Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StarOfAfrica2 on January 19, 2007, 11:54:11 PM
-
First shots fired in the race to discredit your opponent! Point Hillary.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm
Now the interesting question arises. Does he try to downplay it and say it wasnt a big deal, or embrace it and try to portray himself as the answer to our problems in the Middle East?
Regardless of that issue, looking at who supports him and who doesnt and how he votes, I see little to recommend him.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS030017
-
I know Billarys position on gun control. Has Oblama squeeked anything out on this decisive issue (for me at least.....).
A man has a right to own a gun,and not just any gun. A damned good gun is called for...one that shoots lots of bullets quickly and delivers them on target with good knock down power. Be the politician that supports my rights and get my vote.
Bastidges.....
-
Gun Issues
(Back to top)
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.
2004 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Obama a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
2002 Based on voting records and a questionnaire sent out to all state legislative candidates by Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control, Senator Obama was assigned a grade of A (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Obama a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
He's 100% dem when it comes to gun control.
I see no reason to vote for him given his voting record. That aside, I don't know how the democratic party tollerates hillary. This kind of smear campaign should be frowned on inside the party. Unfortunately, it's the only way people know how to run a campaign anymore. I'm waiting for MT to come in and start spouting off about how the republicans started this one and the Dems don't usually resort to this type of stuff and wonder why everyone hates hillary so much.
-
He seems to go with whatever the direction the wind is blowing. A true politician. Nothing to stand on, until it is defined by what the public wants.
The Billary is no better though.
Geez, we are going to be screwed again in 2008.
-
Yep, What Skuzz said!
Mac
-
The guy wrote a memoir at age 30. nuff said
-
When I skim that Vote-Smart link, I just shake my head. Look at all those special interest groups those guys have to answer to, one way or another. And that's probably not even a complete list. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended?
Regarding Obama's Muslim background-- It reminded me of Toad's post about tribalism in the Arab world and how peace was maintained by marrying off a tribe's daughter to another tribe.
I wonder if radical Islam's hatred for us would be blunted or slightly dulled by the election of a President with ties (weak as his are) to the Muslim world. Not a good standalone reason to vote for him, but it does make me wonder what the effect would be of his election. Minnesota has a Muslim Congressman now and from what I've seen and heard of him, he's smart and eloquent.
Leaves me with an even more negative impression of Clinton than I had before. A shot does not necessarily mean a score here.
-
Which was the whole point of my post. She scores a point with the "he's hiding the fact he was raised Muslim" thing, but he has the chance to either make it worse or turn it around. My big question is, does he have the charisma to spin it into a favorable thing and actually ride it into the White House? If he tries, then his opponents have to about face and try to either downplay the very dirt they dug up, or try to make him seem even worse (like the school was an Al Quieda training ground or something).
-
Actually Star, it is up to the media and how they spin it. We do not vote for people based on them. We vote based on what the media tells us.
The only choices we make concern which media we listen to and which one we believe.
-
Well, I see Skuzzy at least is familar with Marshall McLuhan. :)
-
I think he would find a great irony in how his work influences opinion. Or should I say massages opinion? :)
-
so hillary is saying...."even a radical socialist woman democrat is better than osama bamma." ?
I don't know.. I am just glad that the dems are fielding such obvious radicals.
As for gun control.. osama bamma gets an F from NRA as has been mentioned by mini..
There is good reason.. he is no friend of the second amendment and will sign any gun control law that passes his desk.. the dems know this so there will be a flurry of gun control bills passed if a dem gets in.
Democrats, or at least the ones pulling the strings, hate firearms and do not think that citizens can be trusted with guns to protect themselves. Only they are smart enough to have guns protect them. If either of these liberal socialists gets in the second will be damaged even more.
lazs
-
middle America will not put either of those two dingleberries into the oval office. while they may get eternal free rides to the senate from their respective but equally whacked states the rest of the country just isn't going to allow the presidency for either of them to happen. it is interesting to watch bunnyfaced billary play the skin game though.
-
Storch, I really think you underestimate how stupid we are, as a nation.
But I really hope you are right.
-
well I guess hope springs eternal in the storch household
-
Skuzzy,
I personally vote based on what the candidates say, not the media reports. I watch their speeches, watch the debates, read the words they write and say on the various issues.
The media is often useful to bring the candidate's words to me, but I do go out and actively ensure I'm getting more than just some carefully chosen snippets that could be used to present a biased picture.
That's why it's important to watch the various speeches and debates, not just the reporting done on the events. That's what VCRs, tivo, etc. are for... So you can watch the whole thing instead of the filtered versions.
That's why, even now, I still watch the entire president's state of the union address... I know I can't trust the opposition's response (they're almost always argumentative and overly partisan to the point of stupidity) or the media summaries so I have to sit through the whole thing myself.
-
Welp, here's hoping.
Ahh, who am I kidding. I am too much of a pesimist when it comes to this. People are easily swayed by the media. It is easier than doing actual research into what the candidates are really about.
We are the sheeple, here us baaah. Just point us where you want and we will follow.
EDIT: Eagl, you do realize how rare it is for anyone to actually try and learn about the candidates they are votiing for? How many people can actually put the media aside and make an informed decision? How many would even try?
-
You're SURE you didn't have beer and cheerios this morning skuzzster?
-
so eagl.. when you see hillary or osama bamma holding shotguns at the photo op trap shoot then that will mean to you that they are defenders of the second amendment?
That the NRA publishing their voting record and grading them is not pertinent compared to what the candidates say or do during the election?
lazs
-
Originally posted by eagl
You're SURE you didn't have beer and cheerios this morning skuzzster?
Let me ask you a question. Do you really think, we as a voting nation, really get to choose from the best this nation has to offer for our political leaders?
-
I absolutely do not think voters are offered the best candidates. The problem is not the media however. It is the fault of the political parties which have morphed into cash machines because of the election cycle funding demands.
I think term limits would dramatically change this dynamic, for the better of the nation. There are lots of great leaders out there, but the continual money-grubbing of the incumbents to fill their campaign funds pretty much reduces the parties from true political entities to mere fundraising organizations.
The media could of course help change this by more thorough "old school" reporting and investigation, but they won't because it's much easier to go for sound bites and shock value. The media is stuck in their own competitive race, and the media sources that can provide the most shocking stories and pander to already existing public opinions and biases are the ones that are doing the best.
-
the 1950 senate race in florida, easily one of the most creative and humorous campaigns run in our checkered political history.
the antagonists
George Smathers vs Claude Pepper
in his speeches mr. smathers begins by calling mr. pepper "a known extrovert" with heavy disdane for such a person in his voice. he further besmirches mr. pepper by revealing that mr. pepper's sister is a thespian and accusing mr. pepper of being a practicing homo sapiens. he also charged mr. pepper of having matriculated on campus prior to attending FSU and furthermore was known to practice celibacy before he was married.
guess who won the election.
:D
-
Smathers?
And the only reason I would guess him would be to back up what I call a 'stupid' voting nation. Of course, I would have to attend the question, "Were we more ignorant back then than we are today?"
-
smathers did indeed win. I agree with the opinion that the media has carried the nation since our inception.
another interesting story that just came to mind were the pettycoat wars during andrew jackson's administration. I'll look that up and post the details later.
another bit of trivia in the form of a question.
who was our first homosexual presdent?
-
I would think that some people here should be more concerned about the senate races for '08. The Dems have something like 12 seats up for grabs vs the Reps 21 some odd seats.
From Ken Mhelman:
In his farewell speech after two years as chairman, Mr. Mehlman said that the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress, was not a fluke that could be attributed to the calendar, a few scandal-tainted candidates and the tough going in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/washington/19repubs.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
IMO, '08 will put the Dems back into power for the next twenty or so years and the 'fault' for this will lie squarely on the right side of the isle and not from the boogyman called the 'liberal media' cooked up by the RW pundits and believed by many as true.
