DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on February 29, 2008, 10:52:24 AM
-
poor hillary
she gets the first debate questions as the media fawns over Barack Hussein Obama
during a campaign rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio REUTERS runs a headline picture
of Hillary with a devil in the background yeah sure, it's just a complete accident ::)
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080228/i/r315812455.jpg?)
-
That's a pretty powerful photo, or a very funny one, depending on one's POV. I think candidates ought to have a visual graphics advisor, whose duties would include advance checks of the visuals of any venue where the candidate can be photographed, videotaped or filmed and veto power over decorations like that. I blame her campaign advisors for that one.
-
"I think candidates ought to have a visual graphics advisor, whose duties
would include advance checks of the visuals of any venue"
Michael that is an excellent idea in the current day and age we live in of 24 hour micro coverage
Even though I greatly dislike Hillary I really think that kind of media bias is just plain wrong.
Like I said, Yeah sure it's an accident.
I bet "the fly on the wall" at Reuters heard
"wow you think we can get away with this?"
"Yeah...lets do it, it'll help Barack"
And even though it's aimed at Hillary I'd still like to punch the
asshole in the nose that does this kind of crap
-
I really have mixed feelings about Hillary versus Obama. Hillary is more moderate, politically, than Obama.
But, I simply do not trust her. What in her background would make me think this?
-
What in her background would make me think this?
=======================================
Perhaps you would be able to answer this one on your own.
I imagine that the fact that the media (Rush and other rightwing radio entertainers in particular) have been dumping on her on a daily basis might have an effect on your opinions as well.
But that is speculation on my part. I shall wait with anticipation your explanation.
-
Xo, word of advice. Not every conservative gets their marching orders from Rush. Despite your constant harping of the RW being some mass Rush groupie, if you were to take a poll of all the conservatives and right leaning moderates here in the saloon, I doubt you'd get more than 1 person perhaps who listens to Rush at all, much less on some consistent basis.
For instance, I (sirs) have probably heard Rush a grand total of 10minutes since 2008 began. Hardly some Rush groupie, who forms his opinions from him. and I wouldn't be surprised if not more liberals in here listen to him, since they seem to come up with his talking points far more than any of the conservatives
Just because a person doesn't agree with your political persuasion doesn't equate to them either being a dittohead or a fascist nazi. so for you and Tee to perpetuate that nonsense speaks much more for the lack of substance to your side of the argueement
-
Not everyone drinks Budweiser, either, but everyone is aware that it is sold and it is beer that at least Anhaeuser-Busch thinks you should drink. Without the ads, it's Blatz.
Without anti-Hillary tireades since before 1992, we would hear less of them now.
Constant harping on a theme is like water dripping on a rock for decades.
Perhaps you would like to share what makes you mistrust Hillary, since Rush did not cause you to be anti-Hillary.
-
Not everyone drinks Budweiser, either, but everyone is aware that it is sold and it is beer that at least Anhaeuser-Busch thinks you should drink. Without the ads, it's Blatz.
Thinks you should drink, yea. MAKES you drink, or causes you to drink, NO. And there in lies the difference. So as I suggested, take a poll of who supposedly actually listens to Rush, since nearly everyone has heard of him. That way, you might pause to think for a moment before responding in some non-substantive "oh you're just following your dittohead's orders for the day" nonsense
-
Xo, word of advice. Not every conservative gets their marching orders from Rush. Despite your constant harping of the RW being some mass Rush groupie, if you were to take a poll of all the conservatives and right leaning moderates here in the saloon, I doubt you'd get more than 1 person perhaps who listens to Rush at all, much less on some consistent basis.
For instance, I (sirs) have probably heard Rush a grand total of 10minutes since 2008 began. Hardly some Rush groupie, who forms his opinions from him. and I wouldn't be surprised if not more liberals in here listen to him, since they seem to come up with his talking points far more than any of the conservatives
Just because a person doesn't agree with your political persuasion doesn't equate to them either being a dittohead or a fascist nazi. so for you and Tee to perpetuate that nonsense speaks much more for the lack of substance to your side of the argueement
Actuslly, I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in over five years. Will Ollie North do? I listened to him a year or two ago? I do frequently listen to Jerry Doyle at www.jerrydoyle.com.
