Who do you want as your next US president?

Emily65Roses · Jan 10, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sakem
No, not everyone has done drugs. I really don't care either if he did or not though. But come on Emily, "As long as you're not an addict and you're still a contributing member of society, it's just an extra-curricular.?????? Yeah can u see the President one afternoon for RECREATION, shooting up some Heroin.....then some national crisis happens and they have to respond. Guess it would be no worse than George Bush stumbling over his words and fumbling to get the job done.

I can picture it now, the White House dinners with all his drug dealers in attendance. Heck, maybe the next president will just enact legislation where they legalize marijuana and then all the politicians can smoke it before one of their boring congressional sessions.</end quote></div>

Reread my post. I never said "everyone has done it." Furthermore, I've never met a single person who could do heroin and not be addicted to it. When I said "extra curricular" I meant more like marijuana and maybe some shrooms. Stuff that isn't addicting. And yes, it would be no worse than GW Bush.

I, for one, am for the legalization of marijuana. So any argument you have in that direction will get you nowhere with me. I don't agree with doing it on the job. But if Bush was at his stupid vacation ranch or whatever and wanted to get high, I would have no problem with that. Even if there was a crisis, it doesn't last forever. VP could take over for the next 2 hours, until the president is in working order. As long as it's done on "down time" to begin with. If something happens during that time, that is not the president's fault and it can be dealt with asap.

Even if you wanted to say "no getting high for the president" I could get on board with that. But then the dude (or chick --- please no, hah) got high before he reached office, and will start to get high again after his term was over, and that'd be fine with me.

Emily65Roses · Jan 10, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sakem
No, not everyone has done drugs. I really don't care either if he did or not though. But come on Emily, "As long as you're not an addict and you're still a contributing member of society, it's just an extra-curricular.?????? Yeah can u see the President one afternoon for RECREATION, shooting up some Heroin.....then some national crisis happens and they have to respond. Guess it would be no worse than George Bush stumbling over his words and fumbling to get the job done.

I can picture it now, the White House dinners with all his drug dealers in attendance. Heck, maybe the next president will just enact legislation where they legalize marijuana and then all the politicians can smoke it before one of their boring congressional sessions.</end quote></div>

Reread my post. I never said "everyone has done it." Furthermore, I've never met a single person who could do heroin and not be addicted to it. When I said "extra curricular" I meant more like marijuana and maybe some shrooms. Stuff that isn't addicting. And yes, it would be no worse than GW Bush.

I, for one, am for the legalization of marijuana. So any argument you have in that direction will get you nowhere with me. I don't agree with doing it on the job. But if Bush was at his stupid vacation ranch or whatever and wanted to get high, I would have no problem with that. Even if there was a crisis, it doesn't last forever. VP could take over for the next 2 hours, until the president is in working order. As long as it's done on "down time" to begin with. If something happens during that time, that is not the president's fault and it can be dealt with asap.

Even if you wanted to say "no getting high for the president" I could get on board with that. But then the dude (or chick --- please no, hah) got high before he reached office, and will start to get high again after his term was over, and that'd be fine with me.

Emily65Roses · Jan 10, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sakem
No, not everyone has done drugs. I really don't care either if he did or not though. But come on Emily, "As long as you're not an addict and you're still a contributing member of society, it's just an extra-curricular.?????? Yeah can u see the President one afternoon for RECREATION, shooting up some Heroin.....then some national crisis happens and they have to respond. Guess it would be no worse than George Bush stumbling over his words and fumbling to get the job done.

I can picture it now, the White House dinners with all his drug dealers in attendance. Heck, maybe the next president will just enact legislation where they legalize marijuana and then all the politicians can smoke it before one of their boring congressional sessions.</end quote></div>

Reread my post. I never said "everyone has done it." Furthermore, I've never met a single person who could do heroin and not be addicted to it. When I said "extra curricular" I meant more like marijuana and maybe some shrooms. Stuff that isn't addicting. And yes, it would be no worse than GW Bush.