IMO, a majority of Americans have experienced what total power in the hands of madmen can reap, they won't go down that dark hole again in the near future.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
I would think that some people here should be more concerned about the senate races for '08. The Dems have something like 12 seats up for grabs vs the Reps 21 some odd seats.
From Ken Mhelman:
In his farewell speech after two years as chairman, Mr. Mehlman said that the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress, was not a fluke that could be attributed to the calendar, a few scandal-tainted candidates and the tough going in Iraq.
IMO, '08 will put the Dems back into power for the next twenty or so years and the 'fault' for this will lie squarely on the right side of the isle and not from the boogyman called the 'liberal media' cooked up by the RW pundits and believed by many as true.
IMO, America has experienced what total power in the hands of madmen can reap, they won't go down that dark hole again in the near future.
hmmmmm, maybe, or we can look back to similar predictions made during the 1946 mid term elections during which the republicans wrested power from the democrats then promptly did what the democrats are currently doing, namely frittering away their opportunity on all fronts. most notably is the subject for this thread, infighting for more power rather than taking care of the nation's business as is their obligation to perform.
in any event the talking heads will tell which way to go and the 2008 election is 18 months hence. that is far too long of a period ahead to predict any outcome accurately, hell even remotely closely given the human tendency to not look beyond the immediate.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
IMO, a majority of Americans have experienced what total power in the hands of madmen can reap, they won't go down that dark hole again in the near future.
This is exactly the problem. When people say frankly idiotic things like this, it does nothing but halt real discussion, sharing of GOOD ideas, and remove any possibility of politicians being able to do anything for the good of the country. Whether or not you actually believe an entire political party is made up of mentally ill religious warmonger nutjobs, it's partisan crap-flinging at it's worst. This is what has completely polarized the nation's political process, the refusal to even attempt to rationally discuss policy. Every policy discussion gets turned into how the other party is pushing everyone into some dark hole of madness and insanity. The media's role in all this seems to be to ignore the rational discussion in favor of repeated broadcasts of alarmist statements such as the one I've quoted, and the general public laps it up and begs for more.
How about this instead:
Even if he's wrong (and he probably is), a rational examination of the President's statements and actions would show that rather than being clinically insane, he has deliberately chosen a course of action that is entirely consistent with his job (protecting the nation), his global strategy of refusing to wait until we're attacked, and numerous historical lessons learned from previous isolationist administrations. President Bush, far from being a madman, is simply the most recent President who has actually acted on the prevailing liberal international policy school of thought which clearly believes that democratic nations are inherently peaceful, and that it is in the world's best interests if we actively encourage and assist other nations in becoming free democracies. He is not the first to act on the beliefs behind this school of international political thought, and he will not be the last.
Yes, the idea that strong democratic nations should spread democracy and world peace is "liberal" in the same way that it is "liberal" to think it is a good idea to re-distribute wealth by taxing rich people and giving the money to poor people in the form of either cash or various other social services. Both are "liberal" schools of thought, and they clearly have both benefits and drawbacks. Stating that actually following such a policy is the act of a madman obscures the underlying theories by focusing on whether the implementation details and results are as expected. Failing at a task doesn't necessarily mean the task itself is bad. It might, but it also might mean that the specific technique in use isn't right. Being wrong does not equal being insane.
Not only has this been a difficult path to follow, the President's role as the leader of his political party has led to the villification of almost all republicans, regardless of their stance on the President's policy decisions or their positions on other matters of national and international policy.
As you say, it is clear that there will be a backlash, however a more clear statement might involve a discussion on the real implications of a return to democrat political rule, including the very real possibility that the US may return to the hollow international isolationism that resulted in WWI and WWII, economic policies that resulted in the depression, and a general lean towards the arguably socialist economic and social policies that are the bread and butter of the liberal democrat political agenda.
It might also be stated in a rational discussion, that the republican party will likely also return to it's traditionally conservative positions in favor of a smaller, less intrusive government, since President Bush has deviated quite far from traditional conservative republican positions on a number of issues. Further, although the 2008 elections will likely be a reflection on public opinion of the current President, the 2010 elections will probably represent a return to traditional policy politics with each party attempting to present themselves as being FOR various policies instead of merely being united against whatever it is the President happens to be doing.
So how about a real discussion without the extremism?
-
Thanks Mini. That settles that. I have so far invested about 20 minutes listening to Oblama over the past few months. Now I can go all the way through 2008 without ever having to focus on him again.
-
I'd like to see John McCain V John Edwards for president. N.B. I reserve the option to revise my opinion.
But today, that's what I'd like to see.
Regards,
hap
p.s. In my opinon Hillary and Obama can't win. Hand wringers, you can relax.
-
if Obama's first name was Albert we could call him Al Obama.
-
Isn't Al Gore already claiming that the Republicans stole the Presidency in '08...
Dammm Just before Jeb announced he was running for the office.
:D
Mac
-
I always for for what a candidate isn't.
ie: Are they the incumbent? Nope...great.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
He's 100% dem when it comes to gun control.
I see no reason to vote for him given his voting record. That aside, I don't know how the democratic party tollerates hillary. This kind of smear campaign should be frowned on inside the party. Unfortunately, it's the only way people know how to run a campaign anymore. I'm waiting for MT to come in and start spouting off about how the republicans started this one and the Dems don't usually resort to this type of stuff and wonder why everyone hates hillary so much.
If that smear campaign came from Hillary I would agree with you. Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing to suggest it did.
read this, then get back to me.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25060
-
Well, consider it fortunate or unfortunate, but the background investigation was conducted by folks within the Democratic Party, and "sources within the party" have identified "researchers connected to Senator Clinton" as the instigator of the investigation.
"In late 2006, when the Illinois senator demonstrated his intention to run for president, the Clinton campaign ordered a background check on Mr. Obama, the sources said. Earlier this week, Mr. Obama established an exploratory committee, the first step toward a formal race."
Now you can take "sources" to mean that her hands are clean of this if you like. Personally I highly doubt anyone would be pinning it on her if there wasn't a good chance its true. I could be wrong. Considering he is the best threat on the boards to keep her from even running, I'd probably have done the same in her shoes. Heck, I think it needed to be done. He's the one who made a big deal last year over his trip to Kenya and his ties to his father's family there. The fact that he never bothered with them until he became a political bigshot who got to speak at the national Dem. Convention is irrellevant. He brought it up, the history is fair game for dissection. If there are things he'd rather NOT come out, his bad.
-
Hillary and Obama go down in flaming plane wreck = USA is teh w1nn3r!!!1
-
Neither has any chance of winning their party's nomination. I don't think the Democrats have forgotten their Mondale/Ferraro ticket. Nominating either of these would just give the Republicans a landslide victory in 2008. Both are unelectable.
Join the "Who 'dat" nation!:D
-
Just what the Dems need I think, a commie skank, and a crypto-islamist.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If that smear campaign came from Hillary I would agree with you. Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing to suggest it did.
read this, then get back to me.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25060
THAT'S SWEET! EVEN MORE ANONYMOUS SOURCES! IT HAS TO BE A RIGHT WING HACK JOB!!!
That damn Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
Give it time MT. you'll come around.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Skuzzy,
I personally vote based on what the candidates say, not the media reports. I watch their speeches, watch the debates, read the words they write and say on the various issues.
The media is often useful to bring the candidate's words to me, but I do go out and actively ensure I'm getting more than just some carefully chosen snippets that could be used to present a biased picture.
That's why it's important to watch the various speeches and debates, not just the reporting done on the events. That's what VCRs, tivo, etc. are for... So you can watch the whole thing instead of the filtered versions.
