reasons to oppose Hillary.

And now you know a few reasons why she isn't anywhere near the top of my list. Still I give her credit for her strengths. I'd take Hillary over McCain, or Guiliani, or Romney anyday.

-Mark

NakedGary

12-12-2006, 07:02 PM

by "Baron Lake"
Mark, you are of course right about the Terminator (as thing stand now...but...). It would be absurd to think some actor could be elected Governor of Kalifornia and then go on to become President. Oh God...

b.l.

I don't think an immigrant can be elected or serve as President of the Unites States.

FireProf

12-12-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by NakedGary:
by "Baron Lake"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mark, you are of course right about the Terminator (as thing stand now...but...). It would be absurd to think some actor could be elected Governor of Kalifornia and then go on to become President. Oh God...

b.l.

I don't think an immigrant can be elected or serve as President of the Unites States. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't Naturist Mark already say that!!? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif Maybe there's an echo in here!

NakedGary

12-12-2006, 09:53 PM

Your correct FireProf I didn't go back to Page 2 and/or see:

"Ahnold can't run for either party. Wasn't born here, eh?

Thanks

missouriboy

12-13-2006, 03:33 AM

I pretty much agree with Morris in the first half of his article - on why she could win etc. But that is all about electibility - not about why you SHOULD oppose her.

He got into some of those things in the second half. Some are astute observations - she DOES lack the charisma of Bill Clinton - and his ability to put himself inside someone else's head. The stuff about her wanting European style socialism is crap - she is a Republican Lite corporatist - she has always sided with big money - Pharma, Insurance, Oil, and Credit Card companies have all profited from their contribuitons to her - even her abortive health care plan was insanely overcomplicated because she was determined to let it by run by the insurance companies instead of making it single payer.

Dick Morris, who should know better, has fallen into the lazy opposition tactic of painting Hillary Clinton as a radical leftist when in reality she is among the 5 most conservative Democrats in Congress.

But still, I applaud Dick for giving some reasons to oppose Hillary.

And now you know a few reasons why she isn't anywhere near the top of my list. Still I give her credit for her strengths. I'd take Hillary over McCain, or Guiliani, or Romney anyday.

-Mark You disagree with Morris that Hillary (It Takes A Village...) wants more socialism. OK. I agree with him though. And I agree with him that she would raise taxes just to facilitate even more redistribution of wealth.

My feeling is that if people want Socialism, they can just move to a Socialist country. Let America be the way it was meant to be.

Thanks for an honest reading of my proffered link. There is coherent opposition to Hillary's political philosophy.

usmc1

12-13-2006, 05:04 AM

Senator Clinton is no more a socialist than her husband, former President Clinton. Both are Chamber of Commerce Democrats and that which you call socialism is no more than a smattering of trickle down social justice and equality.

As to redistribution of wealth, when did that become a bad thing? You go to work and negotiate a pay package and collect your check and spen that money around town at places that pay thier workers who in turn spend that mony: BINGO, redistribution of wealth.

And since 2% of the wealthiest control over 50 % of the wealth, and 40% of the poorest sharing only 2% of the wealth, leaving 58% of the rest of us dabbling around redistributing the 48% of the remaining wealth, maybe it is time for us to rethink things.

And if you think preserving Social Security, improving MediCare and providing single-payer, universal helath care to all Americans are a bad things...well, maybe it is you who should haul *** elsewhere. Because we're bringing it on!

missouriboy

12-13-2006, 05:26 AM

You go to work and negotiate a pay package and collect your check and spen that money around town at places that pay thier workers who in turn spend that mony: BINGO, redistribution of wealth. WRONGO. What you have described is BINGO, free enterprise.

C'mon, you're smarter than that. Excuse me if I choose not to believe your pretense that you don't know what is meant by "redistribution of wealth (through taxation)."

Naturist Mark

12-13-2006, 05:47 AM

You disagree with Morris that Hillary (It Takes A Village...) wants more socialism. OK. I agree with him though. And I agree with him that she would raise taxes just to facilitate even more redistribution of wealth.

Oh man, so many things to say ...

