DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on November 18, 2007, 01:59:28 PM

Title: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 18, 2007, 01:59:28 PM
This thread will serve as the ultimate resource throughout the campaign providing reasons why Hillary Clinton is wrong for America. Updated as often as possible, hopefully it will become the go to place to set out the reasons why the Queen of Socialized medicine will be denied the presidency of the United States. Please post new info as often as you can.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 18, 2007, 02:00:40 PM
Robert Novak: Hillary Clinton's "Agents" Are Peddling Potential Obama Scandal
-DrewM.

The Prince of Darkness says people close to Hillary have some dirt on Obama but aren't saying what it is.

Allah speculates it could be stories of past drug use or less likely, the big sex scandal the LA Times was supposedly sitting on. There have also long been stories about Obama?s financial dealings with indicted Chicago businessman Tony Rezko.

Sex, drugs and money. Well, Hillary sure doesn't want to bring 2 of those 3 up, given her own issues in those areas.

Meanwhile, Obama says, bring it on bitch?

Quote
"But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.

"She of all people, having complained so often about 'the politics of personal destruction,' should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics.

"I am prepared to stand up to that kind of politics, whether it's deployed by candidates in our party, in the other party or by any third party.


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 18, 2007, 02:12:40 PM
To be bluntly honest, RR, at this stage, ANY of the current Democrat candidates would be wrong for America, be it to our Economiy, Security, Immigration, etc.  The problem is the current crop of GOP candidates aren't far behind.    :-\     My current rankings would be Huckabee, Guiliani, Thompson
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: gipper on November 18, 2007, 03:14:09 PM
The "cream of the crop" has sunk to new lows in this ad hominem thread designed to attack Hillary. You don't fool me, lightweight. 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 18, 2007, 03:21:35 PM
Travelgate by itself is enough for me.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Religious Dick on November 18, 2007, 04:40:40 PM
Given the fact that the right has catastrophically squandered their mandate, and compounded the error by refusing to learn anything from the mistake, I find it difficult to put much enthusiasm into demonizing the left, even as much as I dislike Hillary Clinton.

I will, however, contribute my favorite Hillary T-shirt to the discussion...

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwinggifts/3217091

Courtesy of Moonbattery (http://www.moonbattery.com/)
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 18, 2007, 06:15:03 PM
My current rankings would be Huckabee, Guiliani, Thompson

===========================================
None of these would be as good a president as Biden, Kucinic, Hillary or Obama.

Thompson has two things going fpor him: (a) he is tall, and (2) he had the voice of a celestial floorwalker.
He should stick to acting. He is good at that.

Giulani has taken on the rejected Neocons that even Juniorbush has had to jettison. His campaign is based entirely on fear, and there is a ton of dirt on him from his previous life that has not yet surfaced. But it will, and he will lose if nominated, and that is a good thing. He would be a rerun of Juniorbush.

Huckabee is the only Republican that has a glimmer of competence. Burt he is still a Republican, and will still do the borrow and squander thing, with little hope of any reform with regard to medical care, immigration, ending the Iraq War, or ending the plummeting value of the dollar.

Romney is probably a better choice , bit this isn't a Republican year, and irt won't happen.

Hillary is vastly superior to any and all Republican contenders, but probably not the wisest choice.
I think Edwards and Obama would have a better chance of dealing with medical care and removing power from the oligarchy a bit.
In foreign relations, no one beats Biden.

IThe entire idea of having a topic dedicated to your regurgitating Rush Limbaugh crap against Hillary is pretty stupid. But then again, it is pretty much what we expect from you.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 18, 2007, 07:24:28 PM
My current rankings would be Huckabee, Guiliani, Thompson

===========================================
None of these would be as good a president as Biden, Kucinic, Hillary or Obama.

ROFL

Boy, I needed a good belly laugh today.  Thanks Xo     :D

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 18, 2007, 11:30:11 PM
IThe entire idea of having a topic dedicated to your regurgitating Rush Limbaugh crap against Hillary is pretty stupid. But then again, it is pretty much what we expect from you.


We haven't had threads devoted to the faults of certain politicians before?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 19, 2007, 12:42:35 AM
Democrat admits: S-CHIP is the universal health care Trojan Horse

By Michelle Malkin  November 17, 2007 01:39 PM 

I've said it all along: The Democrats' massive S-CHIP expansion is a Trojan Horse for Hillarycare. Now, we get it straight from the horse's mouth. A Hill source sends an audio clip of former Iowa Dem. Governor Tom Vilsack at Drake University on Nov. 16 describing how S-CHIP will help achieve those universal entitlement ends:

Click here for audio.

Transcript:

"I think there is going to be a commitment to universal coverage. I don't think it's necessarily going to be a sector by sector process. I think you either need to go in whole hog or not. We tried to sort of squeeze the middle here with doing children and doing seniors, and trying to squeeze it. If anything happens, it would more likely look something like this: you would extend eligibility for children from 200% of poverty to 300% of poverty, and create resources to insure the parents of those children."

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/17/democrat-admits-s-chip-is-the-universal-health-care-trojan-horse/
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 19, 2007, 12:27:44 PM
Clinton News Network = CNN

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/17/84954/402


Yep.

When you own the media, call in favors, plant questions, what else can you conclude?

CNN was looked at as the real fair and balanced network.

After this debate, not so, any longer.

For Wolf Blizter to not give Obama and Edwards a chance for follow up questions, and give Clinton all the time in the world, what would you call it?

Then planted questions.  Again?

And of course, first hand account of what really happened in Las Vegas, what do you come away with?

Questions of how that debate was handled.  How CNN and moderator let those boos go, like business as usual.  And the boos were only directed to Edwards and Obama.

And the post debate debacle.

CNN have lowered their credentials to those of Fox News.

Meaning?  Fake, unfactual, bogus, lousy, critique, at the expense of six candidates to protect and keep Hillary Clinton, the "front runner".

Quote
Among the experts trotted out by CNN to comment was James Carville, a Democratic strategist and CNN commentator who is also a close friend of Mrs. Clinton and a contributor to her campaign.

Mr. Carville?s presence aroused the fury of rivals and bloggers. They called it a conflict of interest and criticized CNN.

"Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?" Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal blog, Daily Kos. Mr. Moulitsas drew hundreds of comments.

Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, said: "What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection."


Remember, David Gergin was also on the scene, a former Clinton adviser.  And then of course, Carville, Clinton's close friend adviser.  Now can someone tell me how anyone can get a fair and balanced shake, with these analysts?  They can not.  And then, Anderson Cooper, followed the script and did very little to disclose anything, but continued to give Clinton glowing rhetorical platitudes, while calling Edwards campaign over and stating Obama did nothing in the debate.

Now the outrage is warranted and the handling of the whole debate questionable, since we have another planted question story, surrounding Clinton.  One can only really ask, "Was this debate rigged?"

Quote
The criticisms were among a series against CNN for how it managed the debate, a two-hour event in Las Vegas that ran nearly 15 minutes late. Viewers criticized segments like the opening, when candidates bounded onto the stage in a style reminiscent of a sports event.

Voters and commentators wrote online about how the audience cheered and booed, the way the CNN hosts reframed audience questions and whether it was correct to demand yes-or-no answers to complex questions.

Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval, a student who asked Mrs. Clinton whether she preferred diamonds or pearls (Mrs. Clinton answered "both"), said she had prepared a list of more serious questions but had been directed by CNN to ask her trivial question.

CNN said the debate was the most watched in this campaign, drawing more than four million viewers.

Viewers directed most of their criticism at the commentary. The channel has been ridiculed by conservative groups as the Clinton News Network, partly because its commentators include Mr. Carville and Paul Begala, an adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Carville said in a phone interview that he did not have a role in Mrs. Clinton?s campaign and that he had "never been paid a nickel by her."

He also said he considered her a close personal friend, had contributed to her presidential effort, had friends working for her campaign, planned to vote for her in the Virginia primary and spoke to Mr. Clinton regularly.

He also sent a fund-raising e-mail message last spring on Mrs. Clinton?s behalf, Newsday reported in February.


Why is James Carville on CNN doing ANY ANALYSIS of his close personal friend?

To stop the bleeding, of course.  To skew the debate win, Clinton's way.  To try to make CNN look as they monitored an above board debate, vs. the real debate that took place in Philadelphia, by NBC and Tim Russert.

But, to let the public know, that Clinton is back, she is the inevitable candidate, and we must accept it.

Quote
If the point was to elicit illumination, the transcript shows more interruptions than anything else. The low point--and it's a very revealing low point--came right at the end when Maria Luisa, a UNLV student, asked Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls. Talk about a softball question. It's not exactly "boxers or briefs," but it's close.

True to form, Clinton straddled the answer, saying she likes them both. We sure don't want to offend the pearl crowd, do we? But what the heck does that have to do with picking a president? The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing.

And the truth came out today when CNN, which is widely believed among Clinton opponents and others to favor the New York senator's candidacy, admitted that a producer allegedly seeking to end the "debate" on a light note gave the question to the student. (Does giving a question to a student to ask Hillary Clinton ring a bell for anyone?)


oh, but it continues:

Quote
So it's not too shocking that Politico.com today reported that these former Clinton employees had this to say about Hillary: "David Gergen had opened the coverage by declaring: 'The fire seemed to go out of Obama, and she regained her stride.' James Carville, a Clinton supporter, added: 'Senator Clinton's people ... have to be pretty pleased tonight that they certainly reversed a trend.'"

Good news for the Clinton people from some other Clinton people.


My call:  Bullshit.

My call:  Debate, rigged.

My call:  Wolf Blizter, worst moderator ever.

My call:  Analysts, all friends of Clinton's except J.C.Watts.

My call:  The public is not stupid.

My call:  The winner everyone else, but Clinton and CNN.

Now. Attack if you will.  Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 19, 2007, 01:16:38 PM
CNN is whatever it is, Fox is whatever it is. So what?

People can believe either of these, or neither. I don't think TV is really a good medium for determining fitness for political office.

When I see a debate, I am not thinking of who won or who lost, as if it were some silly game with a ball. I am simply changing or not changing my opinion for a while over whom I think would be the best candidate to vote for. I won't be actually deciding this until the day before the primary, because I don't have to.

I realize that nothing is dumber than those hateful 30 second spots like the bit where prisoners go in and out of prison while a voice tells me how soft the Democrat is on crime or the one where Dukakis rides about looking silly in a tank. I don;t think any footage of Giulani standing tall and proud among the wreckage of 9-11 is going to make me vote for him, either: perhaps an exceptional mayor might have prevented 9-11: everyone knew that Al Qaeda wanted to do in the WTC, they tried to do this previously, and one of theose planes took off from NYC.