I, for one, am for the legalization of marijuana. So any argument you have in that direction will get you nowhere with me. I don't agree with doing it on the job. But if Bush was at his stupid vacation ranch or whatever and wanted to get high, I would have no problem with that. Even if there was a crisis, it doesn't last forever. VP could take over for the next 2 hours, until the president is in working order. As long as it's done on "down time" to begin with. If something happens during that time, that is not the president's fault and it can be dealt with asap.

Even if you wanted to say "no getting high for the president" I could get on board with that. But then the dude (or chick --- please no, hah) got high before he reached office, and will start to get high again after his term was over, and that'd be fine with me.

Emily65Roses · Jan 10, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sakem
No, not everyone has done drugs. I really don't care either if he did or not though. But come on Emily, "As long as you're not an addict and you're still a contributing member of society, it's just an extra-curricular.?????? Yeah can u see the President one afternoon for RECREATION, shooting up some Heroin.....then some national crisis happens and they have to respond. Guess it would be no worse than George Bush stumbling over his words and fumbling to get the job done.

I can picture it now, the White House dinners with all his drug dealers in attendance. Heck, maybe the next president will just enact legislation where they legalize marijuana and then all the politicians can smoke it before one of their boring congressional sessions.</end quote>

Reread my post. I never said "everyone has done it." Furthermore, I've never met a single person who could do heroin and not be addicted to it. When I said "extra curricular" I meant more like marijuana and maybe some shrooms. Stuff that isn't addicting. And yes, it would be no worse than GW Bush.

I, for one, am for the legalization of marijuana. So any argument you have in that direction will get you nowhere with me. I don't agree with doing it on the job. But if Bush was at his stupid vacation ranch or whatever and wanted to get high, I would have no problem with that. Even if there was a crisis, it doesn't last forever. VP could take over for the next 2 hours, until the president is in working order. As long as it's done on "down time" to begin with. If something happens during that time, that is not the president's fault and it can be dealt with asap.

Even if you wanted to say "no getting high for the president" I could get on board with that. But then the dude (or chick --- please no, hah) got high before he reached office, and will start to get high again after his term was over, and that'd be fine with me.

Emily65Roses · Jan 10, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sakem
No, not everyone has done drugs. I really don't care either if he did or not though. But come on Emily, "As long as you're not an addict and you're still a contributing member of society, it's just an extra-curricular.?????? Yeah can u see the President one afternoon for RECREATION, shooting up some Heroin.....then some national crisis happens and they have to respond. Guess it would be no worse than George Bush stumbling over his words and fumbling to get the job done.

I can picture it now, the White House dinners with all his drug dealers in attendance. Heck, maybe the next president will just enact legislation where they legalize marijuana and then all the politicians can smoke it before one of their boring congressional sessions.</end quote>

Reread my post. I never said "everyone has done it." Furthermore, I've never met a single person who could do heroin and not be addicted to it. When I said "extra curricular" I meant more like marijuana and maybe some shrooms. Stuff that isn't addicting. And yes, it would be no worse than GW Bush.

I, for one, am for the legalization of marijuana. So any argument you have in that direction will get you nowhere with me. I don't agree with doing it on the job. But if Bush was at his stupid vacation ranch or whatever and wanted to get high, I would have no problem with that. Even if there was a crisis, it doesn't last forever. VP could take over for the next 2 hours, until the president is in working order. As long as it's done on "down time" to begin with. If something happens during that time, that is not the president's fault and it can be dealt with asap.

Even if you wanted to say "no getting high for the president" I could get on board with that. But then the dude (or chick --- please no, hah) got high before he reached office, and will start to get high again after his term was over, and that'd be fine with me.

CowTown · Jan 10, 2008

I'm undecided still, but it's between Obama and Clinton for me. I'm not 100% for one of them. I wish I was.

What's important to me is (in no particular order):

--Someone who will truly think of "the people", not their people, and on all levels.

--Acknowledging how extremely corrupt our goverment is right now, and having someone who will confront that, make attempts to stop it, fix it and to help make our government more ethical.

--Improve economy

--Focus on global warming and mastering alternative energies. Someone very ready to stand up to the executives out there and set new regulations that will start making a positive effect on our environment.