It Takes a Village: title is from an African proverb, but the theme is straight out of the Methodist teachings about stewardship - its not just about tithing(Hillary is Methodist - so is Bob Dole, "W", John Edwards and Dick Cheney). The parts about the use of government includes support for such "socialist" programs as the New Deal, student loans, and school choice. One the whole It Takes a Village is an incredibly consevative book - in the old sense of the word.

As for Tax policy - there is a good reason to raise taxes - to reduce the deficit and to clean up the irresponsible fiscal mess Bush has made. Nothing has redistributed wealth more than the asymetric tax cuts of George W. Bush - to the detriment of 95% of Americans. Bill Clinton's economic stimulus plan, passed in 1993 included both tax cuts and increases (actually partial roll-backs of Reagan's millionaire's tax cuts) - under Clinton's policy the rich still became richer, but so did the poor and middle class, today only the super-rich are seeing their income double and triple, even the 'moderately rich' are losing ground. You can argue that Hillary had nothing to do with Bill's successful policies, but that is the opposite of what everyone was saying at the time.

But I'll accept that many BELIEVE Clinton is a socialist, despite the fact that she carries the water of big corporations whenever given a choice.

-Mark

nacktman

12-13-2006, 05:47 AM

Gentlemen, this thread is about your party plans for the most looked forward to day in history, please remember this.

Point of fact: Redistribution of Wealth is defined as usmc1 put it not as infered by MoBoy ... taxation does not and never has "redistributed" anything and never will (at least for the last 10,000 years or so).
Taxation is used (or is supposed to be used, fraud and theft by those who need it least, those same said 2% not taken into account) to construct, maintain, and improve physical community projects, i.e., roads, schools, etc.: to trade for goods and services to run the government to which the taxes are paid, (ok, so there is an element of redistribution here but it follows usmc1's definition still).

I still say there will be dancing in the streets on January 20th, 2009 and quite a few of them will be nude!
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

Baron Lake

12-13-2006, 10:59 AM

I am quite aware Arnie is currently excluded by the Constitution from the Presidency. For a time there was some discussion here in California Republican circles about seeking a Constitutional Amendment to allow naturalized citizens the right to serve as President. There was no serious effort made in this as far as I know, but it was during a time the Republicans controlled both Houses and the Executive. The chances of such an amendment passing is probably about the same as Arnie switching parties. Although, considering the backing he would most likely get from his wife's family....
b.l.

Naturist Mark

12-13-2006, 04:39 PM

Everytime they bring up the idea of an amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for president I always agree its a great idea. Finally Arianna Huffington, Jerry Springer and George Soros can run!

LOL

Not to mention Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (born in Canada). Granholm and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have a another connection - besides being naturalized citizens who were elected Governor - they were both once contestants on The Dating Game. ... Scary eh? ...

-Mark

Baron Lake

12-13-2006, 05:26 PM

Musta been busy or sumpthin. Missed it. Who won.
(and how do you know all this stuff?) I know you are a self described "googlin fool" but geeze!
b.l.

KetchumMaine

12-14-2006, 06:49 AM

Over the ocean and through the sands to the center of Iraq we go....Bush knows the way to disperse the fray this christmas eve ho ho, oh.....We have no plan on getting ourselves out, but worry not do we... we're here to keep the Iraqi people and our precious oil free-e......Over the ocean and through the sands to the center of Iraq we go....Bush knows the way to disperse the fray this christmas eve ho ho, oh.... Back at home the peasants freeze, have no heat do they, but george and laura will be toasty warm in the whitehouse, come Christmas day.

All rights reserved

Naturist Mark

12-14-2006, 03:49 PM

Musta been busy or sumpthin. Missed it. Who won.
I'm pretty sure they didn't appear together ...

Ahnold appeared on The New Dating Game in 1974 YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCH3w_LnmHE)
Granholm appeared sometime in 1979 or 1980.

-Mark

usmc1

12-14-2006, 06:05 PM

You know this stuff about who is a citizen and who is not and who can be elected to the Presidency has some nifty little arcane twists.

For example, if I were born in, say Germany..OK, but my parents were American citizens, then I would be a German citizen, (I think), who would also be an American citizen eligible to serve as POTUS if elected.