But any fool can stand tall and proud anywhere. So what?

30 second spot ads are worthless as aids in getting my vote. So is much of what they say in the 'debates'.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 19, 2007, 05:57:27 PM
Karl Rove comments

http://www.newsweek.com/id/71000

Quote
"...she is tough, persistent and forgets nothing. Those are some of the reasons she is so formidable as a contender, and why Republicans who think she would be easy to beat are wrong. The Republican presidential nomination is the most fluid and unpredictable contest in decades, but the Democratic nominee is likely to be Hillary. Not without a fight, not without losing early contests (probably Iowa, for starters) and not without bruises and bumps.

And so the question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: "How do ..."
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 19, 2007, 11:35:58 PM
ABC Iowa poll: Obama 30, Hillary 26, Edwards 22

http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=3887274&page=1

------------

Go Obama, Go!
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Henny on November 19, 2007, 11:58:48 PM
ABC Iowa poll: Obama 30, Hillary 26, Edwards 22

http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=3887274&page=1

------------

Go Obama, Go!

Ricky - is it that you support Obama, or you just are going to cheer anyone who tops Hillary?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 20, 2007, 12:56:14 AM
>> ... or you just are going to cheer anyone who tops Hillary?<<

I'm a bit torn when it comes to Mrs. Clinton getting the democrat nomination. What are her negatives, 50 percent? There's no way a candidate can win with those kind of negatives, can she?

We know the current crop of democrat voters would for for Charles Manson if he ran as a democrat, so I suppose it may come down to turn out. Republican hate her (rightfully so), and democrats are democrats. So does Mrs. Clinton pose less of a threat than B. Hussein Obama? Obama in nothing more than a stuffed suit. He's Black, if that matters, but he has less experience than even Mrs. Clinton. Will he energize the democrats into coming out in big numbers? Who can tell?

I have a solution! Nominate Kucinich! He's your winner!
(http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/02/kucinich08sml.jpgmid.jpg)
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 20, 2007, 01:04:39 AM
Go Obama, Go!

Ricky - is it that you support Obama, or you just are going to cheer anyone who tops Hillary?

IMHO, Obama's would be just as bad, as he's just as liberal as she record wise, but even worse on national defense issues.  At least Hillary is for the troops, when she's against the troops, while for the troops
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 20, 2007, 02:17:09 AM
Quote
Ricky - is it that you support Obama, or you just are going to cheer anyone who tops Hillary?


I'm not going to act like the Democrats when they pretended like they would vote for McCain when he was running against Bush. I would never vote for any of the left wingers running on the Democrat side. I have nothing personal against Obama, though, so I probably wouldn't start an Obama thread like this one. Would I love to see Hillary defeated in the Democrat primary, something that she apparently believes she's entitled to, and fall flat on her face? Absolutely! There's now a real race on the Democrat side; there's no doubt about it.

I'm genuinely fearful of Hillary getting elected and passing socialized medicine into law (hiking up everybody's taxes dramatically), and also of the leftist feminists she would likely appoint to the Supreme Court in her and Janet Reno's own image.  The next president might be naming 2 new Justices. Hillary is the last person in the world I would want naming them.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on November 20, 2007, 10:47:32 AM
Quote
Ricky - is it that you support Obama, or you just are going to cheer anyone who tops Hillary?


I'm not going to act like the Democrats when they pretended like they would vote for McCain when he was running against Bush. I would never vote for any of the left wingers running on the Democrat side. I have nothing personal against Obama, though, so I probably wouldn't start an Obama thread like this one. Would I love to see Hillary defeated in the Democrat primary, something that she apparently believes she's entitled to, and fall flat on her face? Absolutely! There's now a real race on the Democrat side; there's no doubt about it.

I'm genuinely fearful of Hillary getting elected and passing socialized medicine into law (hiking up everybody's taxes dramatically), and also of the leftist feminists she would likely appoint to the Supreme Court in her and Janet Reno's own image.  The next president might be naming 2 new Justices. Hillary is the last person in the world I would want naming them.

R.R., I am afraid that some type of socialized medicine is likely to get passed, even if a Republican gets in to office again (unlikely). Costs are simply getting out of control. For example, a recent controversy surrounds the phenomenal rise of medical collections that are negatively impacting people's credit reports.

see http://origin.bankrate.com/brm/news/insur/20020828a.asp
http://www.thinkglink.com/Late_Medical_Bills.htm
http://credit.about.com/b/2007/06/08/do-medical-collections-affect-your-credit-score.htm
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/Yourcreditrating/P121551.asp
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 20, 2007, 12:40:24 PM
Quote
R.R., I am afriad that some type of socialized medicine is likley to get passed, even if a Republican gets in to office again

Which Republican supports socialized care?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on November 20, 2007, 01:28:56 PM
Dunno. Doesn't matter. Events have moved beyond it, IMHO.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 20, 2007, 01:37:48 PM
No Republican presidential candidate supports socialized medicine.

The answer to your problem is to contact the co. that made the collection request and get it taken off your credit report, not to elect Hillary Clinton.

You don't need the government to do that. Make some phone calls.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 20, 2007, 06:22:08 PM
Rasmussen: Top GOP contenders all lead Hillary in Florida

By Kathy Miller | Posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the presidential race in Florida shows former Big Apple Mayor Rudy Giuliani with a lead over Senator Hillary Clinton of 46% to 41%. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leads the former First Lady 46% to 39%. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has a nine point edge 47% to 38%, while Arizona Senator John McCain leads by ten, 48% to 38%.

---------

Hillary is not electable.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 21, 2007, 01:14:24 AM
Now Hillary's New Hampshire lead is shrinking!

Hillary Clinton's lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is shrinking in New Hampshire.

The senator from New York saw a 23-point lead over her closest rival in September decrease to 14 points in a new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire presidential primary poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire.

When asked who they would support if the primary were held today, 36 percent of likely Democratic primary voters backed Clinton, 22 percent supported Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and 13 percent favored former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

--------------------

The Queen is faltering.

Honesty is a huge issue for the voters in New Hampshire and Iowa. Hillary is failing that test. Even Democrats now question her honesty and integrity.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 21, 2007, 02:17:24 PM
Op-Ed Columnist

She's No Morgenthau

 
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 21, 2007

Most of the time, Barack Obama seems like he's boxing in the wrong weight class. But Monday in Fort Dodge, Iowa, he delivered an unscripted jab that was a beaut.

At a news conference, the Illinois senator was asked about Hillary Clinton's attack on his qualifications. Making an economic speech in Knoxville, Iowa, earlier that day, the New York senator had touted her own know-how, saying that "there is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for -- that's the job of our next president." Her aides confirmed that she was referring to Obama.

Pressed to respond, Obama offered a zinger feathered with amused disdain: "My understanding was that she wasn't Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don't know exactly what experiences she's claiming."

Everybody laughed, including Obama.

It took him nine months, but he finally found the perfect pitch to make a trenchant point.

Her Democratic rivals had meekly gone along, accepting her self-portrait as a former co-president who gets to take credit for everything important Bill Clinton did in the '90s. But she was not elected or appointed to a position that needed Senate confirmation. And the part of the Clinton administration that worked best -- the economy, stupid -- was run by Robert Rubin. (RR - The economy is better now, but I cede the point).  Hillary did not show good judgment in her areas of influence -- the legal fiefdom, health care and running oppo-campaigns against Bill's galpals.

She went on some first lady jaunts and made a good speech at a U.N. women's conference in Beijing. But she was certainly not, as her top Iowa supporter, former governor Tom Vilsack claimed yesterday on MSNBC, "the face of the administration in foreign affairs."

She was a top adviser who had a Nixonian bent for secrecy and a knack for hard-core politicking. But if running a great war room qualified you for president, Carville and Stephanopoulos would be leading the pack.

Obama's one-liner evoked something that rubs some people the wrong way about Hillary. Getting ahead through connections is common in life. But Hillary cloaks her nepotism in feminism.

"She hasn't accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law," wrote Joan Di Cola, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, adding: "She isn't Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that."

The Clinton campaign in Iowa is in a panic. Obama has been closing the gap with women and her ginning up of gender has lost her male votes. Speaking around Iowa this week, Obama made the point that his exotic upbringing, family in Kenya and years as an outsider allow him to see the world with more understanding, and helped form his judgment about resisting the Iraq war.

"I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia," he said. "If you don't understand these cultures then it's very hard for you to make good foreign policy decisions. Foreign policy is all about judgment."

President Bush is not so enamored of Obama's foreign policy judgment. He gave a plug to Hillary on ABC News last night, calling her a "formidable candidate," even under pressure, who "understands the klieg lights."

Asked by Charles Gibson about Obama's offer to meet without preconditions with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, W. declared it "odd foreign policy."

Laura Bush also gave Hillary a sisterly -- and dynastic -- plug when she told the anchor that living in the White House and meeting people everywhere would be "very helpful" to a first lady trading up.

Though he did not mention the quick "color me experienced" trip Hillary took with some Senate colleagues to Iraq and Afghanistan just before she started running, Obama might have been thinking of it when he mocked Kabuki Congressional junkets:

"You get picked up at the airport by a state convoy and a security detail. They drive you over to the ambassador's house and you get lunch. Then you go take a tour of some factory or some school. Children do a native dance."

Hillary pounced, knowing that her chief rival's foreign policy resume is as slender as his physique, once more conjuring a childish Obama. She brazenly borrowed Republican talking points, even though she accused John Edwards of "throwing mud" that was "right out of the Republican playbook."

"With all due respect," she told a crowd in Iowa. "I don't think living in a foreign country between the ages of 6 and 10 is foreign policy experience."

But is living in the White House between the ages of 45 and 53 foreign policy experience?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/opinion/21dowd.html


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 21, 2007, 02:24:06 PM
Hillary's No Moral Conservative
By Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, November 21, 2007

For decades now, the national media have insisted in each presidential election cycle that voters should ignore the liberal wizards hiding behind the curtain of the Democratic Party. Each plausible Democratic presidential contender is a "moderate" or "centrist," be he Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or John Kerry. But now to describe Hillary Clinton as a "moral conservative" is so upside down and backward it sounds like "This is your brain on drugs."

That's what Time reporter Amy Sullivan announced on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC. She suggested Clinton might be "fairly liberal" on economic issues, "but she's a moral conservative." Sullivan was once an aide to Sen. Tom Daschle. In Clinton, Sullivan has allegedly found an authentic Christian conservative's role model.

What makes Clinton a "moral conservative" in the eyes of a Time reporter? For starters, she's a darling of gay-left groups like the Human Rights Campaign. Early in her Senate tenure, she voted against the Jesse Helms amendment to deny federal funds to public schools that would ban the Boy Scouts from their meeting rooms, and for the Barbara Boxer amendment to allow such punitive action against the Scouts with no threat to their money from Washington.