-
So, that makes 2 conservative minded blokes, who pay little to no attention to Rush
-
I listen to Rush whenever I can, which usually three or four hours a week. More if I'm traveling in the car. Why in the world should I give a damn what some liberal toady thinks about it? As if his or her opinion about Rush matters in the slightest. I listen to a lot of talk radio. Michael Medvid (who's support for McCain is becoming a bit grating), Laura Ingraham, and John Gibson mostly (he's tough to listen to because he's on from 6-8). And local radio too.
No, some idiot bashing me because I listen to Rush doesn't matter to me at all. In fact, it's just another example of their desperation and weakness.
-
My point is that when Budweiser repeats their message again and again and again, they sell LOTS more beer.
No one admits that the commercials cause them to buy more beer, but repetition of a message DOES WORK, the same for Bud as against Hillary.
SOMETHING makes people have this intense hatred for Hillary. I wonder what it is, if not the result of her being constantly pummeled by the RW for the past 26 years.
I think it would be easier to get someone who dislikes "socialism" and "women's rights" to dislike Hillary than it would to get someone who drinks beer to drink more Bud. I am sure it would get someone who already drinks Bud to drink more. I have read a number of excellent boooks on advertising and how it works.
I assure you, Richie, I am neither desperate nor weak, and I suppose you will consider it an honor to hear that I think you sound exactly like Rush, just not with the whomping the desk and crumpling the paper sounds. Plus, he is funnier than you. It is not my goal in life to cause you to agree with me. So in some ways you are less annoying, in other ways more so.
-
The only one showing any vitriolic irrational hatred towards anyone around here, would be you, Tee, Brass, and Lanya, regarding Bush (& Cheney). So, what radio station/host is causing that in you??
-
I listen to Rush whenever I can, which usually three or four hours a week. More if I'm traveling in the car. ... I listen to a lot of talk radio. Michael Medvid (who's support for McCain is becoming a bit grating), Laura Ingraham, and John Gibson mostly (he's tough to listen to because he's on from 6-8). And local radio too.
I'm a pretty solid Larry Elder & Laura Ingraham listener myself. Thoough Rob & Ken, and Al Rantall can have their moments as well
-
We don't get Larry Elder around here locally, is he on Sirius? I'll have to check.
-
<<The only one showing any vitriolic irrational hatred towards anyone around here, would be you, Tee, Brass, and Lanya, regarding Bush (& Cheney).>>
I would agree with vitriolic and hatred, but what's irrational about hating a man who starts a war that kills and maims and tortures hundreds of thousands of people? We have shown excellent reasons to hate the man. You haven't shown one good reason not to.
-
xo can't just allow someone to study an issue and come to a different conclusion
he certainly is not alone, many of his leftist friends do the same thing
if xo studies an issue and comes to conclusion, "well it's rational"
but if someone else studies the same issue and arrives at
a different conclusion "well they must not be able to think on their own".
actually that kind of mindset fits right in with the liberal mentality of
intolerance of differing opinions and of "we know better"
-
>>actually that kind of mindset fits right in with the liberal mentality of
intolerance of differing opinions and of "we know better"<<
It's the Communist mindset actually. A small group of "intellectuals" know what's best for you, so shut up or it's up against the wall enemy of the state!
-
<<The only one showing any vitriolic irrational hatred towards anyone around here, would be you, Tee, Brass, and Lanya, regarding Bush (& Cheney).>>
I would agree with vitriolic and hatred, but what's irrational about hating a man who starts a war that kills and maims and tortures hundreds of thousands of people?
When it's been shown that it was justified war, given the intel at the time, cleared by congress, and that much of the maim and tortured were at the hands of Muslim terrorists & insurgents targeting their own.
