Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Regulator on February 29, 2008, 11:17:14 AM
-
I am not surprised by anything Hillary does to try and win, she is known for her nasty underhanded way of trying to get what she wants. Isn't she the one that wanted felons to have the right to vote, and illegals?
LAREDO, Texas - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has raised the possibility of a challenge to Texas' primary and caucus rules just days before the contest, drawing a warning against legal action from the state's Democratic Party.
Top strategists for Democratic rival Barack Obama said Friday they supported the party's action, suggesting the Clinton campaign was trying to block the reporting of caucus results.
Aides to Clinton said earlier this week they were alarmed at the lack of clarity about many of the caucus rules and expressed their concerns on a conference call with Obama's staff and state party officials. Texas has a two-step voting process, with a primary and then caucuses shortly after the polls close.
Specifically, Clinton aides questioned a provision allowing caucus attendees to vote to move the location if they choose to do so, and whether people who had cast so-called "provisional ballots" in the primary would have their votes counted in the caucus.
They also expressed concern about the automated phone system precinct chairs would use to call in the results of each caucus, saying the party hadn't yet trained anyone to use the system properly.
Clinton political director Guy Cecil said he asked party officials to spell out the rules in memo form and to send them to both campaigns.
"We want to see the results in writing, and we reserve the right to challenge something if we don't believe it reflects something that was discussed on the call," he said, insisting that if there were clear problems with how the caucuses were being run, "you are allowed to say something about it."
Cecil on Friday denied that the campaign planned to sue the party, which will manage roughly 8,700 caucuses Tuesday evening.
"There were no veiled threats of lawsuits of any kind," Cecil said of the conference call.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the Clinton campaign was trying to minimize the results of the caucuses. The former first lady and her team have made clear their unhappiness with caucuses, believing that they cater to the hard-core party activists who tend to support Obama. The Illinois senator has won 13 caucuses so far, while Clinton has won just two.
"This takes it to a new level, which is they don't want the people who are participating in those caucuses to have their results reported in a timely fashion. And I assume that's a very self-serving decision," Plouffe said.
Texas party officials said they believed Cecil was threatening legal action and wrote a letter to him and to Obama senior strategist Steve Hildebrand reflecting that concern.
"If it is true that litigation is imminent between one or both of your campaigns and the Texas Democratic Party, such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated democratic process that is involving a record number of participants here in Texas and across the nation," party attorney Chad Dunn wrote. "Litigation regarding the TDP could cripple the momentum of a resurging Texas Democratic Party and ultimately the November 2008 election."
The letter also noted that many of Clinton's senior campaign advisers in Texas had helped to develop the rules governing the state's caucus system. A Texas party official also noted that former President Clinton won the state's caucuses in 1992 and 1996 following the same rules.
Texas has 193 delegates up for grabs Tuesday. Of those delegates, 126 will come from the primary, and 67 from the caucus.
Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080229/ap_on_el_pr/texas_caucus_challenge)
-
She's been desperate... this is just the latest incarnation. It's almost impossible for her to win this race.. I, for one, couldn't be happier.
-
She was a real b**** long before she was desperate.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
She was a real b**** long before she was desperate.
:aok Couldn't agree more.
-
I am of the opinion that she would be willing to sacrifice the lives of 10 million of us to get elected.
shamus
ps: I don't trust her:)
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I am of the opinion that she would be willing to sacrifice the lives of 10 million of us to get elected.
shamus
ps: I don't trust her:)
I agree with you. She would do or kill anyone to get the job.
She is weak in the knees for the power.... either that, or she really wants to get in the oval office and "smoke" a cigar...hint hint nudge nudge.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I agree with you. She would do or kill anyone to get the job.
She is weak in the knees for the power.... either that, or she really wants to get in the oval office and "smoke" a cigar...hint hint nudge nudge.
What goes around....comes back around. Pay back time for Billy Bob Boy................."Billy meet BUBA, my new 'Bodyguard' ". :t
-
She has a point though. First we go to the polls and vote either early voting or March 4. Basically you ballot vote, and then come back at 7:15 pm March 4, and then you "vote" again. Alot of people dont know this. In 30 years I've never had to do this... of course normally I vote Republican so its a non-issue for me...