That's why, even now, I still watch the entire president's state of the union address... I know I can't trust the opposition's response (they're almost always argumentative and overly partisan to the point of stupidity) or the media summaries so I have to sit through the whole thing myself.
Silly man. Everyone knows Politicians "preach to the coir" better than any preacher on the planet. ;)
Its an itching ears type thing.
It’s what is done and their record long before they are in your face giving speeches and so forth.
The problem is, we as a nation wait till the midnight hour before we start doing our homework.
-
Originally posted by storch
middle America will not put either of those two dingleberries into the oval office. . .
I dunno -- Illinois is fairly middle America, and they elected him and :eek: Dick Durbin :eek: as senators.
What will be interesting in general is how Obama will react to being truly challenged for the first time. Since the Illinois Republican Party imploded with the Gov. Ryan scandals, it isn't like they had the wherewithal to do it during his senate coronation. My gut says he won't be able to handle it - but what do I know?
-
Hey MT... a couple of questions for you:
1) Would hillary do any kind of background check on an opponent?
2) In the situation where the opponent is running under a campaign of bridging gaps and not alienating voters, how would you question his background without looking petty?
3) What is the easiest way to prove/disprove this story?
4) Why a moonie press publication?
I enjoy the right-wing conspiracy theory enough to come up with my own left-wing conspiracy theory.
Hillary had the story planted with this publication because it would be very easy for them to dismiss as bipartisan and would have the following effects: It would bring Obama's past into question in a manner that didn't make Hillary look like the instigator, it would cause people to scrutinize Obama's past a little more than might have been done before the story, it will make it look like the republicans planted the story.
I dunno... The story's unfounded, but there's so many people you could blame it on.
-
Originally posted by E25280
I dunno -- Illinois is fairly middle America, and they elected him and :eek: Dick Durbin :eek: as senators.
Illinois is Chicago country. You remember Chicago , thats where dead people still vote.
-
and have done so for well over one hundred years.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Illinois is Chicago country. You remember Chicago , thats where dead people still vote.
While a good point, the margins of victory in statewide campaigns are too large to be completely due to fraud.
And the state was electing Dem senators for a long time even while having Republican governors.
So, back to storch's point, "middle america" might not like people like Obama or Hillary, but middle america is in effect shrinking in relation to the rest of the country. In the past, you had to win over "middle america" to get elected. It just isn't true anymore. IL, MI, OH, MN and WI are all more "Northeast" than "Midwest" anymore, Florida is becoming a suburb of overaged New Yorkers, and at times it seems California has already extended into Colorado.
So, we have the reverse of what storch is talking about. It isn't enough that one candidate is distasteful to a large portion of the country. "Voting against" just doesn't cut it. The opponent will have to find a way (through platform or personality) to be appealing to those outside of "middle america" and thus turn enough votes to get elected.
Relying on "everyone hates Hillary" to keep her out of office just won't work IMO.
-
Ahhh, Chicago. Vote early, vote often.
-
And now the followup. Mrs. Clinton announces her candidacy ...........
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=EBB9C59C-7DEB-4E21-A0BB-4A02B53022CA,3838713C-1931-439D-AA7F-883E1DECD51C,F1F8B3DA-8F35-4554-A231-E2A0E777B198,98B183B1-BEBA-49F2-A7DC-35364605D607&t=s3&f=06/64&p=&fg=>1=8921
After watching it I'm not sure if I should laugh or throw up. Ick.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Ahhh, Chicago. Vote early, vote often.
and bring the preceding seven generations with you on each trip.
-
If it comes down to Hillary or Obama I really don't think the Dems can take the White House. I thin McCain will take the Republican nomination but I'd rather see Gingrich get it.
-
Lukster, I agree with your 1st sentence. I'd be surprised if either garner the nomination though.
Gingrich over Mc Cain, eh? I don't think Newt is electable. And if he were, I'd prefer Mc Cain. Won't say why though. It's late and I'm pooped.
All the Best,
hap
-
I wouldn't be surprised a bit if the only two prominent remarks are: "first black President" or "first woman President."
Here's good insight into his previously established positions (i pasted below). Easy as pie to find the voting records of these folks on the net. Wonder how many people are going to look this stuff up & their stances into consideration.
"Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. During his tenure as a legislator, he abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill and on legislation that would keep pornographic video stores and strip clubs from within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He has also voted against laws requiring students to complete suspensions before being transferred to other school districts. He abstained from legislation requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds. He opposed legislation making it a criminal offense for accused gang members to associate with known gang members."
-
Pffft... America isn't America anymore... we outsourced everything.
You want Freedom? Go somewhere else.
You want Liberty? Go somewhere else.
You want Democracy? Go somewhere else.
You are just sheep.
Mac
-
Originally posted by texasmom
"Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. "
That one sentence is scary enough, except if you look at his voting record he seems to go with the right-to-lifers more than the pro-choice crowd. Maybe he's just riding the fence. I hear its a good way to get splinters in awkward places. Let's hope so, that at least could be entertaining. :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I always for for what a candidate isn't.
how interesting..
-
billary/obama ticket!
yeah!! we are that stupid!!
-
^
Great bumper sticker.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I dunno... The story's unfounded, but there's so many people you could blame it on.
And that is the real point here isn't it?
-
Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action.
I am for socialized medicine. Dead set against the other two.
See that's the prob generally for me. A plank or 2 from one side and a plank or 2 from the other. No one cares to fit them together. Oh, well.
hap
-
Originally posted by RedRadr
Originally posted by Thrawn
I always for for what a candidate isn't.
how interesting..
I view my representitive as an employee. As such I consider lying to me to be a firing offence. I have yet to vote for someone that hasn't turned around and broke most if not all thier campaign promises within a few months of being hired.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I view my representitive as an employee. As such I consider lying to me to be a firing offence. I have yet to vote for someone that hasn't turned around and broke most if not all thier campaign promises within a few months of being hired.
So which of your representatives will you be voting for billary or obama?
Yes I know you're canuck but you seem to think your opinion matters, dunno why.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And that is the real point here isn't it?
The real point is that the website you linked is just as biased/erronious/skewed as the one they are claiming to be a right-wing mouthpiece.
Do YOU think that Hillary would have a background check done on Obama?
-
Vote libertarian. Stop rewarding the repub / Dems for failure.
Hillery & Obummer are party hacks, not leaders... nothing will change if either of these clones are elected, they'll drive their tired jalopy of party ideals down the same dusty road as the party hacks before them... has either one of them ever had an original thought?... no, they vomit party talking points like good robots because they lack the skills to think for themselves.
These people didn't get where they are by being competent, smart or qualified, they are good party fund raisers, media manipulators and above all... they owe lots people lots of favors in return for all that donated $$
My prediction for 08: the idiot party hack will win.
-
Their are both POS !
-
<
My prediction for 08: the idiot party hack will win.>>
word.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The real point is that the website you linked is just as biased/erronious/skewed as the one they are claiming to be a right-wing mouthpiece.
Do YOU think that Hillary would have a background check done on Obama?
Of course she could. But once again, this entire thread is based upon the assumption that she in fact DID. There is at least evidence to suggest that it is all a right wing hit job based on the transcript of the Fox show.
Point is, no one knows.
Period.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Point is, no one knows.
Period.
hillery knows.
-
Is Obama a muslim?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Of course she could. But once again, this entire thread is based upon the assumption that she in fact DID. There is at least evidence to suggest that it is all a right wing hit job based on the transcript of the Fox show.
Point is, no one knows.
Period.
LOL! Wow you're moving into uber-tard territory. The point is that the "evidence" cited was a non-related radio talk show that said nothing about background checks but jumped to incorrect conclusions about his past. Do you think anyone has question Obama's past at all given that his father was, in fact, muslim?