We have shown excellent reasons to hate the man.
actually, no. You've shown excellent examples of selected facts, blatant distortions, and out and out LIES, as reasons to hate the man. But whatever makes you feel better, you go for it Tee. Let that hatred spill over. Call it cleansing therapy, catharatic even.
-
<<When it's been shown that it was justified war . . . >>
Bulshit.
<< . . . given the intel at the time>>
cooked to order for the express purposes of justifying the invasion and transparently fake to anyone who cared to look more than a tenth of an inch into the surface of it
<< . . . cleared by congress>>
as if THAT could make it legal. Hitler's invasions were "cleared" by the Reichstag, does that make THEM legal too?
<< . . . and that much of the maim and tortured were at the hands of Muslim terrorists & insurgents targeting their own.>>
some of whom had come to Iraq specifically for the purpose of driving out the Amerikkkans, and the rest of whom were thoroughly subjugated in the socialist non-sectarian state run by Saddam.
<<You've shown excellent examples of selected facts . . . >>
ALL arguments rely on selected facts. People opposing the argument can select their own facts to oppose it. Which, I note, you have never been able to do convincingly.
<< . . . blatant distortions, and out and out LIES, as reasons to hate the man.>>
Really. What particular "distortions" are you complaining of now, and what "LIES" did I use as reasons to hate Bush?
-
<<When it's been shown that it was justified war . . . >>
Bulshit.
And we thank you for that already conceded Bush hating vitriolic OPINION
<< . . . given the intel at the time>>
cooked to order for the express purposes of justifying the invasion and transparently fake to anyone who cared to look more than a tenth of an inch into the surface of it
LIE (Multiple commissions concluded otherwise, with not a SHRED of proof to claim some massive cover-up, outside of your must-fit-template of what is is supposed to be)
<< . . . cleared by congress>>
as if THAT could make it legal. Hitler's invasions were "cleared" by the Reichstag, does that make THEM legal too?
Ahhh, can't have a Tee response without equating America/Bush to Hitler
<< . . . and that much of the maim and tortured were at the hands of Muslim terrorists & insurgents targeting their own.>>
some of whom had come to Iraq specifically for the purpose of driving out the Amerikkkans, and the rest of whom were thoroughly subjugated in the socialist non-sectarian state run by Saddam.
And we thank you for reinforcing my point. Much appreciated
<<You've shown excellent examples of selected facts . . . >>
ALL arguments rely on selected facts.
No, not at all. Objective analysis looks at ALL facts, not just the selected ones to try and paint a biased picture. Such as ignoring the plethora of intelligence organizations conclusions of Saddam's WMD, the prior Administrations conclusions regarding Saddam's WMD, various intel experts, who don't support Bush's war, but still concede that the intel was largely unanimous regarding the dispotion of Saddam's WMD. All that's ignored, in order to point to "selected facts" (read; op-eds and "circumstantial evidence") that supposedly claims otherwise
<< . . . blatant distortions, and out and out LIES, as reasons to hate the man.>>
Really. What particular "distortions" are you complaining of now,
Perfect example being the Mission Accomplished garbage. Distorting the ACTUAL mission of taking out Saddam as being accomplished, and trying to portray it as Bush supposedly claiming that we were "all done, nothing left to do"
and what "LIES" did I use as reasons to hate Bush?
That there was some imminent threat of Iraq about to hit the Continental U.S. with a nuke, but the "He lied us into war" suffices just as well
-
<<No, not at all. Objective analysis looks at ALL facts, not just the selected ones to try and paint a biased picture. >>
We're just quibbling over words. The relevant facts are selected for the argument, the irrelevant ones are weeded out.
<<Such as ignoring the plethora of intelligence organizations conclusions of Saddam's WMD>>
That was not ignored, it was dealt with:
1. by pointing out that you have no way of knowing what the other intelligence organizations believed or didn't believe, they report to their own governments, not to the U.S.A. and when they deal with other intelligence organizations, including Amerikkka's, they may or may not be telling them the truth about anything, they each have their own national agendas;
2. by denying that there was any "plethora" concluding any such thing;
3. that the fact that Germany, France, Russia, Canada, China, etc. did not support the invasion means that they did not believe either in the presence of WMD or that the presence justified the invasion.