--Make healthcare less of a doom and gloom situation, less of a privilege, less of a backward system, more easily affordable/obtainable to everyone, even those who are sick (yes, you know the ones who need coverage. lol.)

--Accepting, standing up for, and giving benefits to gay couples.

--I'm Pro-choice, and think education about adoption should be much bigger then it is.

--I think the phrase "cut and run" is a matter of perspective. I don't see it as cut and run from "responsibilities", I see getting out at some point, as a solution. It's the responsibility of the new president to act on what he/she believes is the right next course of action. Just b/c Bush created this bed, I don't think means the country has to continue laying in it if there's a possibility for change. I think either way, it's not a good situation, but I do think we need to end it.

If Obama or Clinton get elected, that would suggest that the majority is ready for one or the other. If one of them do get in, then those with personal issues with a female pres or black male pres will need to deal with it....see a shrink or something. It should be about the issues at hand for the greater good.

I don't want organized religion to be the forefront of any president's decisions.

I want someone who will/can grow and evolve as a person, be open to and learn from experiences, lead and listen, and constantly strive for improvement of our country as a whole - not just one segment of the population.

Too many things to mention.....I'll stop here. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0"> It will be one very interesting election! Sheesh.

CowTown · Jan 10, 2008

I'm undecided still, but it's between Obama and Clinton for me. I'm not 100% for one of them. I wish I was.

What's important to me is (in no particular order):

--Someone who will truly think of "the people", not their people, and on all levels.

--Acknowledging how extremely corrupt our goverment is right now, and having someone who will confront that, make attempts to stop it, fix it and to help make our government more ethical.

--Improve economy

--Focus on global warming and mastering alternative energies. Someone very ready to stand up to the executives out there and set new regulations that will start making a positive effect on our environment.

--Make healthcare less of a doom and gloom situation, less of a privilege, less of a backward system, more easily affordable/obtainable to everyone, even those who are sick (yes, you know the ones who need coverage. lol.)

--Accepting, standing up for, and giving benefits to gay couples.

--I'm Pro-choice, and think education about adoption should be much bigger then it is.

--I think the phrase "cut and run" is a matter of perspective. I don't see it as cut and run from "responsibilities", I see getting out at some point, as a solution. It's the responsibility of the new president to act on what he/she believes is the right next course of action. Just b/c Bush created this bed, I don't think means the country has to continue laying in it if there's a possibility for change. I think either way, it's not a good situation, but I do think we need to end it.

If Obama or Clinton get elected, that would suggest that the majority is ready for one or the other. If one of them do get in, then those with personal issues with a female pres or black male pres will need to deal with it....see a shrink or something. It should be about the issues at hand for the greater good.

I don't want organized religion to be the forefront of any president's decisions.

I want someone who will/can grow and evolve as a person, be open to and learn from experiences, lead and listen, and constantly strive for improvement of our country as a whole - not just one segment of the population.

Too many things to mention.....I'll stop here. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0"> It will be one very interesting election! Sheesh.

CowTown · Jan 10, 2008

I'm undecided still, but it's between Obama and Clinton for me. I'm not 100% for one of them. I wish I was.

What's important to me is (in no particular order):

--Someone who will truly think of "the people", not their people, and on all levels.

--Acknowledging how extremely corrupt our goverment is right now, and having someone who will confront that, make attempts to stop it, fix it and to help make our government more ethical.

--Improve economy

--Focus on global warming and mastering alternative energies. Someone very ready to stand up to the executives out there and set new regulations that will start making a positive effect on our environment.

--Make healthcare less of a doom and gloom situation, less of a privilege, less of a backward system, more easily affordable/obtainable to everyone, even those who are sick (yes, you know the ones who need coverage. lol.)

--Accepting, standing up for, and giving benefits to gay couples.

--I'm Pro-choice, and think education about adoption should be much bigger then it is.

--I think the phrase "cut and run" is a matter of perspective. I don't see it as cut and run from "responsibilities", I see getting out at some point, as a solution. It's the responsibility of the new president to act on what he/she believes is the right next course of action. Just b/c Bush created this bed, I don't think means the country has to continue laying in it if there's a possibility for change. I think either way, it's not a good situation, but I do think we need to end it.