I think it is in Hillary's best interest for that to be brought up by the "right wing conspiracy" as much as possible.
-
Compared to the "evidence" cited in the original article... one is ubertard and one is ... well
silly.
my point stands
-
A woman or a black man will never win the presidential race. This country is not ready for that kind of step.
In addition, Obama and Clinton both have a lawyer's background, and are democrats, two regular characteristics of typical politicians in most cases.
As far as stances on issues I think the american people deserve candidates who have drawn a line to show where they stand, not some waffling, non-commited bull*****e such as
X k) Other or expanded principles
I support common-sense gun safety measures to make our streets and communities safer. Specifically, I strongly support renewing the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, and I have introduced legislation to require that child safety locks be sold with every handgun and to ban junk guns.
This is from non-other than Senator Feinstein of California. And no I did not vote for her.
Sounds like the Mayor of Seattle to me.
-
Originally posted by VermGhost
A woman or a black man will never win the presidential race. This country is not ready for that kind of step. . .
Speak for yourself.
I would vote for a green and yellow polkadotted hermaphadite space alien if the policies / platform was one I could agree with, and I had a reasonable expectation said alien would follow through on that platform.
But then, by definition, a space alien would not be a natrual-born US citizen, so I guess my dream will never be . . .
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Compared to the "evidence" cited in the original article... one is ubertard and one is ... well
silly.
my point stands
No point made. No evidence was cited in anything. It was all rumours.
Now... you do a little thinking about who would benifit from them and who would look silly if they started them. Why would the reps use that publication for planting a false story? Why would Hillary use that publication for planting a false story? Look at the two answers and see which one makes more sense.
-
Oh for crying out loud. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. No evidence was cited is exactly the point I made.
So you think Hillary benefits more from this smear than the republicans would benefit from claiming Hillary is smearing Obama? LOL.. my god man, that is like throwing a hand full of rocks at the ocean and gloating that you hit it.
No evidence.. period.
-
You cited a site that blamed someone else.
-
If Hillary is elected I'm moving to Idaho and stockpiling ammunition.
I plan to move there if she doesn't win too. ;)
-
Build a spud-gun. Ammo is all around you in Idaho. :)
-
verm... I think you have it backwards... it is not that the country is not ready for a woman or a black man for pres...
It is that women and blacks are not ready to be pres... No matter how gender neutral hillary seems or race neutral osama bamma seem...
they are in the wrong party to convince us they are neutral... Gee.... a black man and a woman who are liberal democrats? whoda thunk?
A conservative woman or conservative black could win in America. The best examples of good politicians in both is in the republican party tho. The women and blacks in the democratic party are shrill harpies and blamers.
But... the liberal socialists aren't ready for blacks and women who don't tow the line.
Hillary and osama bamma toe the line
lazs
-
as TOad stated, you underestimate our stupidity if you do not think either or both or these liberal hacks could not be elected to run this country.
the right ads at the right time with the media, hollywood and the afternoon talk shows spewing the right nonsense and don't forget the terrorist doing their part by upping the activity on their side in Iraq and elsewhere ... and they'd slide right in ...
-
Yep, I have no idea why anyone would think the Billiardly (tm) or the Obomba (tm) would not get elected. They already have been elected. So they have found thier what thier mooks want to hear. Spread the same joy over the nation and watch how fast they get elected.
-
I think Hillary will totally dismantle Osama Hussaine Obama piece by piece, and she will then chew him up into little bits and excrete him as a neatly packaged chocolate bar - minus the nuts. she plays for keeps.
and i am very worried that she could be elected.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
and i am very worried that she could be elected.
Really! Just think of the horrible foriegn policy decisions she might make! Think of the money she could squander! Think of the idiotic plans for a stupid war she might perpetrate!
heh
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I think Hillary will totally dismantle Osama Hussaine Obama piece by piece, and she will then chew him up into little bits and excrete him as a neatly packaged chocolate bar - minus the nuts. she plays for keeps.
and when her advisors tell her to select him as her veep candidate to get the uninformed black vote, they will be best buds ..
-
Think of the liberal activist judges she will place on the Supreme Court.
Think of the removal of our 2nd Amendment rights she will accomplish.
Think of the expansion of the "keep 'em poor" welfare system she will accomplish.
...I could go on but suffice it to say that the Democrats are once again assuming that this is their hour to be as radical and "out there" as they can be with their choice of nominee.
Once again, they will probably ensure that I cannot vote for their candidate.
And it's always possible that they may once again be able to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory simply by their choice of candidate. This one should be a Democratic walkover but they may well blow the chance.
-
Which Democratic Party candidate could you see yourself voting for, Toad?
Is there one? Do you know much about Vilsack?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Really! Just think of the horrible foriegn policy decisions she might make! Think of the money she could squander! Think of the idiotic plans for a stupid war she might perpetrate!
heh
Just a point here. IIRC billary DID vote for that same war you harp about as such she is also responsible for it. If being for the war disqualifies a politician for the office she also is not qualified.
Toad already covered other issues including decimating the bill of rights.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Think of the liberal activist judges she will place on the Supreme Court.
Think of the removal of our 2nd Amendment rights she will accomplish.
Think of the expansion of the "keep 'em poor" welfare system she will accomplish.
...I could go on but suffice it to say that the Democrats are once again assuming that this is their hour to be as radical and "out there" as they can be with their choice of nominee.
Once again, they will probably ensure that I cannot vote for their candidate.
And it's always possible that they may once again be able to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory simply by their choice of candidate. This one should be a Democratic walkover but they may well blow the chance.
As opposed to conservative activist judges?
Which 2nd amendment rights has she advocated removing again?
It was her husband's administration that implemented the 1st real welfare reform ever.
But here is my prediction...
Hillary wins, serves a brilliant 8 years during which she will be villified unceasingly by the right while rebuilding the US standing in the community of nations and making real progress in increasing our safety from terrorist attack. She will leave office with an approval rating that is about double Bush's and the right wing will insist for the next 8 years thereafter that everything is her fault.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Just a point here. IIRC billary DID vote for that same war you harp about as such she is also responsible for it. If being for the war disqualifies a politician for the office she also is not qualified.
Toad already covered other issues including decimating the bill of rights.
I don't harp. And voting for the war is a great deal different than running it. I was for the war back in 2002 also. Look it up. It was bungled by the president and his team, not by the senators in the minority party who voted to fund it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
But here is my prediction...
Hillary wins, serves a brilliant 8 years during which she will be villified unceasingly by the right while rebuilding the US standing in the community of nations and making real progress in increasing our safety from terrorist attack. She will leave office with an approval rating that is about double Bush's and the right wing will insist for the next 8 years thereafter that everything is her fault.
ROFLMAO!!! As much of a pessimist I am about the polical scene, you,...LOL! You have to be ....ROFL!!
Ahh, heck with it. Good one mT! That was hilarious!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
As opposed to conservative activist judges?
Which 2nd amendment rights has she advocated removing again?
It was her husband's administration that implemented the 1st real welfare reform ever.
But here is my prediction...
Hillary wins, serves a brilliant 8 years during which she will be villified unceasingly by the right while rebuilding the US standing in the community of nations and making real progress in increasing our safety from terrorist attack. She will leave office with an approval rating that is about double Bush's and the right wing will insist for the next 8 years thereafter that everything is her fault.
You have got to be kidding about the 2nd ammendment right????
As to the rest of your "prediction", DAAYYUMMM that has got to be really good stuff you're smoking!