Nor did I ignore "the prior Administrations conclusions regarding Saddam's WMD," - - this was taken at a time BEFORE Saddam had complied with the UN's order to account for his WMD; Saddam had provided a reasonably satisfactory accounting as ordered;
Nor did I ignore "various intel experts, who don't support Bush's war, but still concede that the intel was largely unanimous regarding the dispotion of Saddam's WMD." - - that's a crock. Most of those experts are Zionist plants like Barry Rubin, people who critique Bush's performance but have no problem at all with the war itself, which is obviously of enormous benefit to the State of Israel, which is their primary interest as well.
I challenge you to find one anti-war "expert" who will claim that the intel was "largely unanimous" (whatever the hell that means, something is either unanimous or not, it's kind of like pregnancy, a girl is either pregnant or not, there is no such thing as "a little bit pregnant" or "a whole lot pregnant."
<< All that's ignored . . . >>
Usual lies and bullshit from our crypto-fascist friend, nothing was ignored, on the contrary every lying piece of bullshit was carefully dissected and exposed.
<< . . .in order to point to "selected facts" (read op-eds and "circumstantial evience" that supposedly claims otherwise>>
The circumstantial evidence of lying, fakery and manipulation is overwhelming. Even the possession of WMD by Hussein, which Bush pretends to believe, would not have justified the invasion. The UN Security Council would not authorize such action and Bush knew that - - which is why his motion for authorization of use of force was withdrawn on the eve of the day it was to be submitted.
<<LIE (Multiple commissions concluded otherwise, with not a SHRED of proof to claim some massive cover-up, outside of your must-fit-template of what is is supposed to be) >>
"Multiple" in this case being two U.S. and one British commission, all carefully excluding even one token individual seriously opposed to the war. The fiction of bi-partisanship being used to cloak the cherry-picked commission members, guaranteed not to rock any boats.
<<Ahhh, can't have a Tee response without equating America/Bush to Hitler>>
If the shoe fits . . .
<<Perfect example being the Mission Accomplished garbage. Distorting the ACTUAL mission of taking out Saddam as being accomplished, and trying to portray it as Bush supposedly claiming that we were "all done, nothing left to do">>
Hilarious. When there was never anything said about two missions, "Mission Accomplished" means mission accomplished, now we have nothign left to do in Iraq and can all come home.
<<That there was some imminent threat of Iraq about to hit the Continental U.S. with a nuke . . . >>
A little confused, aren't we? That was Condoleeza Rice's lie, not mine. Remember the smoking gun and the mushroom cloud?
<< . . . but the "He lied us into war" suffices just as well>>
Bush did lie the country into war by creating fictitious threats that required an invasion and all of your sophistry can't change that one unsavoury fact. The mushroom cloud remarks just referred to were just one example of many lies used to promote the war.
-
All those "unsavory facts" my friend remain your delusional Bush is Hitler opinion, manifested by the examples of lies & distortions you keep perseverating on, this go around. Repeating those lies, might make you feel better. Well, you and like minds. So, knock your socks off
-
The leading Democrats were in on the "Hitler/Bush/Iraq Conspiracy".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7qlGXt6vg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7qlGXt6vg)
Sirs once again the foundation, the bedrock of the Left's argument is lunacy.
-
<<All those "unsavory facts" my friend remain your delusional Bush is Hitler opinion . . . >>
"Bush is Hitler" is not MY opinion, sirs, it is your caricature of my opinion. You don't want to deal with the truth of what I have to say, so like your fellow right-wing crazies, you manufacture your own reality, a world where the leftist critique becomes "Bush is Hitler," something you feel you can easily rebut.
My opinion is that Bush in many ways is similar to Hitler - - in his creation of fictitious enemies who must be destroyed at all costs, including the sacrifice of domestic civil liberties; in his manufacturing of reasons (all of them false) to make war on other, weaker states whose wealth can then be plundered; in his total lack of moral scruples, reflected both in his willingness to use torture to advance his goals and his willingness to risk high civilian casualties for the same purpose; in his use of the "Big Lie" as propaganda (example: "They hate us for our freedoms;") and in his nationalism and militarism.