Like Al Gore, she campaigned in 2000 against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military and accused her GOP opponent for being "out of the mainstream." In fact, on Oct. 6, 2001, she was the keynote speaker for the Human Rights Campaign's big annual fundraising dinner. She pledged she would keep lobbying for "hate crimes" legislation and "domestic partner" benefits and declared that gays who lost lovers on 9/11 should get the same federal assistance as "other families."

Oh, she's that kind of moral conservative.

The HRC was so pleased that it put a Clinton quote in big letters in its annual report, in whch she stressed a royal "our" in her solidarity with the nation's largest gay-left advocacy group: "What counts is our energy, our determination, our honesty, our integrity, our talent. That ... is what is represented in this room tonight." In her first two years, Clinton had a perfect 100 percent voting score from the gay "liberation" lobby. Since then, she and her fellow New York senator, Chuck Schumer, have identical 88 percent pro-gay scores in each of the last two sessions of Congress.

In March, the HRC posted video of Clinton at a fundraising lunch, praising the organization for attacking conservatives resisting leftist trends like so-called "gay marriage." In proposing a marriage amendment to the Constitution, the conservatives were being divisive, engaging in "wedge politics at its worst" and acting "against the entire forward movement of American history."

I wonder if, when viewed through the lenses of Time magazine, these are immoral conservatives?

That was nothing compared to Clinton's fierce solidarity with the abortion lobby: routine 100 ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America, routine zeroes from the National Right to Life Committee.

On the last Sunday morning in April 2004, while many Americans were in church, the hard-left warriors of abortion advocacy gathered for a march on Washington, which they called a "March for Women's Lives." The star of this march was moral conservative Hillary Clinton, dressed in her trademark black pantsuit -- this time, with a hot pink blouse to match the official Planned Parenthood T-shirts.

The abortion-on-demand crowd wailed for her, reserving for her the biggest applause of the day, according to an account in The Nation magazine. The major media, from ABC and CBS to NPR and The New York Times, presented Clinton to the nation with a brief sound bite, a bland declaration that everyone should register and vote for Kerry for president.

Only the AP offered a different sound bite of the day, in which she trashed Team Bush: "This administration is filled with people who disparage sexual harassment laws, who claim the pay gap between women and men is phony ... who consider Roe vs. Wade the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history." No one at AP was going to ask her which atrocious Bush official she was describing. It was especially odd to hear Hillary Clinton accuse some other White House of being lax on sexual harassment, considering her husband's flagrant violations and her failure to stop them. For the media it was another day, another whitewash.

Amy Sullivan is a typical liberal reporter/activist trying to close the "God gap" between the Democrats and the Republicans. She has a book coming out next year on "how and why" the Democrats will win over religious voters. I wonder if she believes Hillary is moving closer toward God, or if the news is that God is moving toward Hillary.



Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.


?Creators Syndicate


Copyright ? 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 
 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 21, 2007, 02:25:22 PM
Hillary's Secret Police Returns
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?

It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.

In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that ?agents? of Hillary Clinton are ?spreading the word that she has scandalous information? about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)

Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.

The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!

Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had ?no idea? what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!

And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.

?A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Othe rs get distracted and thrown off their games,? Wolfson said.

Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn?t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty ? and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.

While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she?s not doing too well.

Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they?ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)

And does anyone think it was a coincide nce that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?

Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?

And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?

That?s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she?s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.

The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.

To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don?t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.

And Hillary sure does know what to do.

As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: ?We?ll just have to win.?

Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.

Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?



Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. To get all of Dick Morris?s and Eileen McGann?s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com


Copyright ? 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 
 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Religious Dick on November 21, 2007, 02:31:57 PM

R.R., I am afraid that some type of socialized medicine is likely to get passed, even if a Republican gets in to office again (unlikely). Costs are simply getting out of control. For example, a recent controversy surrounds the phenomenal rise of medical collections that are negatively impacting people's credit reports.


Yes, but there's bad and then there's worse. Look at the way the French do it. Rather than socializing health care, they socialized health insurance. This basically leaves the decisions in the hands of the patients, and preserves the market economy in health care. You don't hear the same nightmare stories coming from France that you keep hearing from Canada and Great Britain, who socialized the health care service itself.

If we have to have government involvement in health care, the way Romney implemented it in Massachusetts is probably one of the least onerous ways of doing it.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2007, 02:52:39 PM
Once socialized medicine is enacted into law, it will become like Social Security, a political third rail that will electrocute any asshole politician that tries to abolish it. This is why the Republicans hate the idea, in addition to their best buddies in the pharmaceutical, insurance, banking and medical care industries not wishing to lose out on all the fat, juicy profits they glean from us consumers that add nothing but expense to what we must pay to just stay alive.

Juniorbush tried and faile to screw Social Security. The Republicans have tried top aboplish it ever since the 1930's with no success.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 21, 2007, 02:57:01 PM
Once socialized medicine is enacted into law, it will become like Social Security

Boy, doesn't that say it all       :-\
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 21, 2007, 03:20:57 PM
>>The Republicans have tried top aboplish it ever since the 1930's with no success.<<

Which is a damn shame. I know there are people out there without the brain power to provide for their own financial security, but the idea that social security is a good thing is patently ridiculous. The left has taken advantage of the intellectually challenged and fooled them into thinking SS will provide for their retirement. That is a crime. Those of us with the fortitude to look into SS know that SS was never meant to be a retainment fund. If anything, it was meant to keep the masses voting democrat just like welfare. The left likes to talk about grandma and grandpa living in squaller eating cat food. They like to blame it on Republicans when in reality it is the lefts failed policies that keep them believing that SS security will care for them in their old age.

Let's hope Republicans can educate the less intelligent about SS in the future and give them a real choice rather that the lefts lies.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2007, 05:57:18 PM
AS someone who has paid into Social Security since I was 16 years old, allow me to state that I greatly resent your clever asshole Republican plan to deprive me of the benefits that I was promised as well as all the money that I have contributed over the past 49 years. Not me, nor anyone, was given the option of selecting to contribute this money to any alternative plan.

When I retire, Social Security will pay me about $1300 per month, which is $15,600 per year.

If I could actually realize a return of 10% on my money, this would require me to have a net investment of $156,000. But this would be probably about twice what the average bank or insurance would pay, so I would need double that, or $312,000 to produce the same $1300 per month, and it is almost a certainty that there is NO bank or insurance company that would have guaranteed me even a 5% return since 1958. To date, I have contributed roughly $65,000 to Social Security.


My own actual investments have done far better than this, but this has entailed me taking a much greater risk than what I would say a prudent investor would normally take, and with absolutely no guarantees. I also have what I consider to be a much better knowledge of how investments work than the average consumer. The chances are that if all of everyone's SS money had been invested in the stock market rather than SS, the potential returns would be a lot smaller.

It is also quite likely that the government would never have been able to piss away such huge amounts on dumbass wars like Vietnam and Iraq, or on idiotic weapons projects such as Star Wars. But they would certainly have tried.

The worst enemies of the Social Security fund have been thus far Juniorbush and Reagan. Some of the Democrats have been more irresponsible than others, notably Lyndon Johnson.

It would not be possible for the average American to have invested as much as I have without causing serious problems for the economy. I have never bought a new car, house, refrigerator, or stove. I never buy anything in malls, and try to find good used items whenever possible, including clothing. I live in Miami, yet I use only one AC in my house, in a small bedroom. Lately, I fuel my ancient Diesel cars with biodiesel, so I am not benefitting Exxonmobil, Hugo Chavez or the Shieks of Araby.

If everyone lived as I do, the economy would be far smaller than it is.

I would not lament the assassination of any president that decided to deprive me and others of the Social Security benefits we have paid for. I would not bet on the life expectancy of such a vile scumbag, either.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 21, 2007, 06:01:44 PM
LOL...and the left that decries how it's Republicans who are the greedy selfish bastards
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 21, 2007, 06:44:01 PM
>>AS someone who has paid into Social Security since I was 16 years old, allow me to state that I greatly resent your clever asshole Republican plan to deprive me of the benefits that I was promised as well as all the money that I have contributed over the past 49 years.<<

This of course is a perfect example of liberal delusions when it comes to SS. Bush's plan wouldn't deprive anyone of their SS scheme. If you don't think you can care for yourself and you deem it necessary to have the government be your nanny you would still be able to pay into SS and get you pittance in return. People who know better could invest their money as they felt best without the nanny state doing it for them and keeping the profits.

>>When I retire, Social Security will pay me about $1300 per month, which is $15,600 per year.<<

Heeeeey! Planning on traveling the world on that? I see a job bagging groceries in your future.


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 21, 2007, 09:54:50 PM
AS someone who has paid into Social Security since I was 16 years old, allow me to state that I greatly resent your clever asshole Republican plan to deprive me of the benefits that I was promised as well as all the money that I have contributed over the past 49 years. Not me, nor anyone, was given the option of selecting to contribute this money to any alternative plan.

The plan proposed by Republicans earlier in Bush's presidency would not have changed your benefits. It would only have allowed younger people to move part of their money into accounts that pay more interest.

You got yours, screw the next generation, eh?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 21, 2007, 10:04:57 PM
If I could actually realize a return of 10% on my money, this would require me to have a net investment of $156,000. But this would be probably about twice what the average bank or insurance would pay, so I would need double that, or $312,000 to produce the same $1300 per month, and it is almost a certainty that there is NO bank or insurance company that would have guaranteed me even a 5% return since 1958. To date, I have contributed roughly $65,000 to Social Security.

$156,000 at 5% paid out over 10 years is $1,653.04 per month.

$156,000 at 3% paid out over 10 years is $1,505.81 per month.

To achieve a payout of $1,300 per month over 10 years, assuming 2.5% APR interest, you would have to start with $137,936.45.

(All examples assume 4 compounding periods per year, though many accounts actually compound 12 times per year, which would yield higher payouts...)
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2007, 09:10:58 AM
You are assuming that the entire capital would be spent by the end of 10 years. Social Security will pay as long as you are alive. A BIG difference, unless one is happy with the idea of trying to get buy with no income at the age of 75.


10% APR of $150,000 is $15,000. You are amortizing the amount, which is inappropriate, unless you assume that one will blow out one's brains at the age of 75.

I am positive that until I was 30 I would have spent every penny that I earned had I been given all the money in lieu of paying SS deductions. I am pretty sure that this would be the case of damn near everyone.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 22, 2007, 09:32:54 AM
10% APR of $150,000 is $15,000. You are amortizing the amount, which is inappropriate, unless you assume that one will blow out one's brains at the age of 75.

