50 votes for none of the above

I like Rudy too. He seems like he is fiscally a conservative, but more liberal socially. He can win, but it will depend on who he runs against. He won't get much support from the far christian right and it will be hard for any republican to win without that. However if he runs against Hilary, they might support him because they hate her. Something Rudy has that no other republican has is a a legit chance to win New York. If he wins New York, the election is over and he can pack his bags for the white house.

whih conservative judge ruled against freedom of speech again?

do not attempt to speak to me until you know the subject.

COPPA went into effect April 21, 2000, but was actually signed into law by President Clinton in 1998-- a significant year that also saw the passage of COPA by Congress.

Didnt veto it did he?

nah, its a perfect storm for rudy. He's running against someone the extreme right thinks is a turncoat and the other choice is a mormon.
The end.

In the general election, Rudy wins NY and all else is irrelevant.

He wont get the nomination. Im calling this one for Fred Thompson. Watch and see.

its ok to tell the teacher he's wrong. Just do it politely so when he says,"I told you so" it doesn't hurt as much.:winkwink:

Hehe well, we shall revisit this thread some months from now I guess. :winkwink: :winkwink: In all seriousness to some research on Fred. I think you may change your mind on who you want in. :) :)

That has to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said . . . and that is saying something.

I am a big Fan of Guiliani but John Edwards is awesome too. However,I am gonna reserve my opinion until I read more about thier platforms

i have no idea

yes of course Clinton just coming off a sex scandal and trying to help the dems win the White House that same year is going to veto a piece of legislation called the "CHILD Online PROCTECTION Act". Are you that retarded?

Fact is under Clinton the US Justice Dept went after porn far less than Bush or Reagan. That's is FACT. Go look it up.

As I stated before your Alex P Keaton schtick is about 20 years too late. Try something new.

You and 12clicks make about as much sense as

Jews for Hitler
Blacks for the KKK
Mexicans for tougher borders
Christians for Satan
Muslims for equal rights for women

HAHAHA Its Lewinski's fault that he didnt veto it. THAT is FUCKING GRAND!! Grand I say!! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ron Paul is the only choice. Richardson is a distant 2nd. Everyone else would be a disaster.

osama...... I mean obama

Yes, true. Other factors are always part of the legislative and judicial process.

That's VERY debatable (not that I'm gonna debate), but not when it comes to porn then don't! A Republican that rails against porn will get a lot of support from the Christian fundamental base. A democrat who does that, wouldn't really get much of a response from their base,

This Post Was Paid For By McCain 2008!

Lawrence Connor! :anon :anon :anon :anon :anon :anon :anon :anon :anon :anon

Well, clearly PornMogul could have phrased his question a bit better. No American politician is ever going to go on the record as a porn supporter and we all know that.

Nonetheless it is safe to say that some politicians are a hell of lot more hostile to the industry than others.

Perhaps a better question would be...

Which candidate does the religious right fear the most? :winkwink:

Mickey fucking Mouse. I think he has the best qualifications out of everyone these days.

It's amazing to see how dumb 12clicks really is.