-
and when her advisors tell her to select him as her veep candidate to get the uninformed black vote, they will be best buds .. - Eagler
_________________
I don't see that Eagler... maybe it could happen, but I think choosing Obamba as her vp will lose her more votes among moderates than it will gain her among blacks.... remember, Hillary is way ahead of Obamba among black voters. and i don't think there is going to be anthing left of Obamba by the time she is done with him. :D
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and when her advisors tell her to select him as her veep candidate to get the uninformed black vote, they will be best buds ..
Well, the republicans have been very successful garnering the uninformed white vote.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well, the republicans have been very successful garnering the uninformed white vote.
I think unenlightened is what you meant.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Speak for yourself.
I would vote for a green and yellow polkadotted hermaphadite space alien if the policies / platform was one I could agree with, and I had a reasonable expectation said alien would follow through on that platform.
But then, by definition, a space alien would not be a natrual-born US citizen, so I guess my dream will never be . . .
Don't put words in my mouth in the form of an ellipse. The period is there for a reason.
Lazs
verm... I think you have it backwards... it is not that the country is not ready for a woman or a black man for pres...
Thank you for stating what I was unable to state, in much better words!
MT
As opposed to conservative activist judges?
I wouldn't be surprised if she shares the same perspective on @nd Amendment rights as her husband, and in addition a great characteristic she has in common with a great deal of politicians (except McCain and a few others) is she has not yet made her stance on issues such as gun control well known or known at all. This is something that in the last few days from looking at the National Political Awareness Test from vote-smart.org, stands out to me.
These politicans have a duty to serve us (citizens). By not making their intentions of how this country should be run or what laws should be drafted, we (citizens) cannot ultimately hold them accountable for their failures. I really wish more politicans stood by their positions on issues and intelligently reinforced their persepective through data and research on issues, instead of jumping on an issue bandwagon to do battle with the opposite party or naysayers.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
As opposed to conservative activist judges?
Which 2nd amendment rights has she advocated removing again?
It was her husband's administration that implemented the 1st real welfare reform ever.
No, as opposed to strict constructionist judges; the kind I prefer.
Hillary has an "F" rating from the NRA.
Voted against an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters.
Voted against (twice S397 & S1805)) a bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
She is beyond doubt anti-2nd; I suppose you forget how anti-gun she and her husband where when they were in the WH as a "team"?
Welfare reform, eh?
Clinton vetoed two other welfare reform bills that came from a Republican controlled Congress before he finally signed the third one. So whose idea was it?
-
Originally posted by oboe
Which Democratic Party candidate could you see yourself voting for, Toad?
Is there one? Do you know much about Vilsack?
I haven't seen one enter the race so far that could possibly get my vote based on the information available to date.
Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Kucinich are totally out of the question simply on their 2nd Amendment positions. Both are F-rated by the NRA, top rated by Handgun Control. While guns specifically are not really the issue, I find that as a "litmus test" the 2nd issues quickly sort out the ones with whom I am in disagreement on most issues. It's a short cut; if they're wrong on the 2nd, they're wrong on everything else that is important to me.
I haven't researched Vilsack but a quick check is not promising. His latest "cut off the funding for Iraq" gives me flashbacks of the Dems betraying South Vietnam. I will continue to watch as he establishes his other positions.
Richardson, like Vilsack doesn't have a clearly defined stance on the 2nd. He's not as aggressive towards illegal immigration as I'd like to see. He has a lot of areas to fill in on his postion sheet as well. I will continue to watch him as well.
Gravel is an immediate "cut and run from Iraq" politician. The only thing he has going for him is his proposal to end the IRS/income tax in favor of a Fair Tax. I don't think he'll be going too far and I wouldn't vote for him at this point.
That sums up the "declared" candidate I think.
-
Everytime I see Hillary "The Red Queen" Clinton, I can't help but think of Angela Lansbury in the original "The Manchurian Candidate".
Wab
-
Originally posted by VermGhost
Don't put words in my mouth in the form of an ellipse. The period is there for a reason.
Not sure how an elipse, put there simply to indicate I was not quoting your entire post, and then stating my own opinion, is putting words in your mouth. But if you choose to be offended, that's your problem.
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Everytime I see Hillary "The Red Queen" Clinton, I can't help but think of Angela Lansbury in the original "The Manchurian Candidate".
Wab
That is a sure sign you've been programmed. Now, can you figure out who did it to you?
-
well put toad... if they are wrong on the second amendment then they are wrong on every thing else that I care about too.
the guys here who defend hillary have something in common... they all ask.. "what is so bad about her?"
Ok... let's turn it around... what about her is good? what is one thing that only she supports (as opposed to the republicans) that I simply can't get in the republican candidates... what is so important that it will make me forget her liberal agenda and the destruction of my second amendment rights?
What security will she provide that is worth all the freedom I will lose under her big government socialism?
Show me a democrat who wants to reduce the budget by making government smaller in something besides closing military bases/spending... one that is for constitutional rights as laid out by the founders.. less taxes for everyone and I will vote for him.
Till then... the libertarians have just suck away votes needed to defeat democrats.
If all the democrats vote for a libertarian then so will I. If enough democrats are going to vote republican then I will vote libertarian. I can see no reason in the world to ever vote for a democrat in the last few decades.
lazs
-
I read an article today speculating that Gore might be laying the groundwork for a new presidential run.
This will be an interesting election. Of course, they all are, really...
-
The spleen vented here sometimes breaches pathology.
From the Nuthouse,
hap
p.s. How bout citing some proper sources:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I read an article today speculating that Gore might be laying the groundwork for a new presidential run.
This will be an interesting election. Of course, they all are, really...
Clinton/Gore 08 ...
and this time there will be no cigars and fat interns .. She guarantees it!
LOL would be funnier if many weren't so stupid as to actually vote for that combo ...
-
CNN debunks false report about Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html)
I wonder why this never made it into this thread?
No I don't.
-
Maybe due to CNN's lack of credibility? It would not be the first time they lied to be able to have a story to tell.
Keep in mind, I do not really care one way or the other and am just tossing the above out into the lake to see if any fish are nibbling today.
I have my own reasons for not wanting the Billiardly (tm) or the OBomba (tm) in any office, much less the Presidency.
-
Quite frankly I had never seen that report about the madrassa school. Oh well. One of the things that got me in reading the CNN report cited above was that the clinton campaign HQ was cited. Of course they deny it but I find it interesting that the story ran that way.
I saw they visted the school in 2007 to look it over to see if it is a madrassa. Unfortunately they didn't give any information about having talked to anyone about the time period in question which would be 69 to 71. What it is today does not have to be what it was 35+ years ago. They really need to do some digging to confirm the status of the school back then otherwise the issue is still open. I would imagine that Obama would want that rumor put to rest definitively.
-
In that article Mav..
Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."
"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."
-
I guess we seek to understand Obama's distant past to devine where he would lead us in the future.
Seems like a wasted effort to me; if you want to see where he'd lead us, look at his recent political record.
Start with something like this:
On The Issues - Obama (http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm)
This will give you an idea of what he's said and/or how he voted.
I suggest you'll get a much better idea of what Obama intends to do about say...Education Issues... than where he went to school 35 years ago.
Flex those fingers... do a little research on your own from there.
Or, I guess you could let CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC or Fox tell you what they think you should do.
As an aside, that site reinforces my belief that if a candidate is wrong on gun control, he's wrong on most of the rest I value.
For example, Obama thinks we should ban semi-automatics. An ignorant position, IMO.
From the site:
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Does Obama even have a clue how many semi-automatic shotguns are used in upland and duck hunting every year? And how very, very few are ever used to harm people or are involved in a crime?
It's this sweeping "ban them all" stupidity that makes me firm in my resolve not to give a millimeter on the 2nd. The guy is a putz on this subject.
As I read on, I see that he
Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
and Isse his position on Immigration runs contrary to what I think should be done
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
So, really, once again I really didn't need to look further than his ideas on gun control to see if this guy might be of interest to me.