<<manifested by the examples of lies & distortions you keep perseverating on>>
Typical of your confused thinking. The only thing "manifested" by the examples of lies and distortions that I "keep perseverating on" is that Bush is a liar many times over. Which I think by now the Amerikkkan people have come to realize.
<<Repeating those lies, might make you feel better. >>
I repeat, with evidence, that Bush is a liar and a murderer only when I see you denying the point once again. I am not going to let you get away even once with denying that Bush is a liar and a murderer. You right-wing bullshit artists think that you can wear down the truth with your lies. Keep repeating your bullshit and one day the left will get tired of trying to rebut it with facts. That's EXACTLY how Hitler thought. Well, you can't. For every one of your lies, I will sling back the truth
-
<<All those "unsavory facts" my friend remain your delusional Bush is Hitler opinion . . . >>
"Bush is Hitler" is not MY opinion, sirs, it is your caricature of my opinion.
Not really. When nearly every rebuttal arguemnt of yours includes either Hitler, Nazi, fascist, etc., it's no illogial leap to aknowledge that for the most part, Bush = Hitler, simply a more moronic version is all. The other pure OPINIONS minus even a shred of facts to support such is the supposed bi-partsian Congressional cover-up, the 911 comission cover-up, that the other intel agencies are likely lying to us regarding their positions on Saddam's WMD. And for now, will just skip your out and out lies.
You don't want to deal with the truth of what I have to say, so like your fellow right-wing crazies, you manufacture your own reality, a world where the leftist critique becomes "Bush is Hitler," something you feel you can easily rebut.
This, ladies and gentlemen is called projection. Replace Bush is Hitler with Bush is evil, Amerikkka is a fascist nation, and/or Our military is a bunch of low hanging fruit rapists & torturers, and ......well, you all get the picture, regarding "realities" 8)
-
<<When nearly every rebuttal arguemnt of yours includes either Hitler, Nazi, fascist, etc., it's no illogial leap to aknowledge that for the most part, Bush = Hitler, simply a more moronic version is all. >>
One of the stupidest arguments I have seen from you yet, and that's really saying something. Whether I was arguing that Bush = Hitler or that Bush is similar to Hitler in many ways, the argument in either case would necessarily have to include the words "Hitler," "Nazi," "fascist," etc. Your logic really sucks.
<< The other pure OPINIONS minus even a shred of facts to support such is the supposed bi-partsian Congressional cover-up, the 911 comission cover-up, that the other intel agencies are likely lying to us regarding their positions on Saddam's WMD. >>
I guess the actual composition of the supposedly "bi-partisan" coverup is not, in your lunatic world, a fact. The names of the members of the commission and their records are not facts. A fact is not a fact unless sirs says it's a fact. Honest to God, you are getting too crazy for me to even bother arguing with. Similarly with your unsupported assertion that the other intel agencies all supported Bush's conclusions. Unmitigated bullshit, with plenty of common sense and circumstantial evidence to the contrary, all of which I have gone over in too much detail to bother repeating here.
<< And for now, will just skip your out and out lies.>>
A very prudent decision for you to make, sirs, since there ARE no "out and out lies" of mine to skip. Trying to point them out would be kind of embarrassing for you, I guess. But then, what can you ever say that ISN'T embarrassing for you?
-
But, I simply do not trust her. What in her background would make me think this?
There is much about her that gives pause when it comes to personal trust. It doesn't come from Rush. I, too, gave up listening to Rush years ago. I listen to Boortz because he is on while I am driving on our local news station, and I like listening to that station. He comes on delayed in the afternoon. He is very anti-Hillary, though his current stance is that he considers Obama more of a threat than she is. But I also listen to NPR. I don't take my opinions from either - or any - source. I listen to interesting commentary and compare it with my own experience. Though Boortz gets a lot of airtime in my car, I often have to turn away to classical music or some other venue because he gets so damned annoying. His viewpoints are often simplistic nonsense and I note that he has a habit of hanging up on callers when he can't make a substantive counterargument or just "letting them rant" without comment to prove he is "giving them a fair shot." Then he doesn't respond at all. I find his show entertaining and humorous, but aside from the fair tax, I don't think much of his ideas and I don't think much of him.