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/issue/story?oid=oid%3A597229
Make Your Vote Count – Twice! A primer on Democratic precinct conventions
BY LEE NICHOLS
We've all heard the ballot-stuffing joke: "Vote early; vote often." Well, in this election, it's no joke: You should vote twice. In fact, it's legal, and it's encouraged – at least if you're a Democrat.
The process will require some explanation.
No, don't cast a ballot twice. What election officials and candidates want you to do – in fact, they're pleading for it – is to show up at your precinct convention at 7:15pm on March 4, after the polls close (but in this high-turnout election, the convention can't begin until the last voter in line has voted). That is where you will cast your "second vote." If you don't, you're giving up part of your influence on the Democratic presidential nomination. And yes, you should report to your precinct that night, whether you voted early or on election day.
-
You might be vaguely aware of these precinct meetings but never actually participated in one. In recent elections, they haven't been very important, as the presidential nominations have been wrapped up by the time the primaries come to Texas. But this year, Texas is at the epicenter of the fight for delegates between Democratic candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
Securing either major party's nomination comes down to which candidate gets the most delegates at the national conventions. For Democrats, that delegate struggle has many parts. There are the "superdelegates" – important party figures, such as elected officials and party officers, who can pledge for whichever candidate they choose. Then there are regular, or "pledged," delegates, who are essentially divided among the candidates according to the results of the state primary elections and caucuses. Texas will send 228 delegates to the national convention – 193 pledged and 35 superdelegates.
What It Means
Now, if you aren't picky about whether the candidate is Obama or Clinton, there isn't much need for you to attend your precinct convention. But if you're fiercely committed to Barack or Hillary, then you need to represent – otherwise, the other candidate's supporters might fill your precinct meeting and swing convention-selected delegates the other way. For example, let's say you live in a heavily pro-Obama neighborhood. You'd want the delegates sent to the county convention from your precinct to reflect that, right? But if Clinton supporters mobilize and get to that caucus, and Obama supporters don't, then Obama won't come away with any representation from your precinct at the conventions that decide those 67 delegates.
-
this whole Obama vs Hillary thing has me wanting to go and do something evil...:t McCain has pretty much got his.. so I should go vote for Hillary just to try and screwup the whole Obama cult... and watch them fight at the national convention...
-
Hillary Rondalm Clinton = psychopath!!!!:mad: WOULD BE TERRIBLE FOR COUNTRY!!! AND THE WORLD!!!:mad: :furious
-
Do you really think obama is any better than hillary? He's just a lot more subtle about his agenda. At least hillary is upfront, you know where she is coming from. IMO obama is possibly a bit more dangerous due to his low key presentation. With him you really don't know what you are getting until the deal is closed.
-
I dont agree, "I am taking your right away for your own good"- Hillary, isnt that just crazy!!? and she wants to bannd guns how will that make us anysafer? crooks will still get guns from Canada and such and when there's more home invasions how will ppl defend them selfs?? also i have hear a rumor that she wants to bannd video games "becuase there to influcencal" but i dont no if that is true. still she would hurt the USA bad...
Now Barack Obama, i don't really agree with everythign he wants, with the war and all, and he is inexperinced but he is sure better then hillary!!!!:furious
-
The letter also noted that many of Clinton's senior campaign advisers in Texas had helped to develop the rules governing the state's caucus system. A Texas party official also noted that former President Clinton won the state's caucuses in 1992 and 1996 following the same rules.
C'mon.
they helped develop the rules and now they are claiming they dont understand them??
Not to mention
Somehow I think in a state as important as Texas Hillary and co already have people who are experts in the Texas system.
Gimme a freaking break!
-
Watched a few mins of an interview she did couple days ago and she claimed as just one of her many accomplishments, Peace in Northern Island... Now that's a new one to me. :rolleyes:
...-Gixer
-
for once moray and I are in complete agreement. mark it down.
billary would kill and eat her own child to be pres.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
billary would kill and eat her own child to be pres.
lazs
I gotta agree, I think her insatiable greed for power and money know no bounds, and she would destroy whoever she needs to to get what she wants.
I do not believe for a second she cares at all about or for the average American, it is lip service, saying what she thinks people want to hear to get their vote, then she can ignore "the little people".