If Obama or Clinton get elected, that would suggest that the majority is ready for one or the other. If one of them do get in, then those with personal issues with a female pres or black male pres will need to deal with it....see a shrink or something. It should be about the issues at hand for the greater good.

I don't want organized religion to be the forefront of any president's decisions.

I want someone who will/can grow and evolve as a person, be open to and learn from experiences, lead and listen, and constantly strive for improvement of our country as a whole - not just one segment of the population.

Too many things to mention.....I'll stop here. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0"> It will be one very interesting election! Sheesh.

CowTown · Jan 10, 2008

I'm undecided still, but it's between Obama and Clinton for me. I'm not 100% for one of them. I wish I was.

What's important to me is (in no particular order):

--Someone who will truly think of "the people", not their people, and on all levels.

--Acknowledging how extremely corrupt our goverment is right now, and having someone who will confront that, make attempts to stop it, fix it and to help make our government more ethical.

--Improve economy

--Focus on global warming and mastering alternative energies. Someone very ready to stand up to the executives out there and set new regulations that will start making a positive effect on our environment.

--Make healthcare less of a doom and gloom situation, less of a privilege, less of a backward system, more easily affordable/obtainable to everyone, even those who are sick (yes, you know the ones who need coverage. lol.)

--Accepting, standing up for, and giving benefits to gay couples.

--I'm Pro-choice, and think education about adoption should be much bigger then it is.

--I think the phrase "cut and run" is a matter of perspective. I don't see it as cut and run from "responsibilities", I see getting out at some point, as a solution. It's the responsibility of the new president to act on what he/she believes is the right next course of action. Just b/c Bush created this bed, I don't think means the country has to continue laying in it if there's a possibility for change. I think either way, it's not a good situation, but I do think we need to end it.

If Obama or Clinton get elected, that would suggest that the majority is ready for one or the other. If one of them do get in, then those with personal issues with a female pres or black male pres will need to deal with it....see a shrink or something. It should be about the issues at hand for the greater good.

I don't want organized religion to be the forefront of any president's decisions.

I want someone who will/can grow and evolve as a person, be open to and learn from experiences, lead and listen, and constantly strive for improvement of our country as a whole - not just one segment of the population.

Too many things to mention.....I'll stop here. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0"> It will be one very interesting election! Sheesh.

CowTown · Jan 10, 2008

I'm undecided still, but it's between Obama and Clinton for me. I'm not 100% for one of them. I wish I was.

What's important to me is (in no particular order):

--Someone who will truly think of "the people", not their people, and on all levels.

--Acknowledging how extremely corrupt our goverment is right now, and having someone who will confront that, make attempts to stop it, fix it and to help make our government more ethical.

--Improve economy

--Focus on global warming and mastering alternative energies. Someone very ready to stand up to the executives out there and set new regulations that will start making a positive effect on our environment.

--Make healthcare less of a doom and gloom situation, less of a privilege, less of a backward system, more easily affordable/obtainable to everyone, even those who are sick (yes, you know the ones who need coverage. lol.)

--Accepting, standing up for, and giving benefits to gay couples.

--I'm Pro-choice, and think education about adoption should be much bigger then it is.

--I think the phrase "cut and run" is a matter of perspective. I don't see it as cut and run from "responsibilities", I see getting out at some point, as a solution. It's the responsibility of the new president to act on what he/she believes is the right next course of action. Just b/c Bush created this bed, I don't think means the country has to continue laying in it if there's a possibility for change. I think either way, it's not a good situation, but I do think we need to end it.

If Obama or Clinton get elected, that would suggest that the majority is ready for one or the other. If one of them do get in, then those with personal issues with a female pres or black male pres will need to deal with it....see a shrink or something. It should be about the issues at hand for the greater good.

I don't want organized religion to be the forefront of any president's decisions.

I want someone who will/can grow and evolve as a person, be open to and learn from experiences, lead and listen, and constantly strive for improvement of our country as a whole - not just one segment of the population.

Too many things to mention.....I'll stop here. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0"> It will be one very interesting election! Sheesh.

CowTown · Jan 10, 2008