Hillary is her own worst enemy. She engenders distrust because of her extreme arrogance and inability to connect with people. This is, incidentally, very close to George W. Bush. Neither has the personality to overcome their own negatives, or the opposition's exploitation thereof. I remember Hillary's VRWC talk. That was almost paranoid. Her "stand by your man" comment in the '92 elections made her look smug and clueless at the same time. Her burning ambition is obvious. I said when she ran for Senator that she was really running for President, and I was right. Nobody disputed it when I said it, because nobody saw it as anything but a stepping stone. Her appointment as Health Care Czar was inappropriate. Even though she has a good educational background, and clearly has leadership skills, you don't appoint your wife to a position when you are an elected official. It's way too iffy. She actually did a good job in the Senate of trying to combat her ultra-liberal reputation by staying close to the center when possible. But it came off to me as a cynical ploy to make herself electable - whether or not that analysis is justified. I may have respected her more had she been an unapologetic liberal, like Howard Dean, rather than trying to simultaneously stay in the spotlight and fly under the political radar. Finally, this campaign was defined for me when she did the Katie Couric interview in which she thrice refused to answer the question "What if you are not the nominee?" She kept saying "I WILL be the nominee." Katie tried three times to get the question asked. The repsonse was the same each time, and Hillary got increasingly tense each time. At least Caesar had the good sense to reject the crown thrice, rather than insist it was already his before the coronation. (Ironic, considering that as it is, Hillary may not last through the Ides of March.)
Her increasing desperation and her woefully embarrassing attempts to find a good pop culture reference or pithy one-liner to take Obama down are adding to the picture of a child denied her toy. She has campaigned abysmally. Her husband was a tremendous politician - she is not. She is pitted against Obama - an excellent politician and a man with style and credibility (deserved or not). She went in assuming the crown was hers, and underestimated her need to actually earn it. She is starting to get the picture, but it's too late. It may be that she could apply the lessons learned in this election and go on to get the next one, but I think she will emerge from this election beaten and tainted to the point nobody will get behind her in four or eight years. She has developed a reputation as a loser, and that - if nothing else - is unforgiveable in politics. Of course, she could still pull out a win, but if she does it will come off as the victory of the political machine against that uppity black guy and she will very likely lose the general election, giving Obama the grease to take the 2012 nomination without credible opposition.
In the end, Obama is probably more liberal than Hillary, though I think that liberalism is more a sincere expression of his experience than political pandering. If anything, he is tempering it with rhetoric of "hope and change." But his record is transparent, and he doesn't deny his leanings. So while we may (and I do) often disagree with him, we feel at least that we know what we're getting, and it will be just a case of left vs. right. He doesn't give the impression of someone whose goal is power for its own sake, rather than public service. It may well be, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if so, that he is no less power-hungry and likely to abuse that power than any other person to hold office. But if I had to buy a used car, I would pick Obama's lot over Hillary's any day.
Bottom line: I don't trust her because of her. If she ever does become President, the humiliation of her derailed campaign might be a great thing for her. It might be just the thing to broaden her outlook beyond her own limitations and give her a chance to actually use those leadership skills she most certainly possesses to do something good. But just now, I wouldn't let her drive my car, much less my country.
-
(http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/03-03-08.jpg)
-
Doesn't make a whole lotta sense. Bill Clinton was a very popular President and all the polls I've seen indicate he could beat any present candidate hands-down. I think Hillary's problem is, people just don't like her. Speaking personally, I find myself increasingly turned off by that perpetual phony smile. She just doesn't look real. She looks way too desperate to win the nomination. And I think it takes a hell of a lot of nerve to tout her "experience" over Obama's, when she approved the war and he didn't. Experience is good only if it leads to improved judgment - - her judgment sucked and Obama's was rock-solid.