I am also convinced she is of the same mindset as John Kerry, believing herself to be among the intellectual elite, among those who know better what is best for us, and would not ever be bothered to lower herself enough to actually listen to someone "below her".
-
yep.. she, like kerrie and so many other liberals realize the fact that....
in a utopia.. there is no room for individuals or freedom.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
for once moray and I are in complete agreement. mark it down.
billary would kill and eat her own child to be pres.
lazs
And imagine the tantrum and tears when realised it's finally all over.
:furious :cry
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by lazs2
billary would kill and eat her own child to be pres.
I'd vote for her if she'd do that. I mean, what other candidate would do that? That would be awesome.
-
Oh heavens no! We just can't have an educated white woman with an experienced husband as President. Our country would go to shambles!
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Oh heavens no! We just can't have an educated white woman with an experienced husband as President. Our country would go to shambles!
The woman is a wretch. An educated wretch but a wretch nonetheless.
Actually the only way to best and most accurately discribe her would not only be not allowed here but would probably get somone banned for saying it.
(Think of the word women hate seeing used the most)
I personally would sooner see Saddam Hussain in the White house then Hillary
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Oh heavens no! We just can't have an educated white woman with an experienced husband as President. Our country would go to shambles!
Yeah, I can think of a million women who are educate that shouldn't be president, and the same for men. Education is just a small part of what should be considered a prerequisite to holding the most powerful office in the world. Jimmy Carter was educated, and he was a freaking disaster as a president. GWB has a top education, I guess you are happy with him as president because he has a sheepskin?
There are other things that might come into play, and at least a small modicum of integrity should be required, something both Clintons are absolutely devoid of.
How about actually having the guts to maintain an adequate level of national security? Don't want that in a president? Bill Clintons idea of national security was doing things like giving in to N. Koreas extortion by giving good old Kim billions of dollars to behave. And lets not forget Bills appalling failure to provide troops in Somalia with even a small amount of the armor needed for protection, a mistake made for "appearances" that cost 18 Rangers and Delta troops their lives.
Do we really want Bill running around the White House again trying to put his unit in anything that moves? Yeah, that was a sad time in our history, a president impeached for lieing to a grand jury. A man who has been accused of rape and molestation many times put back in the White House.
I don't think so about either one of them.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I personally would sooner see Saddam Hussain in the White house then Hillary
well, "personally" i think that is one of the most stupid statements i have ever seen on here.
i do not and never have endorsed hillary or obamarama.
-
These are the antics of a loser, or someone smelling incipient defeat.
She would be the worst thing that ever happened to the US, unless you enjoy socialism.
-
Being white, educated, and female has nothing to do with the reason she sets people's hairs on end..
-
Originally posted by john9001
well, "personally" i think that is one of the most stupid statements i have ever seen on here.
i do not and never have endorsed hillary or obamarama.
I was being facetious
Considering the man is dead I would have thought that obvious.
-
Originally posted by SWrokit
"Billy meet BUBA, my new 'Bodyguard' ". :t
Seriously you could pay someone enough to hit that?:O
-
Originally posted by TalonX
She would be the worst thing that ever happened to the US, unless you enjoy socialism.
hillarygrad ?
hillgrad ?
hilldograd ?
billorygrad ?
nope, just doesn't work
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
She's been desperate... this is just the latest incarnation. It's almost impossible for her to win this race.. I, for one, couldn't be happier.
Well, I will tell you this much. If Obama kicks hillarys fat thighs and fat butt out of the race, i will get a beer out of my dads fridge and drink it in front of him. :D Of course, its the consequences that will be bad.
-
As long as you video it and post it here you're on! :lol
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Do you really think obama is any better than hillary? He's just a lot more subtle about his agenda. At least hillary is upfront, you know where she is coming from. IMO obama is possibly a bit more dangerous due to his low key presentation. With him you really don't know what you are getting until the deal is closed.
Yea but obama will screw it up if he is elected and catch himself and then he will fix it. If things go down the drain by acident, it will correct itself. Hillary would do things much worse on purpose.
-
osamabama is worse so far as politics.. he is a commie through and through with the half negro half a chip on his shoulder.. but..