Except that SS will not give your money left to your heirs when you die. Your claim leaves the principal intact to pass on. So, amortizing it is correct, since you will have nothing left at the end of the term.

SS is only a good deal when you live to be very old. Most people do not, and therefore being able to reserve part of their SS contributions in a personal account is actually better for them and their heirs.

If you want to assume you'll live 30 years from retirement (65-95) with a payout of $1,300 a month and assuming a paltry 2.5%, you only need to have $330,000 as your starting principal. With a 45 year working life, again with a 2.5% interest, you need to put away $331 per month during your working life to put away this amount of principal. This equates to a salary of roughly $26,000 today - SS contributions on this amount will be about $331 a month. If you make more than this, and you don't live to a lot longer than 95, you're being screwed by SS.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 22, 2007, 12:10:40 PM
It seems like a mistake to consider Social Security risk free.

The oncomeing generation has no hope of getting nearly so good  deal as those who ae retired now.

If the young revolt it is over for the SS.

That is  risk.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 22, 2007, 02:14:58 PM
There's panic at Clinton headquarters this Thanksgiving day!

Hillary drops 10 points against Obama Nationally

Obama gains big, Giuliani widens lead
Clinton drops 10 points

The 2008 Democratic presidential race has tightened, with Barack Obama gaining on front-runner Hillary Clinton six weeks before the first contest, according to a national Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton led Obama 38 percent to 27 percent in the new poll, a 10-point fall from her 46 percent to 25 percent lead last month. The drop followed a month of attacks on the New York senator from her rivals and a heavily criticized performance in a late-October debate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21914217/
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2007, 10:57:19 PM
>When I retire, Social Security will pay me about $1300 per month, which is $15,600 per year.<<

Heeeeey! Planning on traveling the world on that? I see a job bagging groceries in your future.

==============================================================
Actually, I DO plan on touring the world. My sister worked for a couple of airlines for 30 years and I can fly space available anywhere in the Americas and a lot of places in Europe.


I was not so stupid as to believe that I could live on SS alone, and therefore I have enough in 403b plans, IRAs and Roth IRAs that I can do damn near everything I want to.

It is truly idiotic to tell me that somehow I ruined the fabulous Juniorbush plan on Social Security. I had no chance to vote on it, or even to vote for anyone who said they were going to vote for it or against it.

But I would not trust any Republican slimeballs with "fixing" Social Security if I did have the power to do so. Not that I ever will.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 22, 2007, 11:02:39 PM
Except that SS will not give your money left to your heirs when you die. Your claim leaves the principal intact to pass on. So, amortizing it is correct, since you will have nothing left at the end of the term.

=================================
The thing is (Duh!) that no one KNOWS when the end of their term will be, and there are no decent plans that allow for any possible term that one might live. So amortizing is "correct" only if you know when you will die. Social Security was never designed to leave an inheritance, and it does not bother me that it doesn't do so.

I would not want to have all my money in SS, but some in SS and more in other vehicles (401k, IRAs and Roth IRAs) makes good sense. And that is exactly what I have done.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 22, 2007, 11:15:40 PM
>>It is truly idiotic to tell me that somehow I ruined the fabulous Juniorbush plan on Social Security.<<

What would be truly idiotic would be to claim that I did. How could you ruin anything? You're inconsequential.

Well, here's hoping you get all your money out of the system. You won't of course, and it will disappear. I'd rather be able to give the money that I spent years paying in to my children or grandchildren. You can throw yours away if you like.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 22, 2007, 11:16:27 PM
I would not want to have all my money in SS, but some in SS and more in other vehicles (401k, IRAs and Roth IRAs) makes good sense. And that is exactly what I have done.

And that was exactly Bush's proposal. Wonder why you were against it.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2007, 07:25:38 AM
AS someone who has paid into Social Security since I was 16 years old, allow me to state that I greatly resent your clever asshole Republican plan to deprive me of the benefits that I was promised as well as all the money that I have contributed over the past 49 years. Not me, nor anyone, was given the option of selecting to contribute this money to any alternative plan.


How do you feel about the clever Democratic plan to allow the Social Security system to die naturally ?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 23, 2007, 10:07:54 AM
How do you feel about the clever Democratic plan to allow the Social Security system to die naturally ?


===================================================================
I believe that that exists in your mind, where Rush planted it.

The Republicans will block all attempts to reform SS if they cannot kill it altogether.

But only if they have the votes.

After 2008, I doubt that this will be the case.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2007, 10:41:38 AM
How do you feel about the clever Democratic plan to allow the Social Security system to die naturally ?


===================================================================
I believe that that exists in your mind, where Rush planted it.

The Republicans will block all attempts to reform SS if they cannot kill it altogether.

But only if they have the votes.

After 2008, I doubt that this will be the case.

It exists in simple mathmatics , where you find it inacessable?

The point at which payout will exceed input is at hand now , and the trends are long term in this direction.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 23, 2007, 02:04:14 PM
Flashback to when we didn't like the French

PARIS (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won surprise backing from the wife of former French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday, together with a pledge to join her on the campaign trail.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 23, 2007, 02:24:10 PM
The point at which payout will exceed input is at hand now , and the trends are long term in this direction.

========================================
No, it is not, and will not be for some time.

All that the government needs to do is (1) stop spending the money that is collected and replacing it with bonds, and (2) at a later dfate, fredeem the bonds.

That will keep it going until the 2040's.

Stop listening to Rush and check out the facts.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2007, 02:38:08 PM
FACTS are Xo, that Politicians (read; NOT just Republicans, and NOT just Bush) have been using SS funds for general revenue items, for DECADES.

Try pulling your rabid Bush hatred out of the hole for a few minutes to actually "check out the facts"
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 23, 2007, 02:44:01 PM
>>"check out the facts"<<

I don't  think the facts really matter to the left anymore. They're to far gone.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2007, 03:23:40 PM
"Facts" as outlined by the vast majority of the fringe left are frequently distortions, and "conclusions" based on those distortions, when not simply based on out & out lying. 

Xo was singing the praises of how he has intelligently placed other $'s in other funds and stock options, besides SS, yet is staunchly against anyone daring to do the same, per Bush's proposal. 

Despite the LIE that Bush was trying to dismantle and destroy SS, the fact that he's even tried to allow some reform, with only a paltry small % of yonger workers being given THE OPTION (choice, the ever famous term the left uses when it's regarding positions they advocate, but when it's a position they oppose, "choice" is thrown out the windown, since they know what's better) to take a small % of their dedicated SS $'s and be allowed to re-invest, is a significant effort on his part to save SS.  Folks like Xo can't have that, (a Republican, and Bush) actually having a hand in fixing SS.  So much the better to maintain their own status quo of greed & selfishness, and when it does collapse, blame Republicans & Bush for not doing anything to have had it fixed.

Then watch how fast taxes are raised on "the rich"
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 23, 2007, 06:55:58 PM
Xo was singing the praises of how he has intelligently placed other $'s in other funds and stock options, besides SS, yet is staunchly against anyone daring to do the same, per Bush's proposal.

========================
You annoying asshole, I did not say this. What I DID say was that it is a good idea for EVERYONE to take advantage of 401k, 403b, IRA and Roth IRA plans. I have never invested in 'stock options', mostly just mutual funds, by the way. I would be against the government taking money from taxpayers and investing it for them in some stock plan, because the yield would be pitiful on any such fund, since yield goes down when investment rises. On the other hand, most people are not wiling to spend enough time studying mutual funds, stocks and bonds to do very well at it. Most small investors actually LOSE money most years, because they follow the hype, buying at the top and selling near the bottom. This would not make for a solvent retired population. Peoiple tend to put their money in crappy scams like real estate flipping, options and currency trading that is the object of latenight TV informercials by scam artists.

There is a great abundance of good info available, much of it for free, but most people will never avail themselves of it. I know this from experience.

It would be best if the schools taught about investing, but I don't see this happening anytime soon. Roth IRAs and 401k's are excellent vehicles, but most people are unaware of what they are or how they work. Most people who have 401k's are locked into rather poorly performing funds of limited  variety, and stuff like bank CD's.

Juniorbush's plan failed because by the time he started spewing about hos geart it would be, the entire nation (except for you) already knew that he was a congenital liar.



 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 23, 2007, 07:55:52 PM
>>he (Bush) was a congenital liar.<<

I'm always amused at this accusation from the Clintonestas. Again, I see it as evidence of their limited intellect. We know Bill Clinton is a congenital liar, he was even praised by the media for his ability to lie. Since the left is incapable of coming up with anything new, we get this "Bush is a liar" business. It's like, " I know you are but what am I?"
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 23, 2007, 08:44:37 PM
The proof of Juniorbush's lies are there for all to see.
And his lies caused people to die, for no good reason.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 23, 2007, 08:48:22 PM
>>The proof of Juniorbush's lies are there for all to see. And his lies caused people to die, for no good reason.<<

See! There it is again!
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2007, 09:12:36 PM
Xo was singing the praises of how he has intelligently placed other $'s in other funds and stock options, besides SS, yet is staunchly against anyone daring to do the same, per Bush's proposal.
========================
You annoying asshole, I did not say this. What I DID say was that it is a good idea for EVERYONE to take advantage of 401k, 403b, IRA and Roth IRA plans.  

LOL...YET, you oppose anyone doing precisely that with the Bush plan.  In the dictionary, that's referred to as a hypocrite


Juniorbush's plan failed because by the time he started spewing about hos geart it would be, the entire nation (except for you) already knew that he was a congenital liar.

It failed because the "congenital liars" in this discussion, are the ususal "sky is falling" left, facilitated by the standard MSM culprits, decrying and LYING how Bush was trying to destroy SS, and rob old folks of their SS $$$'s. 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2007, 10:38:14 PM
The point at which payout will exceed input is at hand now , and the trends are long term in this direction.

========================================
No, it is not, and will not be for some time.

All that the government needs to do is (1) stop spending the money that is collected and replacing it with bonds, and (2) at a later dfate, fredeem the bonds.

That will keep it going until the 2040's.

Stop listening to Rush and check out the facts.

What kind of bonds?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 23, 2007, 11:04:50 PM
The kind of government bonds that the feds replace the overages in SS payments with so they can spend the money on other things.
If you are unaware of these bonds, you have really no knowledge of how SS has been working for the past 50 years.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2007, 11:11:07 PM
The kind of government bonds that the feds replace the overages in SS payments with so they can spend the money on other things.
If you are unaware of these bonds, you have really no knowledge of how SS has been working for the past 50 years.



You want the government to replace government funds with government bonds?

This is very like a farmer going to market with a big load of corn and tradeing it for corn.