-
And I think it takes a hell of a lot of nerve to tout her "experience" over Obama's, when she approved the war and he didn't. Experience is good only if it leads to improved judgment - - her judgment sucked and Obama's was rock-solid.
Obama never voted on the war. It is easy to claim that he would not have voted the way most of the Democrats did, but the fact is that he never voted for or against it.
-
She voted for it and he opposed it publicly during a Senate race. The issue is judgment. The war is a disaster, probably the worst foreign-policy disaster in U.S. history. Who showed the better judgment? Hillary in voting for it when she didn't have to, or Barak who unequivocally opposed it?
-
She voted for it and he opposed it publicly during a Senate race.
He opposed it two years later - and I think that Hillary was opposing it already by then as well. Is there anything that shows he was opposed to the war in 2002 when the vote was happening?
-
I think that Hillary should stay in the race until the convention.
There is no good reason for her to drop out. I hear few calls for Huckabee to resign.
I don't think that a 'phony smile' is any sort of valid issue. Voting to give Juniorbush authorization for the war was dumb, and do fault her for that. If she were a man, most of the hate she seems to attract would just not be there. There are a lot of people who simply cannot abide the idea of a female president. Since they cannot say this without sounding like retrograde creeps, they have this unwarranted hate thing.
-
There are a lot of people who simply cannot abide the idea of a female president. Since
they cannot say this without sounding like retrograde creeps, they have this unwarranted hate thing.
I have a friend that is a Democrat and he says he would "never vote a women in to be President".
However I would love to be able to vote for President women like Margaret Thatcher, Ann Coulter,
Kay Bailey Hutchison, Michelle Malkin, Lynne Cheney, Elizabeth Dole, ect..
-
Any rightwing fool will make you happy, no matter how utterly disastrous a politician they would make.
Maggie Thatcher is pushing 90, Anne Coulter has made a career insulting people and putting her foot in her foul mouth, Lynne Cheney has no experience being elected to anything, and that's all the same to you.
You don't want good government, you want something more like the World Wrestling Federation.
-
>>Obama never voted on the war. It is easy to claim that he would not have voted the way most of the Democrats did, but the fact is that he never voted for or against it.<<
Actually Obama said he never got the same kind of information Mrs. Clinton received, so he admits he oppsed the war out of ignorance.
-
from the Wikipedia article "Barak Obama" - -
<<Obama was an early opponent of Bush administration policies on Iraq.[102] On October 2, 2002, the day Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[103] Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally in Federal Plaza,[104] saying:
<< I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.[105]
<<On March 16, 2003, the day Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion of Iraq,[106] Obama addressed the largest Chicago anti-Iraq War rally to date in Daley Plaza and told the crowd "It's not too late" to stop the war.[107]
<<Obama sought to make his early public opposition to the Iraq War before it started a major issue in his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign to distinguish himself from his Democratic primary rivals who supported the resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[108] and in his 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign to distinguish himself from four Democratic primary rivals who voted for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War (Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd).[109]>>
-
Juniorbush has been an utter disaster with regard to foreign relations. If Obama were elected, this would surely signal an end to the aggressive Juniorbush legacy, and would do a lot to restore good relations. Electing McCain would not have nearly as beneficial an effect, and Hillary would be somewhere in between.
-
Translated from a far left liberal.....the further left the Government goes, the better. Wow....who'd a thunk it?
-
I don't think that Obama is farther left than Hillary. Actually, he's more moderate, which explains how he can outraise her in funds. He would still be a boon in improving relationships with oher countries, because of who he is, which is racially similar to Third Worlders.
McCain wants war. Most of the rest of the world opposes it, especially preemptive war like Iraq. This would tend to make him unpopular with other countries that do not believe in preemptive war.
Stop blathering about left and right. This is true and you have to know it.
-
I don't think that Obama is farther left than Hillary. Actually, he's more moderate, which explains how he can outraise her in funds.