He is not as experianced and ruthless and politically savvy as the billary machine..
billary was right when she said that he would have a hard time with mc cain.. once the women stop and listen to osama (between fainting spells) and realize how much he is gonna rob em.. how much more it is gonna cost to drive to the hairdresser... once people learn what he is really about.. rampant socialism..
Being painted a left wing liberal tax and spender is not the way to win in the US just yet and the half negro guy won't be able to shake the taint. It is more than a taint.. it is real.. he is a socialist of the worst stripe.
Unless this country is farther gone than I suspected.. he will get outed and lose.. billary would be much better at hiding it..
"changing the hope" won't cut it for much longer.
lazs
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
Yea but obama will screw it up if he is elected and catch himself and then he will fix it. If things go down the drain by acident, it will correct itself. Hillary would do things much worse on purpose.
Really, and you base this on what? His voting as "present" instead of taking a stand, including one of his own bills.
Frankly I see him as bad, if not worse than hillary. That's not because of his skin color in the least but because he says different things in different places on the same items. This tells me he is just as bad as hillary in pursuit of power. The fact that he does not list specifics in his plan for "change" or really say what he intends to do leaves the door wide open for whatever he may want to do. He is very successful in talking vague generalities and not being as strident as hillary. That tells me he is far more subtle and able to slide things past out of public view. No one is calling him out on his "change" and that is more than a bit scary.
-
Hillary is a known mean and nasty person with a disdain for those around her she considers beneath her. That is not what I want for president.
Obama may be inexperienced, but I have never heard anyone say anything negative about him as a person. There is much to learn about him to be sure, and while I prefer McCain, if it were a choice between Hillary and Obama, I would rather take a chance on a possibly good person versus one I know is nasty who will try to disarm the people in violation of the constitution.
-
I think based on obama's statements, where he contradicted himself BTW, that he will be just as inclined to disarm the country for "change" as hillary is.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I think based on obama's statements, where he contradicted himself BTW, that he will be just as inclined to disarm the country for "change" as hillary is.
Sadly you are right, both will try to ignore the constitution and turn us into a nation of victims in waiting.
That should be reason enough for all sane people to not vote democrat.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Do you really think obama is any better than hillary? He's just a lot more subtle about his agenda. At least hillary is upfront, you know where she is coming from. IMO obama is possibly a bit more dangerous due to his low key presentation. With him you really don't know what you are getting until the deal is closed.
Exactly.... The Devil you know is better than the one you don't.
-
Originally posted by Selino631
I dont agree, "I am taking your right away for your own good"- Hillary, isnt that just crazy!!? and she wants to bannd guns how will that make us anysafer? crooks will still get guns from Canada and such and when there's more home invasions how will ppl defend them selfs?? also i have hear a rumor that she wants to bannd video games "becuase there to influcencal" but i dont no if that is true. still she would hurt the USA bad...
Now Barack Obama, i don't really agree with everythign he wants, with the war and all, and he is inexperinced but he is sure better then hillary!!!!:furious
Barrack wants to ban guns just as much as Hillary.... On his web page, he basically redefines the 2nd Amendment as the "Right to hunt and target shoot".
BTW he has also stated numerous times that The Constitution should be
a "living changing document". Why that does not SCARE THE CRAP out of people, I'll never know.
Like "Let's just make some changes here... here... and here...."
His stance on gun control is to ban all handguns, all firearms in "Urban Areas" (ie: city limits), and make it illegal in any way, shape or form to use a firearm for self defense.
Also, all firearms but the crudest single shot hunting rifles will be banned - probably break-barrel single shot or bolt action types. Maybe just pellet guns. Possibly just slingshots if he gets his way.
People like him and Hillary are terrified of guns in "commoner" hands - because it makes them accountable.
BTW, I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that he wants to ban all guns for self defense, considering he insists on having an armed platoon of secret service with him everywhere he goes. How elitist is that ???????
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Excel1
hillarygrad ?
hillgrad ?
hilldograd ?
billorygrad ?
nope, just doesn't work
Hitllery ?
-
Originally posted by Slamfire
Barrack wants to ban guns just as much as Hillary.... On his web page, he basically redefines the 2nd Amendment as the "Right to hunt and target shoot".