Clearly, he is not.
-
But it is more fun to use media speculation/opinion than facts Toad. Darn it all!
-
Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa. (Watch video of Obama's school )
Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.
He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html
All part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" no doubt. A Clinton wouldn't lie, right?
Unless under oath of course. ;)
-
I'd like an apology from everyone who dissed Hillary for no reason in this thread.
Go ahead... I'm waiting.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'd like an apology from everyone who dissed Hillary for no reason in this thread.
Go ahead... I'm waiting.
I for one would never diss Billary for no reason. There are just far too many.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'd like an apology from everyone who dissed Hillary for no reason in this thread.
Go ahead... I'm waiting.
:rofl there is an abundance sir, a bumper crop even.
-
I didn't diss her but if I wanted to I sure wouldn't have to look very hard for a good reason to do so.
-
Isn't that the truth.
-
That's 4 apologies... keep 'em coming.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
That's 4 apologies... keep 'em coming.
Eat my shorts MT.
-
seriously... is there anything anyone can say that is nice about hillary?
She can't even handle her husbands cheating... how can she handle the country?
Just an over all unlikeable person.
as for osama bamma? seriously... It will be easy to paint him with a nice fresh coat of commie liberal... hell you could just point to his voting record... enough of an excuse that anyone could say they were voting against him cause he was a flaming liberal and not cause he was black.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
That's 4 apologies... keep 'em coming.
ROFL! Stinky bait. Sort of like the Billiardly. Hehe.
Laz, MT is just yanking chains/fishing/trolling. I should slap a 'Rule #5' on him. LOL!
-
7
-
I'm still chewing on the "they got an F rating from the NRA." If it weren't for real, I'd think it were a joke.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'd like an apology from everyone who dissed Hillary for no reason in this thread.
Go ahead... I'm waiting.
Heard the editor-in-chief of Insight on an interview yesterday, he says the info came from Hillary operatives doing opposition research--REALLY, WHAT would be the point of Republicans doing a hit-job on Obama at this point? He and Hillary can kick each other around for the next 2 years. Anything that is said won't EVER be directly attributed to Hillary (to be fair, such things are NEVER directly attributed to ANY candidate...always to an 'over-zealous' staffer)
-
Sure it's for real. It's an evaluation of their performance with respect to a specific special interest, the 2nd Amendment.
Would you be suprised if I told you other special interest groups rate politicians? For instance, CNET News.com ranks every member of the U.S. Congress based on their technology-related votes.
If you have a special interest, you can probably easily find a group with the same interest that will "sort" politicians for you.
The NRA does a fine job of sorting out those who would diminish the 2nd. Obama is one of those, Hillary is another.
-
10
-
Originally posted by Toad
The NRA does a fine job of sorting out those who would diminish the 2nd. Obama is one of those, Hillary is another.
Well good then. I'm all for preserving our militias given America's recurring need for their services during the past 200 + years and rescue from marauding hoards of hottentots.
hap
-
click (http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/The_Dean_Scream-CNN_Edit.mp3)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
10
And then there is her probable involvement in the murder of Vince Foster when thier affair was about to be made public.
-
Evidence? When you say 'probable', that's a pretty big statement.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Well good then. I'm all for preserving our militias given America's recurring need for their services during the past 200 + years and rescue from marauding hoards of hottentots.
hap
True, there are a lot of those amendments we could just do without...starting with the first, right?
-
so hap.. you can't think of any reason that people would want to have firearms in order to defend themselves?
skuzzy.. I know what MT is doing and I know why.... he wants hillary to win for her politics but he realizes that she is an extremely unlikable and sleazy politician. It would be useless to try to sing her praises so he is stuck with...
See... she isn't that bad...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
True, there are a lot of those amendments we could just do without...starting with the first, right?
No I disagree.
All the best,
hap
p.s. I think the NRA was fine, up until Cincinatti in 1976.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
She can't even handle her husbands cheating... how can she handle the country?
lazs
But . . . maybe she could throw an ashtray at Kim Jon Il for cheating on the 1994 agreement with her husband.
Yeah, that would show him!
-
I find you typical of those that deride the 2nd and the NRA.
As long as it is not your ox.......
-
hap... the NRA had nothing to do with the Elvis Presley concert of 1976 in cincinatti.
lazs
-
Originally posted by E25280
But . . . maybe she could throw an ashtray at Kim Jon Il for cheating on the 1994 agreement with her husband.
Yeah, that would show him!
clintoon was cheating with kim il jong too?!?!?!?! How does billary put up with it.
Flinging an ashtray would be as effective as the UN has been in the last 20 years. Might as well try it.
:p
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so hap.. you can't think of any reason that people would want to have firearms in order to defend themselves?
skuzzy.. I know what MT is doing and I know why.... he wants hillary to win for her politics but he realizes that she is an extremely unlikable and sleazy politician. It would be useless to try to sing her praises so he is stuck with...
See... she isn't that bad...
lazs
You reall think MT is acutally for the Billiardly (tm)? Hmmm. I just though he was fishing for effect. How anyone could be for it, is beyond me. Nah, he is just trolling. He has to be.
Of course, I cannot figure out how it got elected to any office.
-
Doesn't say much for NY state does it Skuzzy. Same for massachussettes and kaliphornia.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Of course, I cannot figure out how it got elected to any office.
Two words . . . Ross Perot.
-
Or it could be the other two words: George Bush.
You remember, the guy wondering about the "vision thing" that ran a totally lackluster I-don't-really-want-to-win-this-one campaign?
That George Bush.
Blaming Perot is like Gore blaming the Supreme Court after he failed to win his home state.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Or it could be the other two words: George Bush.
You remember, the guy wondering about the "vision thing" that ran a totally lackluster I-don't-really-want-to-win-this-one campaign?
That George Bush.
Blaming Perot is like Gore blaming the Supreme Court after he failed to win his home state.
I'll grant you that. I will also grant that Dole ran a less than sellar campaign in 1996.
In the first campaign, Bush was Perot's target much moreso than Clinton, thus amplifying Bush's negatives. Bush's campaign had to respond to both opposing campaigns, dividing their attention and resources. This gave Clinton an advantage.
The 1996 campaign, he offerred an alternative to Dole that incumbant-protesters (a smaller lot in 1996 than 1992, but still there) could use without supporting another "establishment" candidate.
In each case, Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. I can't say for certain Perot siphoned off enough votes that would have otherwise gone to the (R) candidate to make a difference . . . but he didn't exactly sound like the big government type to me (my recollection), so I doubt they would have gone to Clinton. Those voters may have simply stayed home instead, I suppose, in which case it made no difference. My gut says it did. We'll never know.
-
I've volunteered to work for the Hillary in '08 committee.
-
well now with your brilliance and enthusiasm she's a shoo in for the presidency.
-
I'm sure that Hillary (can we talk) Clinton will be able to persuade radical Isalam (as practiced almost exclusively throughout the middle east) that we aren't trying to disuade them from their barbaric anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democracy ways.
-
I'll bite.
Why are WE trying to dissuade the middle east from their anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democratic ways?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I've volunteered to work for the Hillary in '08 committee.
Damn, yer a hoot! But I think that bait is gonna be a bit too strong. LOL!
-
Edwards is the Democratic nominee hands down. I wish the Republican nominee was as simple to predict.
-
Originally posted by BTW
Edwards is the Democratic nominee hands down. I wish the Republican nominee was as simple to predict.
I'll wager he isn't. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'll bite.
Why are WE trying to dissuade the middle east from their anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democratic ways?
Something to do with them trying to spread it throughout the world through violence. Need examples?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Something to do with them trying to spread it throughout the world through violence. Need examples?
Please.