BUT...if I were born of American citizens in a foreign country and was an American citizen because of that circumstance, but never resided in the US, nor exercised my U.S. citizenship..paid taxes, voted, etc., I might not be eligible despite my citizenship by birth.

As I said, obscure and arcane twists and assuredly subject to debated and litgation should the scenario ever arise.

And, in the second scenario, the citizenship of my offspring would be a bit questionable if they too were born outside the USA.

Or so I think.

hm0504

12-14-2006, 06:13 PM

I've heard that a baby born in an airplane that is flying over the U.S. -- e.g. from Canada to Mexico non-stop is considered an American citizen.

Naturist Mark

12-15-2006, 05:49 AM

For example, if I were born in, say Germany..OK, but my parents were American citizens, then I would be a German citizen, (I think), who would also be an American citizen eligible to serve as POTUS if elected.

John McCain was born in Panama, but can run for President because of his parent's citizenship - his father was stationed at an American naval base in the canal zone.

hm0504

12-15-2006, 08:36 AM

From the officious WhiteHouse.org site...

"Bush's Statement on *****y Report From Crusty Old Geezers Intent on Losing the Awesomely Prosecuted War on Evil":
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2006/12/iraq-study-group.asp

Liam

12-15-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
You say potato I'll say potato!!!!
Pete Knight

Some say Tattie!

Liam

12-15-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Just curious ... why not Hillary?
-Mark

I know you weren't asking me, but for me she is too conservative. She was also too supportive of the immoral and illegal attack on Iraq.

I am not a registered Democrat, but I would vote for Russ Finegold and probably would vote for Obama. I suspect I'll be voting for Peter Camejo if he is running again.

Liam

12-15-2006, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by missouriboy:
It scares the hell out of me that she would garner the vast majority of the female vote, and then just enough male votes to win.

I think you mistake female motives. They would support a female. But I think more would support an attractive (in all senses) candidate such as Obama. A male candidate who understood the issues that are essential to women and thier point of view would be their candidate ahead of a woman who did not share that view. I have yet to hear from a woman who supports Hillary. She does not share the same list of what is important with most women and certainly does not share the same life experience of the majority of women in the U.S. She may be seen as a roll model, but not as a woman who shares the same life as the vast majority of women do.

No, an attractive male who "understands" women will be where their vote goes.

Liam

12-15-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Gentlemen, this thread is about your party plans for the most looked forward to day in history, please remember this.

I shall be pleased to have the criminal gone. I'd rather see him pay for his abuses in prison. My partying will depend somewhat on who is his replacement. Lordy! I am so dismal.

Nay! I shall party in anycase. The shrub's replacement could hardly be worse.

fred950

12-16-2006, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For example, if I were born in, say Germany..OK, but my parents were American citizens, then I would be a German citizen, (I think), who would also be an American citizen eligible to serve as POTUS if elected.

John McCain was born in Panama, but can run for President because of his parent's citizenship - his father was stationed at an American naval base in the canal zone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If my memory is correct, George Romney (Mitt's dad) was born in Mexico of two U S citizens serving as Mormon missionaries. The only thing that derailed his bid from the Presidency was admitting he was "brainwashed".

fred950

12-16-2006, 01:18 AM

Getting back to the subject, I am hoping that the USA will be coming out of a 28 year political nightmare that Greed is Good and cheating to get ahead is alright (remember Ollie North?) will be over.

missouriboy

12-16-2006, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
John McCain was born in Panama, but can run for President because of his parent's citizenship - his father was stationed at an American naval base in the canal zone. Question: isn't an American base overseas considered sovereign territory, similar to an embassy?

missouriboy

12-16-2006, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
It scares the hell out of me that she would garner the vast majority of the female vote, and then just enough male votes to win.

I think you mistake female motives. They would support a female. But I think more would support an attractive (in all senses) candidate such as Obama. A male candidate who understood the issues that are essential to women and thier point of view would be their candidate ahead of a woman who did not share that view. I have yet to hear from a woman who supports Hillary. She does not share the same list of what is important with most women and certainly does not share the same life experience of the majority of women in the U.S. She may be seen as a roll model, but not as a woman who shares the same life as the vast majority of women do.