Both ways we re talking about government securitys backed by the power of taxation.

You may be of the opinion that the power of taxation has no limit , but I think that the limit is ruin to pass.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 23, 2007, 11:12:18 PM
"With all due respect," she told a crowd in Iowa. "I don't think living in a foreign country between the ages of 6 and 10 is foreign policy experience."

But is living in the White House between the ages of 45 and 53 foreign policy experience?

================================================================
I would say that Hillary has more foreign policy experience than Obama. But Obama seems to have a greater empathy for people in other countries. Hillary has a pro-Israeli knee jerk reaction that Obama does not seem to have. Of course, any NY senator is forced to suck up to Israel just to stay elected. There are a lot of one issue Jewish voters in NY, and Israel is their one issue.

More important is who the next president will turn to for foreign policy expertise. No Democrat will turn to Kissinger (aka ExxonMobil)  or the disastrous NeoCons, and that is a plus.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 23, 2007, 11:15:50 PM
You want the government to replace government funds with government bonds?
===================================================
No, the government alrady does this and has done it for decades. Bonds are placed in the Social Security Trust Fund in es=xchange for tax revenues which have already been collected. They arte not doing this because I want it done, they have always done this.

These bonds can be redeemed for cash, just like the bonds they have sold to the Chinese or T-Bills the government issues regularly.

The government collects more money from Social Security payroll deductions than it pays out and always has. The excess is exchanged for these bonds, which bear interest, just like T-bills.


I have said nothing about the bonds being backed by any power to tax.

The bonds are backed by the US treasury, just like the bills in your pocket, except these bonds bear interest.

They are like the bonds we sell to the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese for money.

As I said, if you don't understand this, your opinions are nothing more than Limbaugh hot air.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2007, 11:22:58 PM
I have said nothing about the bonds being backed by any power to tax.

The bonds are backed by the US treasury, just like the bills in your pocket, except these bonds bear interest.

They are like the bonds we sell to the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese for money.

As I said, if you don't understand this, your opinions are nothing more than Limbaugh hot air.


How is it inconceveable that the US treasury can not be emptyed?
The value of the US treasury itself is the power to tax the people of the US.
If a company sells more bonds than rateing agencys think it can repay , the bonds get lower rateing and sell for less , even bonds that are already sold loose value.

A country can't sell junk bonds?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 24, 2007, 10:06:28 AM
The Treasury is not full, and therefore cannot be emptied. You seem to think it it as a pirate's chest full pof booty or something.
The US government does not send gold or silver to pay it debts or redeem its bonds. At most, it prints more money. That is how Juniorbush is financing his hideously expensive war, by printing more money. This explains why the dollar has dropped in value when compared with the Pound, the Euro and the Yen.

The SS Bonds will never be sold to anyone. They will be redeemed, and interests must be paid on them.

Israel has sold junk bonds for years and years. When they lose money, the people who bought them deduct the loss from their taxes, and they raise the losses from other taxes we all pay. Lots of countries sell low quality bonds, but less successfully, because unlike Israel, many fewer people think they are worthy of charity.


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 24, 2007, 11:01:46 AM
...At most, it prints more money. That is how Juniorbush is financing his hideously expensive war, by printing more money.  ...

SOURCE, if you please
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 24, 2007, 12:43:03 PM
It is bloody obvious.

He isn't getting the money in tax revenues. He is borrowing from the Chinese (which means issuing bonds) or he is printing money.

Or perhaps he is pulling it out of Dick Cheney's ample rectum.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 24, 2007, 01:40:08 PM
It is bloody obvious.

LOL....ahh, the ever famous "obvious" source.  This time, it's even bloody     ::)


He isn't getting the money in tax revenues.

Actually, according to the facts, tax revenues are at an all time high

"With more Americans working and more businesses thriving, our economy has produced record tax revenues. The Treasury Department recently reported that this year's Federal revenues are up eight percent over last year. As a result, our Nation's budget deficit is about one-third lower than it was at this time last year" ... WH 6/07

CBO Federal projections (http://ftp.cbo.gov/publications/bydoctype.cfm?dtype=9)

CBO data reflecting the rapid increase in tax revenues (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7492&sequence=0)

Performance and Accountability report FY 2006 (http://www.rrb.gov/pdf/bfo/par2006.pdf)

Now, do you have some similar "obvious" links that demonstrates that Bush is simply printing more money??


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 24, 2007, 02:23:52 PM
Even supposing revenues are at at "all-time high" , so are expenditures. The Iraq War has cost about a trillion dollars. Taxes can't cover that. The remainder of this vast sum is being paid by printing money.

Explain why the dollar is so far below the Euro, the Pound, the Yen, and the Canadian dollar. I double dog dare you.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on November 24, 2007, 02:37:21 PM
I have advocated for quite sometime the implementation of a balanced budget at the Federal level. Can we do this painlessly? Heck no. But, we should make the difficult choices to allow this to happen, for thesake for the country and future generations. Also, the process of doing this would educate everyone on the painful choices that simply must be made and the necessity for additional revenues as needed to cover add'l services. You want services above and beyond what the Federal Government provides? Then you fund it at the local and/or state level or raise Federal revenues. No free lunch!
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 24, 2007, 03:27:46 PM
Even supposing revenues are at at "all-time high" , so are expenditures.  

Which has ZIP to do with the notion that Bush is "printing more money to fund the war".  And expenditures INCLUDE significant increases in DOMESTIC SOCIAL PROGRAMS...the hallmark of the liberal Democrat agenda.  Point being, while I've presented sources that invalidate the accusation that we're not getting increased tax revenues to fund whatever, you have provided ZIP evidence towards this "Bush printing more money to fund the war" nonsense, outside of your standard "obvious" mo.  Obvious perhaps to blinded rabid Bush haters


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 24, 2007, 04:56:35 PM
You haven't provided doodly-squat.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 24, 2007, 05:21:19 PM
LOL........obviously
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 24, 2007, 06:17:29 PM
Quote
The Iraq War has cost about a trillion dollars.


Link?


 
Quote
The remainder of this vast sum is being paid by printing money.

Link?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 24, 2007, 07:51:13 PM
Once more, explain how it has come to pass that the Euro, the Yen, the Pound and the Canadian dollar have held their value while that of the dollar has plummeted.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 24, 2007, 07:53:04 PM
Once more, Xo, demonstrates how he has zilch evidence of his accusations, outside of trying to get someone else to do it, along with the famous "obviously" tactic of evidence
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 24, 2007, 09:41:31 PM
Once more, explain how it has come to pass that the Euro, the Yen, the Pound and the Canadian dollar have held their value while that of the dollar has plummeted.


You say this as if it were a bad thing.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 25, 2007, 02:52:39 AM
Another Ethics Scandal Rocks the Clintons

The Securities and Exchange Commission has launched an investigation into InfoUSA, a Nebraska company that used corporate funds to fly Hillary Rodham Clinton around the country, and one of only two companies to put Bill Clinton on its payroll after he left the White House.

The firm, a major provider of database-processing services, disclosed little about the nature of the probe in a filing to shareholders released yesterday.


The two-sentence filing said only that InfoUSA received a letter last week "informing the Company that the SEC is conducting an informal investigation . . . and is requesting the voluntary production of documents relating to related party transactions, expense reimbursement, other corporate expenditures and certain trading in the Company's securities."

Calls to an InfoUSA spokesman were not returned. Mark C. Hansen, a Washington lawyer for the company's founder, Vinod Gupta, did not return calls late yesterday. Nor did an official in the SEC's Denver office, where the probe was initiated.

Two sources familiar with the company's troubles suggested that investigators would focus their attention on executives' use of company money to feather their own nests. Gupta has been a major financial supporter of the Clintons since he met the president in the mid-1990s. Gupta and his company donated $1 million to help underwrite a lavish year 2000 New Year's Eve celebration at the White House and on the Mall.

He paid the former president $200,000 to deliver a speech to InfoUSA executives in Papillion, Neb., and signed the former president to a $3.3 million consulting deal. For the past four years, both Clintons have used Gupta's corporate plane, flying to Switzerland, Hawaii, Jamaica and Mexico ? about $900,000 worth of travel, The Post reported in May.

Earlier this year, the company's spending on the Clintons gave rise to a shareholder lawsuit complaining that hiring the former president was a "waste of corporate assets."

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign declined comment last night, referring reporters instead to a Delaware court's ruling in August that allowed the shareholder lawsuit to proceed against InfoUSA on two of the five original allegations. Among the allegations dismissed by the court was one asserting that Clinton's consulting contract was a waste of money.

The chancery court stated in that ruling that while some stock options granted to Bill Clinton may have been approved improperly, the shareholders had failed to prove his consulting arrangement was a waste of money. "Indeed, the company has estimated that the relationship with former President Clinton might be responsible for up to $40 million in sales," the court wrote.

The court, however, said it was possible that shareholders could make a legal issue out of the Clinton flights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102280.html?hpid=topnews
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 25, 2007, 01:45:16 PM
America hates Hillary Clinton and Co


Mrs Clinton might be the frontrunner in the polls, but almost everywhere we went people questioned her candidacy. Many stated bluntly that they did not want a woman in charge. "It's a man's world," said Hugh Laflin, 62, a Kansas truck driver. "Would a Middle East sheikh talk to a lady president?"

A Vietnam veteran in Arizona and a Florida gun-shop owner were among those who made crude jokes about America "going to war every 30 days" under a female president. We never brought up Bill Clinton's sexual dalliances, but many ordinary Americans did. "She couldn't keep her own home together, so how can we trust her to manage America?" asked Micki Martinson, a housewife in Somerset, Pennsylvania.

While we found many people who hated Mrs Clinton, those who loved her were few and far between.

And the frequently expressed nightmare for Democrats is that she will win their party's nomination but lose to a Republican next November when most Americans decide they don't much like her.

"I'm always amazed how we can screw things up," said Steve Ayers, a coffee-shop owner in Hannibal. "Maybe the way we screw it up this time is by nominating Hillary - across the Midwest that would be the only way of unifying Republicans."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/24/wamerica124.xml&page=1
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Henny on November 25, 2007, 01:50:12 PM
America hates Hillary Clinton and Co


Mrs Clinton might be the frontrunner in the polls, but almost everywhere we went people questioned her candidacy. Many stated bluntly that they did not want a woman in charge. "It's a man's world," said Hugh Laflin, 62, a Kansas truck driver. "Would a Middle East sheikh talk to a lady president?"

A Vietnam veteran in Arizona and a Florida gun-shop owner were among those who made crude jokes about America "going to war every 30 days" under a female president. We never brought up Bill Clinton's sexual dalliances, but many ordinary Americans did. "She couldn't keep her own home together, so how can we trust her to manage America?" asked Micki Martinson, a housewife in Somerset, Pennsylvania.