-
sandie... are you suggesting that anyone who does not vote for hillary is anti woman? that not voting for osama bamma makes you a biggot?
interesting concept... did you come up with it on your own or was it a bumper sticker?
something you seen on the news?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... are you suggesting that anyone who does not vote for hillary is anti woman? that not voting for osama bamma makes you a biggot?
lazs
I guess that can be the "platform" they run on ...
"Vote for me or you're ...."
LOL
to think billary, obama & edwards are the dems top three! LOL LOL LOL
the republicans have a shot in 08 after all :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I guess that can be the "platform" they run on ...
"Vote for me or you're ...."
LOL
to think billary, obama & edwards are the dems top three! LOL LOL LOL
the republicans have a shot in 08 after all :)
I beg to differ sir. with the witty and charming personality from the this humble BBS assisting sen clinton she is all but guaranteed to be the next president.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Flinging an ashtray would be as effective as the UN has been in the last 20 years. Might as well try it.
I'm pretty sure ashtrays were banned at some point.
Something about causing cancer.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... are you suggesting...
I believe that was phrased as a question, not a suggestion.
-
hillary came out today with her solution for Iraq, she told bush to have the troops out of Iraq before she is elected president. She went on to say it was bush's war and not to leave it for the next president (her) to deal with.
-
Originally posted by john9001
hillary came out today with her solution for Iraq, she told bush to have the troops out of Iraq before she is elected president. She went on to say it was bush's war and not to leave it for the next president (her) to deal with.
Works for me. :aok
-
What she really said was....
"I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it."
Now how does leaving a problem to someone else jibe with the conservative bootstrap BS mantra?
Oh yea, it doesn't
(http://www.demstore.com/scstore/Clinton/images/button08.jpg)
-
her " How I deal with Evil Men?" was the quote of her campaign so far ...
HILL'S 'EVIL' JOKE ON HUBBY BUBBA (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01292007/news/nationalnews/hills_evil_joke_on_hubby_bubba_nationalnews_ian_bishop______post_correspondent.htm)
-
I think that button is an excellent representation of how she views things. :)
I find her response to be trite and without imagination. Rather superflous. But it was a safe way to dodge a bullet. Self-righteous indignation is always a good short-term cover.
-
I've heard that MT has two slogans that should do the trick...
"She's not nearly as vile as everyone thinks."
and..
"There's no real proof she had vince foster killed."
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I have my own reasons for not wanting the Billiardly (tm) or the OBomba (tm) in any office, much less the Presidency.
You're starting to sound like some of the all-stars (tm) here with the child-like name calling. I rather expect more from a moderator, but maybe I expect too much.
-
I expressed an opinion I feel very strongly about. I have no respect for either of them. Why should I?
Just because I am a moderator/admin on this board does not preclude me from having an opinion.
I challenge you to find where I have played favorites or shown bias as it pertains to my political stances in maintaining this board. But first, you might want to get a handle on what my political stances are.
My guess is it is easier to attack me, than to actually present the reasons why either of these people should be the leader of our country, or a leader of anything actually. Neither of them have leadership skills. Just wanting to be a power monger does not qualify one to be a leader.
EDIT: I actually have more respect for those who are willing to put themselves out there and support people they believe in than the people they are actually supporting. I have done it and it takes quite a committment to be willing to do that.
So MT, if you are indeed working in the trenches, . While I do not care for her, I applaud you for getting in there and trying to make a difference.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
her " How I deal with Evil Men?" was the quote of her campaign so far ...
HILL'S 'EVIL' JOKE ON HUBBY BUBBA (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01292007/news/nationalnews/hills_evil_joke_on_hubby_bubba_nationalnews_ian_bishop______post_correspondent.htm)
link doesn't work so:
January 29, 2007 -- DAVENPORT, Iowa - Hillary Rodham Clinton left caucus-goers here yesterday believing that Bubba had given her a baptism by fire in how to deal with "evil and bad men."
Clinton's quip, made during a morning rally with about 500 Iowans, drew 31 seconds of straight laughter and applause that left little doubt among attendees that she'd made a joke at hubby Bill Clinton's expense.
The one-liner came in response to a question shouted at the former first lady from the audience asking whether she had the mettle and experience to deal with evil and rotten men - like terrorist Osama bin Laden and the tyrants of North Korea and Iran.
Clinton grabbed the mike and told the audience that the questioner wanted to know "what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men." She then smiled, raised her eyebrows and nodded knowingly at the questioner.
Her nod and the ensuing eruption of laughter had rally-goers convinced she was talking about her husband, whose Oval Office affair with intern Monica Lewinsky exploded into the Sexgate scandal and led to impeachment proceedings.
=================
great to see she can joke about it ... like it really bothered her in the first place .. it all got her exactly where/what she is wanted
-
Originally posted by Eagler
great to see she can joke about it ... like it really bothered her in the first place .. it all got her exactly where/what she is wanted
Eagler, I think your wrong on all three points. Unless, you've spoken to her and she told you so.
But for this moment, do you fault anyone else besides Hillary Clinton (just for the moment let's assume you're correct about your 3rd statement) for attempting to or realizing ambition?
Do you hold your children to that? Youself? Your friends?
If you're answer is "yes," then your response is still pretty wierd from where I sit, but it is "principled" rather than "personal."
Also, I don't think for a moment that Hillary Clinton will be elected President now or ever. And were she nominiated, I'd not vote for her because of what I'm guessing will be her stand on abortion and marriage.
Fortunately, for any nominee, we won't have to guess.
Regards,
hap
-
no I do not except my children to sleeze their way into anything ..
see Matthew 16:26
-
I've heard that MT has two slogans that should do the trick...
"She's not nearly as vile as everyone thinks."
and..
"There's no real proof she had vince foster killed."
lazs
No, no. There is MT's most used: "You don't like Hillary's record so "You have a problem with women in power."
BTW Eagler, I really like and respect Glenn Beck. He is so passionate and real. I agree with your assesment of him. He seems unconcerned with the pc political crap, and he speaks the truth as he sees it. Good guy.
-
Well she got pretty snotty when pressed on an answer if it was a reference to her husband. She does better with easy questions.
Hillary/Obama 08 - every Republican's dream.
-
sandie... to even ask the question would imply that there was any answer other than no, people won't shun hillary because she is a woman (debateable) or osama bama because he is black (also debateable).
The question was an implication of possibility. The U.S. would elect a thatcher or a powell.. at least some studies have shown it to be.
even mt feels guilty about suggesting that people won't vote for hillary based on her being a "woman".
lazs
-
Maybe when Clinton wins the party nomination Obama will run independent. Yeah, that's the ticket. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... to even ask the question would imply that there was any answer other than no, people won't shun hillary because she is a woman (debateable) or osama bama because he is black (also debateable).
The question was an implication of possibility. The U.S. would elect a thatcher or a powell.. at least some studies have shown it to be.
even mt feels guilty about suggesting that people won't vote for hillary based on her being a "woman".
lazs
I'm not sure how, "NO" can be an answer to this question:
Why are WE trying to dissuade the middle east from their anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democratic ways?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Please.
Busy lately. Won't forget though and will give you several examples of Muslims spreading sharia thoughout the world. I give you Somalia for now.
-
i'll back somalia up with sudan
-
Okay... now that you have the acts of violence covered, can you please demonstrate that this violence was motivated by the desire to spread sharia, their anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democratic ways?
-
I gotta tell ya... I'm sick to death of this Republican administration. Desperately sick.
Bush is a failure. Sadly, the only reason he won the second term is because of the ineptness of the Democratic party. Total lack of a viable option left people to choose the known evil over the unknown.
Now we face a double unknown. McCain? Clinton? Rudy? Obama? Man, I don't really think I like any of them. I'm hoping some dark horse with a clear voice and message emerges, but recent history doesn't favor us.