No, an attractive male who "understands" women will be where their vote goes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I base my opinion on the premise that most Americans, both men and women, are not as politically aware as those who post on these boards. They just don't give a hoot and, to them, elections are just popularity contests. Under this premise, women would vote for another woman just for gender solidarity, and the novelty of having a woman leader.

But I don't know to what extent this premise is true. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

Naturist Mark

12-16-2006, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
John McCain was born in Panama, but can run for President because of his parent's citizenship - his father was stationed at an American naval base in the canal zone. Question: isn't an American base overseas considered sovereign territory, similar to an embassy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under international law Embassies and Consulates have extraterritorial status, meaning that they remain the sovereign territory of the host government, but are exempt from almost all of the host government's laws. Most nations, including the US enforce their own laws on mission property - but it is entirely up to them which of their laws apply - thus a child born to foreign nationals within a US Embassy could claim US Citizenship - the host nation may not recognize that claim, but has no recourse while they remain on mission property.

Military bases of one nation within another nation's territory typically have an extraterritorial status negotiated with the host government. Obvious exceptions are the US bases in Iraq, and the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba - where the terms of extraterritoriality were imposed unilaterally by the US government. Apparently the terms of extraterritoriality can also be amended in those cases without input by the host government - thus the Bush administration now claims that US law and legal jurisdiction does not extend to prisoners at the Guantanamo base - thus exempting them from recourse in US courts - a claim the US Federal Courts have rejected. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush)

-Mark

earthpassenger(Kevin)

12-16-2006, 07:57 PM

AT this point I am in favor of candidates who are in favor of an alternative to the Winner Take All system which in most election years means, as many people have already pointed out,that the difference between the two candidates on election day looks like the difference between Coke and Pepsi--when Democrats are trying to sound like a Democrat Republicans can vote for and Republicans are trying to sound like a Republican Democrats can vote for http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif
Although the last presidential election was more like a choice between Listerine and arsenic--the voters
made their choice and the whole country are now in the Emergency Room getting their stomachs pumped.
The most popular alternative to Winner Take All is Instant Runoff Voting. This allows voters to pick their top three candidates in order of preference. If there is no first choice candidate with 50% plus at least one vote, votes are transferred to a voter's second or else third choice until there is a winner with a majority. This would open up the system to other political parties and most likely to new ideas. This would allow people to vote for third party candidates while eliminating the possibility of spoiler candidacies. This is how Burlington, Vermont elects its mayor. This is how San FRancisco now votes in municipal elections.
As far as I know Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate with a record of supporting Instant Runoff Voting. The candidates of the Green Party support Instant Runoff Voting and I think Howard Dean did when he ran for president.

Peace,
Kevin

Liam

12-16-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by missouriboy:
I base my opinion on the premise that most Americans, both men and women, are not as politically aware as those who post on these boards. They just don't give a hoot and, to them, elections are just popularity contests. Under this premise, women would vote for another woman just for gender solidarity, and the novelty of having a woman leader.

But I don't know to what extent this premise is true. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

I will grant too that you may be the one who is right. There is certainly something to the "popularity contest" factor. I think it more likely that the uninformed will vote straight party lines rather than try to understand the candidates and issues. Sad stuff.

missouriboy

12-17-2006, 05:34 AM

I think it more likely that the uninformed will vote straight party lines... Yes. And that puts us right back to what Dick Morris said about a (certain) woman candidate motivating millions of currently indifferent non-voters to get out and vote (for her). Ergo, my original line that you quoted above.

hm0504

01-04-2007, 02:22 PM

After 8 years of Bush, the U.S. will need a President who is both eloquent and has a solid grasp of concepts and reality.

In 2008, vote for N'kisi:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3430481.stm

Naturist Mark

01-04-2007, 03:27 PM

many people have already pointed out,that the difference between the two candidates on election day looks like the difference between Coke and Pepsi-

I find it fascinating that many people today still believe there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Surely the last 6 years of single party rule have proven how vast the difference is.

8 years of single party Democratic rule under Kennedy and Johnson, 4 years under Carter and 2 years under Clinton didn't result in the excesses and outright Constitution shredding we have seen with Republican rule. Sure, bad things DID happen - Vietnam, Disco, Nafta - but you didn't see the Bill of Rights rescinded with signing statements.

-Mark