While we found many people who hated Mrs Clinton, those who loved her were few and far between.

And the frequently expressed nightmare for Democrats is that she will win their party's nomination but lose to a Republican next November when most Americans decide they don't much like her.

"I'm always amazed how we can screw things up," said Steve Ayers, a coffee-shop owner in Hannibal. "Maybe the way we screw it up this time is by nominating Hillary - across the Midwest that would be the only way of unifying Republicans."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/24/wamerica124.xml&page=1

This is awful. Let's rate Hillary on her merits (or lack thereof) rather than focusing on her gender.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 25, 2007, 01:59:02 PM
This is awful. Let's rate Hillary on her merits (or lack thereof) rather than focusing on her gender.

Well, there sure is plenty of that..........lack thereof
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: BT on November 25, 2007, 08:53:33 PM
http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/2007/11/24/good-news-on-the-declining-dollar-savings-more/
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 25, 2007, 10:13:36 PM
http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/2007/11/24/good-news-on-the-declining-dollar-savings-more/

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/2007/10/02/579-trillion-american-net-worth/


Nice site BT!
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 26, 2007, 01:03:09 AM
Quote
This is awful. Let's rate Hillary on her merits (or lack thereof) rather than focusing on her gender.

I'm just an honest broker of information. In this case, it was a story showing what voters in middle America really think about Hillary Clinton.

Besides, Hillary played the gender card herself and got blasted for it by other Democrat campaigns.

The people quoted in this article are not against women serving as president, I don't think, just THIS woman. Condi Rice and even Sandra Day O'Conner would made outstanding presidents. Laura Bush would be a better president than Hillary hands down.

Hillary has thrown lamps at Bill Clinton. She went on profanity laced tirades against state employees and staffers using the F word repeatedly. There is even evidence she yelled at the top of her lungs at somebody and called them a J*w B*stard.

Bill Clinton has constantly cheated on this woman. He was never faithful to her during their marriage. There are even stories now that he is continually seeing other women. Why should voters show any type of faithfulness and loyalty to Hillary Clinton, when even her own husband won't?

Fair question?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Henny on November 26, 2007, 06:54:11 AM
Quote
This is awful. Let's rate Hillary on her merits (or lack thereof) rather than focusing on her gender.

I'm just an honest broker of information. In this case, it was a story showing what voters in middle America really think about Hillary Clinton.

Besides, Hillary played the gender card herself and got blasted for it by other Democrat campaigns.

The people quoted in this article are not against women serving as president, I don't think, just THIS woman. Condi Rice and even Sandra Day O'Conner would made outstanding presidents. Laura Bush would be a better president than Hillary hands down.

Hillary has thrown lamps at Bill Clinton. She went on profanity laced tirades against state employees and staffers using the F word repeatedly. There is even evidence she yelled at the top of her lungs at somebody and called them a J*w B*stard.

Bill Clinton has constantly cheated on this woman. He was never faithful to her during their marriage. There are even stories now that he is continually seeing other women. Why should voters show any type of faithfulness and loyalty to Hillary Clinton, when even her own husband won't?

Fair question?

Framing it this way is a bit different than saying that "she will start a war every 30 days" which is a slur that can apply to any woman.

But put it this way - if this were in reverse and a male candidate had a wife who continually cheated on him, went on profanity laced tirades and threw lamps at his wife, would your analysis be any different? Is this "female behavior" or "hurt spouse" behavior?

And another thing - Bill Clinton is a serial adulterer. Should we blame Hillary for him being a complete asshole to his wife?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 26, 2007, 12:58:07 PM
And another thing - Bill Clinton is a serial adulterer. Should we blame Hillary for him being a complete asshole to his wife?

From all accounts and deductive reasoning, we can blame her for being a serial enabler
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 26, 2007, 01:11:26 PM
Laura Bush would be a better president than Hillary hands down.

===========================================
She would put ther entire country on the Dewey Decimal System.
But people in DC would have to be very careful if she was doing the driving.


Really, how can you say this? Laura Bush has been a more polite version of Nancy Reagan. She has no experience in government other than being married to the worst president in history. She has not the talent, the ambition or the interest. You might as well say Dale Unser's wife or Tom Brocaw's wife. You frequently make no sense.

If I say my cat would make a better president than Juniorbush, that is what we call hyperbole. No one would assume that I really meant this. On the other hand, my cat is a feline of peace. But far too easily bribed. She's give away Arkansas for a couple of bags of kitty treats. So I am keeping her out of politics. 

I don't think sexual fidelity has ever been as important to either Clinton as it is to most Americans. If he had betrayed her POLITICALLY, then she would have gone seriously apeshit.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 26, 2007, 01:16:54 PM
>>But people in DC would have to be very careful if she was doing the driving.<<

They've been dodging Teddy Kennedy and his kids for years so I imagine they'll be fine.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 26, 2007, 09:46:01 PM
Hillary loses to all 5 top Republicans, even Huckabee

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.

"The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem," Zogby said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2645320920071126
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 27, 2007, 08:28:58 AM
It is refreshing to see that Richie has decided to be represented by the immature egomaniac Stewie than Satan himself. Possibly more appropriate and less disconcerting as well.

As for Hillary, I see you have taken Rush's marching orders to trash Hillary seriously. The Rushter will be proud of his evil little dittohead.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 27, 2007, 11:35:51 AM
>>It is refreshing to see that Richie has decided to be represented by the immature egomaniac Stewie than Satan himself. Possibly more appropriate and less disconcerting as well.<<

Well, we lost in the semi-final game to Mentor. It was a great season though. There's lots to be proud of. As for your personal attacks, I'm sure it's just your reaction to being slapped around and proven to be such an asshole that brings on these little hissy fits.

>>As for Hillary, I see you have taken Rush's marching orders to trash Hillary seriously. The Rushter will be proud of his evil little dittohead.<<

Hey dipshit, the title of the thread is "Hillary is Wrong For America Thread." Is that to complicated for you to understand? There's another thread out there you might like better. Feel free to fuck off and take your whining over there asshole.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 27, 2007, 01:01:58 PM
What, you think I am actually going to heed your "Obey Me" thingie?

As I said, the Big Rush will be pleased with his infantile dittohead.

I am wondering how many votes against Hillary you have garnered so far.

My guess would be a notably round number...

 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 27, 2007, 01:38:17 PM
As I said, the Big Rush will be pleased with his infantile dittohead.

"people in DC would have to be very careful if she was doing the driving."

How is that any less "infantile", than what Rich said?  Because you said it??
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 27, 2007, 02:37:12 PM
Quote of the Day

"My guess is Senator Obama's going to win Iowa and that he's going to win it by a surprising margin."

-- Newt Gingrich, in an interview with ABC News.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 27, 2007, 06:26:09 PM
Norman Hsu 2

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 25, 2007; Page A01

McALLEN, Tex. -- During the first nine months of this year, Sen. Barack Obama raised just $2,086 for his presidential campaign from people who live in and around this border town of stucco bungalows and weed-covered farm lots, and most candidates raised even less. But Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has already raised more than $640,000 here, and her campaign expects to collect even more.

Clinton's success in this unlikely setting is based almost entirely on her friendship with one man, McAllen developer Alonzo Cantu. A self-made millionaire who once picked grapes on the migratory farm labor circuit, Cantu persuaded more than 300 people in Hidalgo County, where the median household income in 2006 was $28,660, to write checks ranging from $500 to $2,300 to the senator from New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112401359.html

------------------

The Post calls this success. It wreaks of being straw donors. These manipulated people who mostly are very poor and easily duped are donating money and Cantu is probably paying them back. Why the Post would call this fraudulent activity any type of success is beyond me. The behavior stinks to high heaven.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on November 27, 2007, 06:43:24 PM
I wonder what it tells us, if anything, that there have been over 1300 Views of this thread?

Hmmmm.....
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 27, 2007, 06:45:14 PM
That is pretty remarkable.  I think one of my threads had the most amount of actual responses.........IRC
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 27, 2007, 09:57:53 PM
>>What, you think I am actually going to heed your "Obey Me" thingie?<<

Are you a child?

Hillary doesn't need me to turn Americans off. She's doing very well on her own.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: yellow_crane on November 27, 2007, 10:20:25 PM
Norman Hsu 2

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 25, 2007; Page A01

McALLEN, Tex. -- During the first nine months of this year, Sen. Barack Obama raised just $2,086 for his presidential campaign from people who live in and around this border town of stucco bungalows and weed-covered farm lots, and most candidates raised even less. But Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has already raised more than $640,000 here, and her campaign expects to collect even more.

Clinton's success in this unlikely setting is based almost entirely on her friendship with one man, McAllen developer Alonzo Cantu. A self-made millionaire who once picked grapes on the migratory farm labor circuit, Cantu persuaded more than 300 people in Hidalgo County, where the median household income in 2006 was $28,660, to write checks ranging from $500 to $2,300 to the senator from New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112401359.html

------------------

The Post calls this success. It wreaks of being straw donors. These manipulated people who mostly are very poor and easily duped are donating money and Cantu is probably paying them back. Why the Post would call this fraudulent activity any type of success is beyond me. The behavior stinks to high heaven.




" . . . , Cantu persuaded more that 300 people in Hidalgo County, where the median household income in 2006 was $28,660, to write checks ranging from $500 to $2,300 to the senator from New York."



This is reminiscent of Jorge Mas Canosa and his tactics in Miami--amassing poltical funds via the big squeeze.

Come to think of it, who out there running is above it?

I will say this--those poor smucks who were sqeezed will never see a return on their money, should she win.

Unless they were a corporation in drag.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 27, 2007, 11:42:51 PM
I am betting that if Obama gets the nomination, Richipoo will be crowing about how he, too is a fraud, possibly not a Black man at all, and telling us all how we should all vote for Giulani or Huckabee or Romney so he can get a tax refund or something.

I am hardly Hillary's biggest fan, but she is mostly being raked over the coals because she is an assertive (read "uppity") woman.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Cynthia on November 27, 2007, 11:56:29 PM
Hillary Clinton is going to probably be president. She's tried for decades to be on top. She will give it her cookie baking try. But it won't work. She's too left and self serving. This country can't afford to have hand me downs at this point.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on November 28, 2007, 11:24:27 AM
Hillary Clinton is going to probably be president. She's tried for decades to be on top. She will give it her cookie baking try. But it won't work. She's too left and self serving. This country can't afford to have hand me downs at this point.