BTW he has also stated numerous times that The Constitution should be
a "living changing document". Why that does not SCARE THE CRAP out of people, I'll never know.
Like "Let's just make some changes here... here... and here...."
His stance on gun control is to ban all handguns, all firearms in "Urban Areas" (ie: city limits), and make it illegal in any way, shape or form to use a firearm for self defense.
Also, all firearms but the crudest single shot hunting rifles will be banned - probably break-barrel single shot or bolt action types. Maybe just pellet guns. Possibly just slingshots if he gets his way.
People like him and Hillary are terrified of guns in "commoner" hands - because it makes them accountable.
BTW, I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that he wants to ban all guns for self defense, considering he insists on having an armed platoon of secret service with him everywhere he goes. How elitist is that ???????
:mad:
How fortunate are we then that the President can't change the constitution.
-
Originally posted by Slamfire
Hitllery ?
No, Bush is Hitler.:rolleyes:
Hitler was not only an abomination to Europe and the world at large, he sure did screw up political discourse.
-
Originally posted by Regulator
How fortunate are we then that the President can't change the constitution.
You really want to put money on that?
I'm pretty sure that there is a clause somewhere that says they can throw the whole constitution out as so much toilet paper....
What is stopping them from putting a new one back in it's place huh?
-
I just like the fact Hillary and Oboma are still running against each other. Keep the party split and Im happy.
-
Originally posted by SD67
I'm pretty sure that there is a clause somewhere that says they can throw the whole constitution out as so much toilet paper....
Heh . Ah heh. Ah heh heh heh. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Good one! :D
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
;)
-
*cough*Patriot Act*cough*
-
Originally posted by SD67
*cough*Patriot Act*cough*
*cough* Congress *cough*
When you find the "dictator clause" ... share. :D
-
I used to think it would be amusing to watch 4 years of President Obama, but he is so far left he makes nurse Ratchet look moderate
-
Originally posted by SD67
*cough*Patriot Act*cough*
cough *Congressional vote* cough :D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Really, and you base this on what? His voting as "present" instead of taking a stand, including one of his own bills.
Frankly I see him as bad, if not worse than hillary. That's not because of his skin color in the least but because he says different things in different places on the same items. This tells me he is just as bad as hillary in pursuit of power. The fact that he does not list specifics in his plan for "change" or really say what he intends to do leaves the door wide open for whatever he may want to do. He is very successful in talking vague generalities and not being as strident as hillary. That tells me he is far more subtle and able to slide things past out of public view. No one is calling him out on his "change" and that is more than a bit scary.
Yea but during the clinton years form 92-00, the Chinese got all of this nuclear technology that they couldnt get even near enough information before the clinton reign of 92-00. I'm not pointing fingers but I'm piecing 2 and 2 together. But hey lets have the Chinese get their way. Plus the media will rip on John McCain so bad, he will have a heart attack (I like John McCain, just feel sorry for what the media will make up about him.)
Plus there is also CNN and NBC clinton controls (CNN=Clinton News Network, NBC= News to Benefit Clinton). Ya know what NBC said to make bush look bad and congress look good? Listen to the quote. "President George Bush's disapproval rating is 65 percent while Congress's approval rating is 30 percent." Who looks better? Bush or Congress at first glance?
-
Originally posted by Slamfire
Barrack wants to ban guns just as much as Hillary.... On his web page, he basically redefines the 2nd Amendment as the "Right to hunt and target shoot".
BTW he has also stated numerous times that The Constitution should be
a "living changing document". Why that does not SCARE THE CRAP out of people, I'll never know.
Like "Let's just make some changes here... here... and here...."
His stance on gun control is to ban all handguns, all firearms in "Urban Areas" (ie: city limits), and make it illegal in any way, shape or form to use a firearm for self defense.
Also, all firearms but the crudest single shot hunting rifles will be banned - probably break-barrel single shot or bolt action types. Maybe just pellet guns. Possibly just slingshots if he gets his way.
People like him and Hillary are terrified of guns in "commoner" hands - because it makes them accountable.
BTW, I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that he wants to ban all guns for self defense, considering he insists on having an armed platoon of secret service with him everywhere he goes. How elitist is that ???????
:mad:
If they pass that law making you a criminal if ya have guns, only criminals will have guns. No protection at all.