Though I am primarily a conservative, I would happily vote for any candidate that had a clear idea of what they wanted to accomplish to better this country, even if I don't agree with all the points. I want someone to tell me what they are for, and how they'll do it. Make me believe.
-
Well look who crawled outta the woodwork!
How you doing Kieran?
-
My thoughts exactly...
Welcome back, Kieran.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... to even ask the question would imply that there was any answer other than no, people won't shun hillary because she is a woman (debateable) or osama bama because he is black (also debateable).
The question was an implication of possibility. The U.S. would elect a thatcher or a powell.. at least some studies have shown it to be.
even mt feels guilty about suggesting that people won't vote for hillary based on her being a "woman".
lazs
What's funny is the near rock-star popularity Obama has with guilt-ridden white Hollywood liberals, versus Black Amuurica's collective yawn regarding his candidacy---he's NOT one of them. (Which probably makes him more receptive to said limousine liberals)
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16256067.htm
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Though I am primarily a conservative, I would happily vote for any candidate that had a clear idea of what they wanted to accomplish to better this country, even if I don't agree with all the points. I want someone to tell me what they are for, and how they'll do it. Make me believe.
Newt (http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=15) in '08 !!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Okay... now that you have the acts of violence covered, can you please demonstrate that this violence was motivated by the desire to spread sharia, their anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democratic ways?
:huh
I think you may be spliting hairs a little too finely.
They are committing acts of violence.
The reason for the violence is to force people to live by their rules (or die if they don't).
Their rules are based entirely on their religion.
Their version of that religion includes "anti-woman" aspects.
Their version of that religion excludes tolerance for anyone who disagrees with their view of that religion.
Their version of that religion by definition excludes any hope of "democratic institutions" as that would imply acceptance of a view other than their own.
So, do they say, "Hey, we are fighting here so we can oppress women, be intolerant and be anti-democratic"? Of course not. But the effect is the same.
What did I miss?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Okay... now that you have the acts of violence covered, can you please demonstrate that this violence was motivated by the desire to spread sharia, their anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democratic ways?
Please name one middle eastern country that practices sharia (most of them) that allows even a semblance of equality for women (where they don't execute a woman for being raped), allow people to choose their own religion (part of the tolerance aspect), and is a democracy?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Newt (http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=15) in '08 !!
:aok
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What's funny is the near rock-star popularity Obama has with guilt-ridden white Hollywood liberals, versus Black Amuurica's collective yawn regarding his candidacy---he's NOT one of them. (Which probably makes him more receptive to said limousine liberals)
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16256067.htm
Obama's getting a strong following on Facebook, a college networking web page. 53,300 people are in a group supporting Obama, and we are a year and 3/4 out from the election.
Another group supporting obama has 178,400 people in.
As well as http://www.studentsforbarackobama.com/index2.php .
Support for Hillary on Facebook isn't large at all, but even can be considered small. As well as a couple ABH groups.
Me? I'm almost willing to vote for Obama if it pushes up the revolution date a year or two.
-
"Why are WE trying to dissuade the middle east from their anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democratic ways?"
sandie... by even asking the question you are implying that we are no different than the worst of the intolerant muslims.
So the real answer to the question is.... Because it is against any morality based on basic human rights.
This of course is a lot different than not voting for a radical liberal who happens to be black or a woman.
It is like saying that any liberal who is against condie rice is a closet KKK member.
hillary and osama bama are just evil people... by any standards. they are a threat to anyone who likes freedom from big government.
lazs
-
Europe, UK, Canada, Africa, Indonesia, the list is too long Sandman. Where is Islam not attempting to gain dominance and ultimately enforce sharia?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Please name one middle eastern country that practices sharia (most of them) that allows even a semblance of equality for women (where they don't execute a woman for being raped), allow people to choose their own religion (part of the tolerance aspect), and is a democracy?
Why do I care?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"Why are WE trying to dissuade the middle east from their anti-women, anti-tolerance, and anti-democratic ways?"
sandie... by even asking the question you are implying that we are no different than the worst of the intolerant muslims.
So the real answer to the question is.... Because it is against any morality based on basic human rights.
This of course is a lot different than not voting for a radical liberal who happens to be black or a woman.
It is like saying that any liberal who is against condie rice is a closet KKK member.
hillary and osama bama are just evil people... by any standards. they are a threat to anyone who likes freedom from big government.
lazs
You sure do read a lot into a simple question.
-
An odd comfort I take from time to time is that my opinions and notions of right and wrong probably do have merit using some in here as a barometer.
It's sort of like, "well that guy IS barking mad. Glad I don't agree with him.
Regards,
hap
-
We aren't going to be successful ramming our idea of right or wrong down the throats of any people that don't share our view (of right or wrong). All that happens is we open a power vacuum the next group is all too eager to fill.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
We aren't going to be successful ramming our idea of right or wrong down the throats of any people that don't share our view (of right or wrong). All that happens is we open a power vacuum the next group is all too eager to fill.
Yeah! What he said!
btw yer Gay!
-
well sandie.. perhaps I have read too much into it. Perhaps you can explain what you meant or... are you into mt soundbites now?
lazs
-
MT, Sandman,
Doing fine. Very busy in the real life. Girls are in their activities, I do triathlons pretty much full time, so life after work is an endless stream of kids' activities and training.
How 'bout you guys?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Why do I care?
Obviously you don't. You may change your mind someday when you're forced to bow to Mecca 5 times a day or lose your head.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'll wager he isn't. :)
I'm sure you would wager, but the question is would you pay up after you lose?
Hillary and Obama are unelectable (as US President). Its just a fact.
-
Originally posted by BTW
I'm sure you would wager, but the question is would you pay up after you lose?
Hillary and Obama are unelectable (as US President). Its just a fact.
I've made election wagers on this board before. Do a search.
"It's just a fact."
Okay... here are some dictionary references (http://www.onelook.com/?w=fact&ls=a) for ya. :aok
-
Originally posted by lukster
Obviously you don't. You may change your mind someday when you're forced to bow to Mecca 5 times a day or lose your head.
I doubt that very much. You can hand-wring without me.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I doubt that very much. You can hand-wring without me.
I have no doubt you believe it will never happen. Why else would you be so careless about the violent spread of Islam throughout the world.
-
Boo!
-
Originally posted by BTW
Hillary and Obama are unelectable (as US President). Its just a fact.
'Tis so!
Also, political acumen lacks in here -- sometimes.
Regards,
hap
-
at least hap is honest to himself... he likes socialist democrat ideas and isn't afraid to defend em.. he is one of the new socialist "liberals" who feel that individual rights are passe.. He is honest enough to say that he does not believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is important enough to stand against "democracy" or.... socialism.
most of the other democrats here aren't that honest.. they pretend that the democrats are the old version of "liberal" the one that was for the rights of the individual over the rights of the masses or that of government.
In their dishonesty they try to ignore nanny laws and outright unconstitutional ones like gun control... or private property rights.
they don't realize that by voting for democrats they are making for less choice... they are forcing the republicans to become more like democrats... more like socialists.
and for what? some just because the democrats told em they may get to smoke pot some day or... the fear that there might be less abortions
If pot and the day after pill were legal... there probly wouldn't be but about 10% of the citizens who voted democrat and they would probly all be teachers or aflcio workers (those that haven't been laid off) or really emotional girls and girly men.
At least hap is honest about it.
lazs
-
Hillary wants to take a company's profits against their will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hillary wants to take a company's profits against their will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
ALL HAIL SOCIALISM.
Hehe,
She never did say what her plan was or how she was going to accomplish that. Just said she had a "plan" and was going to "move forward on it"
Mark
-
Don't forget, she'll do it better........ Yeah there she's got the entire platform outlined. :huh