Was she on top? At dinner the other day, Bill, told me she didn't like being on top... :D

Sorry....seriously, I said over two years ago, she would probbly be the next President. Right or wrong, the Iraqi "thang" has sealed the doom for anyone with an "R" associated with his name. It will then be interesting to see how she captains the ship.

What, if anything, can be learned from Bill Clinton's policies? Are "his" hers?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 28, 2007, 11:33:20 AM
Apparently Xo couldn't even rationalize how his comments regarding Laura Bush's driving were any less "infantile" than Rich's Kennedy driving comeback.  So often here, silence does speak volumes
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 28, 2007, 12:16:37 PM
>>I am betting that if Obama gets the nomination, Richipoo will be crowing about how he, too is a fraud,...<<

I think I've stated my opinion on B. Hussein Obama. In case you missed it, I consider him an empty suit. A junior Senator with even less experience than Mrs. Clinton. How long has he been in the Senate? Two years? There are candidates in the democrat primary who are far more qualified than either of these two clowns.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 28, 2007, 02:02:27 PM
Quote
Right or wrong, the Iraqi "thang" has sealed the doom for anyone with an "R" associated with his name.


I don't think that's the case anymore, Prof. Sirs posted up an article the other day about how the defeatist Dems are now changing their tone about Iraq due to all of the success there. And there is now a Pew poll out showing that support for the war is now at 48 to 48%. The success of the surge seemingly has taken Iraq off the table as a major campaign hurdle for the GOP. They need to put the Dems in a box over it. The mainstream media, amazingly, is now reporting the success in Iraq.

Hillary loses to all 5 top Republicans according to Zogby.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 28, 2007, 02:11:03 PM
Huckabee Passes Romney in Iowa

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey in Iowa caucus finds Mike Huckabee leading among Republicans with 28% support, followed by Mitt Romney with 25% support and everyone else far behind. Rudy Giuliani comes in third with just 12% and Fred Thompson is the only other candidate in double digits at 11%.

Key factor: Huckabee now gets 48% of the Evangelical Christian vote -- more than all the other candidates combined.

------------

This is great news. I always liked Huck better than Romney. Romney just seems like a phony with all of that flip flopping.

Huck is a genuine social conservative. I'm really not that concerned with his alleged liberal positions on fiscal issues. So he raised a fee or two in Arkansas. So he supports some trivial social programs. He also cut taxes many times and balanced the budget as govenor. Some of his liberal views on fiscal issues might attract the support of African Americans.

With Rudy's conservatism on fiscal issues and strong support against radical Jihad, and Huck's conservatism on social issues and the strong support of evangelicals that he brings with him, this seems like it would make the strongest ticket on the Republican side. Rudy/Huck.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on November 28, 2007, 02:29:58 PM
Quote
Right or wrong, the Iraqi "thang" has sealed the doom for anyone with an "R" associated with his name.


I don't think that's the case anymore, Prof. Sirs posted up an article the other day about how the defeatist Dems are now changing their tone about Iraq due to all of the success there. And there is now a Pew poll out showing that support for the war is now at 48 to 48%. The success of the surge seemingly has taken Iraq off the table as a major campaign hurdle for the GOP. They need to put the Dems in a box over it. The mainstream media, amazingly, is now reporting the success in Iraq.

Hillary loses to all 5 top Republicans according to Zogby.

I sincerely hope you are right, R.R. I do not want to see Hillary there, either...sigh.

My favorite is Huckabee. I would really like to see a fiscal and social conservative there, but....
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 28, 2007, 02:41:50 PM
My favorite is Huckabee. I would really like to see a fiscal and social conservative there, but....

Ditto    :)
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 28, 2007, 03:02:03 PM
The Republicans DESERVE to lose bigtime. The Iraq war was a bad idea, poorly executed and hugely detrimental to our country in every way.

Politics is the art of the possible. For a man, an abortion is only a hypothetical issue, like a penis ring for a woman, since men can't have abortions. If you want to be governor of Massachussetts, you will never get there unless you have some liberal ideas. So Romney has changed his mind on a couple of things once, so what?

Huckabee has lost over 100 pounds and is a cheerful fellow. He is certainly less pretentious than the others, and has many many fewer skeletons in his closet than Giulani, and I suspect, Thompson. On the other hand, he claims that he "doesn't believe in evolution". How lame is that? Do we really need another president who head is still in the XIX Century?

We need someone more financial conservative than Juniorbush, which is like saying we need someone who smells better than a two week old rotting corpse.

Being as all attempts to legislate morality, from Girolamo Savanarola to the XVIII Amendment  and beyond have ended in disaster, I am all for people settling for learning how to tolerate one another's morality rather than trying to enforce their own.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 28, 2007, 03:58:26 PM
For a man, an abortion is only a hypothetical issue, like a penis ring for a woman, since men can't have abortions.

Yeah, men aren't involved in pregnancy at all.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 28, 2007, 05:57:24 PM
For a man, an abortion is only a hypothetical issue, like a penis ring for a woman, since men can't have abortions.


Yeah, men aren't involved in pregnancy at all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men do not get pregnant. Men cannot have abortions. I doubt that even you can cite one instance of a truly pregnant man. There was Arnold Schwartzenegger, but that was actually in a movie, and therefore doesn't count.


It's like shaving one's face. Women do not grow whiskers, women do not normally shave their faces.
=============================================================================
Much of the time, men do things that can cause pregnancies without regard to actually causeing them.

When women get pregnant, some men, even though they had anything to do with a pregnancy, think that somehow it belongs to them.

And I consider that weird. I doubt that you will convince me that it's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After all, women have never tried to abolish razors or shave cream.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 28, 2007, 06:05:27 PM
Do you ever read your own stuff Xo?  Is it your goal to be completely obtuse to any points being made that aren't of the fringe left variety?       :-\
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 28, 2007, 06:17:47 PM
How is me saying that if some woman is pregnant, that is none of my business, and none of yours either, in any way "fringe or leftist"?

How?

How is saying that a person has an absolute right over their own body leftist?

How?

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 28, 2007, 06:23:15 PM
How is me saying that if some woman is pregnant, that is none of my business, and none of yours either, in any way "fringe or leftist"?

Because you went on some inane tangent about men not being able to get pregnant, while Ami was simply trying to focus that it takes 2 to tango.  In order not to deal with that reality, you started argueing a completely disconnected reality


How is saying that a person has an absolute right over their own body leftist?

When that person flagrantly disregards the absolute right that the innocent child should have to their own body

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 28, 2007, 06:33:48 PM
What innocent child?

You must be one of those silly people who cannot tell the difference between an actual child and a woman's fat tummy. There seems to be a lot of this going round. It seems to be a bit like a cross between the bird flu and mass delusion. It is contagious and causes confusion.

This is not a difficult distinction to make. Count the feet and divide by two.

If the answer is ONE, you have a pregnant woman, and her pregnancy is no one's business but her own.

If the answer is two then, you have a child, who is innocent only when this issue is concerned.

The Holy Mother Church claims that all human beings are corrupt and born in sin. Corrupt from the reek of the daper to the stench of the tomb.

Only Jesus and Holy Mary are innocent.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on November 28, 2007, 06:51:14 PM
What innocent child?

The one produced by BOTH the man & woman, that happens to be being carried by the woman.  The one who's been given NO choice in living or dying.  The body that child apparently has no rights to.  Contrary to delusional leftist opinion, not every unborn child is a 3day old set of disorganized cells in some woman's abdomen.


You must be one of those silly people who cannot tell the difference between an actual child and a woman's fat tummy.  

Ahh, so Einstein here is going to now explain how is it that someone who's murdered a pregnant woman, is most often charged with 2 homicides.  Killed the woman's alter ego?  Her makebelieve childhood friend perhaps??   ::)


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 28, 2007, 09:14:45 PM
Men do not get pregnant.

I've never seen documented evidence that a woman has gotten pregnant without a man involved.

Perhaps you can point to said evidence?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Cynthia on November 29, 2007, 12:36:59 AM
Hillary Clinton is going to probably be president. She's tried for decades to be on top. She will give it her cookie baking try. But it won't work. She's too left and self serving. This country can't afford to have hand me downs at this point.

Was she on top? At dinner the other day, Bill, told me she didn't like being on top... :D

Sorry....seriously, I said over two years ago, she would probbly be the next President. Right or wrong, the Iraqi "thang" has sealed the doom for anyone with an "R" associated with his name. It will then be interesting to see how she captains the ship.

What, if anything, can be learned from Bill Clinton's policies? Are "his" hers?


LOL. You picked up on that one pretty top on quickly, Professor! ..as it was meant to be. ha!

Your post is 'spot on', as well. Hillary is only interested in power, nothing else. She has wanted this gig for too many hard crusted years.....
 
Besides, why the hell would we want Hillary in office when a woman would fit the 'Bill' so much better.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 29, 2007, 01:45:02 AM
Barack Obama Chides Bill Clinton For Flip-Flop on Iraq

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Fox News

MUSCATINE, Iowa -- Barack Obama on Wednesday laughed off comments by former President Bill Clinton, who a day earlier said that he "opposed (war in) Iraq from the beginning."

"If he did, you know, I don't think most of us have heard about it. But I'll let you check with him as to where he made these, made these statements," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a conference call with reporters.

Asked if Obama thought Clinton's position had any bearing on his wife, Hillary Clinton's position on the Iraq war, Obama responded that all he can say is he actually did oppose the war from the start.

"I spoke out against it before the vote to authorize, spoke out against it after the vote to authorize. Senator Clinton made a different decision. My understanding is Senator Clinton and President Clinton were talking frequently so you'll have to, you know, talk to them about whether ... they discussed this issue at all," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313309,00.html


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on November 29, 2007, 10:29:49 AM
Hillary Clinton is going to probably be president. She's tried for decades to be on top. She will give it her cookie baking try. But it won't work. She's too left and self serving. This country can't afford to have hand me downs at this point.

Was she on top? At dinner the other day, Bill, told me she didn't like being on top... :D

Sorry....seriously, I said over two years ago, she would probbly be the next President. Right or wrong, the Iraqi "thang" has sealed the doom for anyone with an "R" associated with his name. It will then be interesting to see how she captains the ship.

What, if anything, can be learned from Bill Clinton's policies? Are "his" hers?


LOL. You picked up on that one pretty top on quickly, Professor! ..as it was meant to be. ha!

Your post is 'spot on', as well. Hillary is only interested in power, nothing else. She has wanted this gig for too many hard crusted years.....
 
Besides, why the hell would we want Hillary in office when a woman would fit the 'Bill' so much better.