LOL....that MIGHT work on ignorant independents, Xo, but anyone that even remotely scrutinizes both his voting record and stump speech rhetoric, will be coming to quite the contrary conclusion
-
He barely has a voting record. His speeches are not only vague, but beyond vague.
His health care plan is probably more like what we will eventually end up with, he has no clear energy policy-none of them do, and he won't say exactly what he would do to end the war in Iraq. But I am sure it's be over sooner than if McCain were elected.
There is a reason why he is getting more money than Hillary, and that suggests that he is further to the right than she is: that is where the big money lives, on the right. They know that many will want to punish the GOP for foisting the unspeakably incompetent Juniorbush and the thieving Cheney on us, and they are hedging their bets. They know that Bill is one clever politician, and he is too old and too wise for any more Monicas.
I have no choice as to whom the nominee will be. I voted for Edwards in the possibly meaningless FL primary.
I think I would prefer Hillary over Obama by a small margin.
McCain wants more war, possibly Iran. We have had enough GOP crap for a while. All they will do is stall legislation if McCain is elected, and things really have to be done.
McCain was many times better than Juniorbush. I am not sure that he would have invaded Iraq, because it seems that Juniorbush's evidence was trumped up and cherry picked to justify the invasion. McCain probably would have had the balls to have stood up to the oligarchy in 2000, certainly more than Juniorbush, who willingly offered every orifice to them to plumb. That's why he didn't get the nomination.
I fear more fraud and foul play in the 2008 elections by the Oligarchy-led GOP, and I think they are not above assassination. They have the means to do both, and their morals are pretty much nonexistent.
-
There is a reason why he is getting more money than Hillary, and that suggests that he is further to the right than she is: that is where the big money lives, on the right.
Is that why Democrats have raised more money than Republicans for a number of elections now?
-
The Democrats have raised more money in THIS election because the odds are they will win. Who wants to finance a loser?
The Republicans really big donors almost certainly have many ways of passing money along unrecorded. Businesses are adept at this.
-
The Democrats have raised more money in THIS election because the odds are they will win. Who wants to finance a loser?
I guess when the Democrats raised more money in 2004, it was because big business DID want to finance a loser?
-
He barely has a voting record. His speeches are not only vague, but beyond vague.
The voting record that IS there is as, if not more liberal than Hillary's. The rhetoric that can be deciphered is univerally liberal/socialist. As I said, your speel might work on the ignorant, but to the more informed voter, they know exactly how Obama's ideology bends
There is a reason why he is getting more money than Hillary, and that suggests that he is further to the right than she is: that is where the big money lives, on the right. They know that many will want to punish the GOP for foisting the unspeakably incompetent Juniorbush and the thieving Cheney on us
LOL, yea, that's why Ami has demonstrated how it was the Dems that got more money in the last several election cycles. and we won't go into how it's been shown that the GOP leads in the smaller donations, while the Dems get more from big donors. Nor how the most recent polling from the Pew Research group had a MAJORITY now believing the war in winnable, and that apparently the surge IS working. Naaaa, can't be having those facts get in the way of a good Bush bashing
McCain probably would have had the balls to have stood up to the oligarchy in 2000, certainly more than Juniorbush, who willingly offered every orifice to them to plumb. That's why he didn't get the nomination. I fear more fraud and foul play in the 2008 elections by the Oligarchy-led GOP, and I think they are not above assassination.
Yea.....that obviously must be it ::)
-
When it comes to fraudulent elections and assassinations, all we can do is wait and see. I would prefer no fraud, no tricks like Monica, the Iran hostage crisis, Travelgate and other usual GOP crap, and I am very much against assassinations. But time will tell about those.
I predict that McCain is not evangelical enough to get the Evangelicals out, and not conservative to get the conservatives out.
The Bible thumpers and rightwingers may stay home. There is no referendum on gay marriages or tax cuts, after all.
In addition, since eight years ago, a number of voters have died, and others have grown to take their place.
Will they be inspired by a septegenarian with an heiress trophy wife?
That is what turns youngsters on, right?