Well, many women apparently have "fit the Bill", but probably not Clinton for a while at least.  ;D

Again, seriously, can a comparsion by made of Bill Clinton's positions on major issues and Hillary's in order to ascertain what a potential Hillary presidency will look like, issues-wise? Are the advisors she is currently listening to the same or similar in political outlook to Bill's when he was in office?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 29, 2007, 03:10:06 PM
>>I've never seen documented evidence that a woman has gotten pregnant without a man involved. Perhaps you can point to said evidence?<<

Well ... there was this woman named Mary ...  ;)
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 29, 2007, 03:27:40 PM
Well ... there was this woman named Mary ...  ;)

That's only documentation if you believe that the Bible is literal truth. Since it hardly qualifies on that score, I'd need to see some corroborating evidence.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 29, 2007, 09:14:09 PM
Well ... there was this woman named Mary ...  Wink

That's only documentation if you believe that the Bible is literal truth. Since it hardly qualifies on that score, I'd need to see some corroborating evidence.
==============================================
Wouldn't we all. But I am afraid that you are going to remain disappointed.

I am not sure of why the virgin birth is such a big deal. If God is all powerful, he could conjure his DNA into a baby without the alleged insemination by angel (or was it a pigeon?) bit, or out of nothing, as in  *Poof!* "Mary and Joseph, here is my Son!"

I am also unconvinced that (a) any sane Roman ruler would demand that people return to the place of their birth to pay taxes. How much sense does that make? Travel was difficult. It was impossible to ID people in any reasonable way until modern times, with fingerprints, photographs and such. There seems to be no mention that this forcing people to travel to pay taxes was in any way a Roman custom. Of course, there were some obscure prophesies that said that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem of the House of David, and everyone knew that Jesus grew up in Nazareth (wherever that was).

(b) the bit in which evil old Herod decides to kill all the male children is not mentioned in any other history of the times. I would imagine that a dastardly act such as this would have been widely known and disseminated. But it wasn't. On the other hand, it sorta mirrors the nastiest and last of the plagues of Egypt in Moses' time. I suppose people liked reruns back then as they do now.


The NT seems to insist a lot on things that were rather silly and inconsequential, and glides right over a lot that seems conspicuous by its absence.
 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 29, 2007, 10:40:09 PM
So, you agree that men are involved with pregnancy?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 29, 2007, 11:18:12 PM
What innocent child?

You must be one of those silly people who cannot tell the difference between an actual child and a woman's fat tummy. There seems to be a lot of this going round. It seems to be a bit like a cross between the bird flu and mass delusion. It is contagious and causes confusion.

This is not a difficult distinction to make. Count the feet and divide by two.

If the answer is ONE, you have a pregnant woman, and her pregnancy is no one's business but her own.

If the answer is two then, you have a child, who is innocent only when this issue is concerned.

The Holy Mother Church claims that all human beings are corrupt and born in sin. Corrupt from the reek of the daper to the stench of the tomb.

Only Jesus and Holy Mary are innocent.



If a pregnanacy is far enough along for "a woman's fat tummy" to be apparent , then the baby has feet.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 29, 2007, 11:34:33 PM
I am talking about feet you can count. If there are fetus feet inside, those do not count.

Men are PHYSICALLY involved in making women pregnant, but men themselves do not have fetuses within them, so it is not even close to the same thing. A man is never inconvenienced with a bloated tummy, stretch marks, hormonal mood swings and all the rest of it. I am all for people reproducing themselves as they wish. I do not presume to tell a woman that she cannot have a child, nor do I consider it any of my business to tell her she must have one. It is strictly her decision entirely. I can't see why anyone could logically see it any other way. For those men who want to reproduce, there are certainly enough women for them to bond with.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Cynthia on November 29, 2007, 11:35:27 PM
"Again, seriously, can a comparsion by made of Bill Clinton's positions on major issues and Hillary's in order to ascertain what a potential Hillary presidency will look like, issues-wise? Are the advisors she is currently listening to the same or similar in political outlook to Bill's when he was in office?"

While Bill Clinton is apparently a brilliant male in terms of brains, it is fact that Hillary took the controls and exercised her own policies in office. (health care fiasco).... She's often times been referred to as the smarter of the two. Who know? Does she even "need" advisors?

As for policy, she will no doubt have her own feminist/left agenda, but Bill will charm his way into the minds and hearts of old liberals and old women who need a boost.

To compare on major issues is to look at the track record of both horses. That thread of advice "givers" and "takers" will, no doubt, always remain similar. We are possibly looking at another four years of Clinton....period.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 29, 2007, 11:50:18 PM
I am talking about feet you can count. If there are fetus feet inside, those do not count.

Men are PHYSICALLY involved in making women pregnant, but men themselves do not have fetuses within them, so it is not even close to the same thing. A man is never inconvenienced with a bloated tummy, stretch marks, hormonal mood swings and all the rest of it. I am all for people reproducing themselves as they wish. I do not presume to tell a woman that she cannot have a child, nor do I consider it any of my business to tell her she must have one. It is strictly her decision entirely. I can't see why anyone could logically see it any other way. For those men who want to reproduce, there are certainly enough women for them to bond with.



The Fetus does not count , it's feet do not count nor does its heart or brain , because it is all out of sight.
It's dreams do not count , its pain does not count , it is not heard or seen , so it is not counted.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 30, 2007, 12:01:18 AM
I think that a Hillary presidency would likely be a rerun of a Bill Clinton presidency, which was certainly far better for nearly everyone than a Juniorbush Presidency or and Olebush Presidency. She isn't my favorite, but I don't see where any of the GOP candidates would be better, and some would notably be worse. Giulani would stress fear of the evil Arabs, and has already surrounded himself with Neocons. McCain has no chance, he has whored himself out to the Juniorbushies too much, and is far too warlike, although vastly preferable to Giulani. Huckabee is an optimist, and might inspire millions to lose weight, but I don't think that Chuck Norris would actually work as an immigration policy, and the guy is a preacher. Fred Thompson won't make it, as he has no serious experience and not enough hair, although his acting talents are formidable.

I am not sure what to make of Romney and therefore what a Romney presidency might be like. I would hope it would not be overly Mormon. He is probably the best hope the GOP has to have a successful president, assuming he could win, which seems doubtful.

The main advantage of Hillary being president would be that it would drive Rush and his dittoheads up the wall, which, of course, is what they deserve. Of course, Hillary would have Bill, who is quite adept both at local and international politics, and quite skilled at building coalitions when required.

I think we should elect the person who would make the best president, not necessarily the best candidate. A good candidate can be a perfectly ghastly president.
 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on November 30, 2007, 12:07:25 AM
" The main advantage of Hillary being president would be that it would drive Rush and his dittoheads up the wall, ..."


No , it would make Rush Limbaugh and Ann Colter rich ,....er...
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Cynthia on November 30, 2007, 12:15:02 AM
Where do I begin? Oy!

"The main advantage of Hillary being president would be that it would drive Rush and his dittoheads up the wall, which, of course, is what they deserve. "

That's the best advantage? Even hard core Republicans don't always agree with the Rush to Judgement Rush. COMe on!
He's a radio Jock. NOt a Guru, even though he's easy to target as the poster boy.....bullseye target for the left to attack.


"Of course, Hillary would have Bill, who is quite adept both at local and international politics, and quite skilled at building coalitions when required."

So, you are saying that Bill will lead us again? Damn. He had no head's up when it comes to alerts to terrorism. His head was up but not that............never mind.

Come on. There is more to a candidate than personality or mistakes made in the run. Standards have to be held high. The Bushman might have made a hell of a lot of mistakes, but the Republicans still have more to offer the country than the liberal tax and spend zone maniacs. We'll just see how the health care issues is solved. We'll just see how safe we are when Hillary runs the office oval or square...We'll just see how we have to clean up after her mess. Let's just hope she doesn't throw cookies at every young male intern that approaches her "office" rights.


YOU Too can be  A TUBE.....The left is sloppy. Bush is an idiot. yes, ...................but the Clintons are just plain....

dysfunctional.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 30, 2007, 01:20:07 AM
Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants:

Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers

By Michelle Malkin  ?  November 29, 2007 12:47 AM Update: New - Muslim questioner was a former CAIR intern.

Update: CNN on the defensive. CNN?s Glenn Beck comments here.

Update: The foliage keeps blooming?a questioner working with Dick Durbin?s staff and a Richardson supporter masquerading as a Paulbot? and a former Jane Harman intern?and the ?Blind Black Republican satirist? (a milder species, but still, all in the same family).

Update: Watch video of the disappearing plants. CNN cuts out Keith Kerr from the debate rebroadcast. Keep pulling those weeds?

***
Welcome to Horticulture Journalism 101. (Keep scrolling down for new updates to this handy CNN/YouTube illustrated plant guide.)


Concerned Young Undecided Person ?Journey? = John Edwards supporter ?Journey?

***


Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone

***


Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson

***


Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell? activist Keith H. Kerr

***
The best thing about Republicans agreeing to do the CNN/YouTube debate is that it created yet another invaluable opportunity to expose CNN?s abject incompetence.

Retired Brig. Gen./gays in the military lobbyist/Hillary-Kerry supporter Keith H. Kerr wasn?t the only plant at the CNN/YouTube debate. The plant uncovering is in full-swing over at Free Republic.

Example: ?Journey,? a.k.a. ?Paperserenade,? the girl who asked an abortion question, is a declared John Edwards supporter.

You couldn?t tell from the video that CNN aired, where she?s wearing a plain shirt:




But if you click through on her YouTube profile, you see her latest video in response to the candidates? answers. And she?s prominently wearing?her John Edwards ?08 t-shirt:



In case CNN?s eyesight is impaired:



How, you ask, should CNN have known? Well, on her YouTube profile, this woman links to her personal blog, where her user profile makes her political leanings crystal clear:



Turns out ?Journey/? ?paperserenade? is also a big slobbering Anderson Cooper fan. She posted this video a month ago exulting that ?Anderson Cooper said my name!? during a CNN viewer comment segment. She wrote, ?Horrible video, but at least I?ve got some type of recording of this event that has made my week!:?



On her blog, she posted an Anderson Cooper segment from VH1 with the following comment: ?Anderson officially had the Best Week Ever for the week of 10/26/07, and looked more delicious than a pic-i-nic basket while doing so. And lookie, I found the video and uploaded it to Youtube for y?all. :D?

?Delicious!?

***

Update: And another one?Brian McMurphy at SixMeatBuffet (hat tip See-Dubya) notes that David Cercone, the Pompano Beach, Florida, man who asked the question about Log Cabin Republicans, is a declared Obama supporter.



His video:



Hillary must have shared a bag of her fertilizer with CNN. And yeah, it stinks:



***

Update: And another one?via The Autopsy?The lead toy questioner, LeeAnn Anderson, who appears to be an ordinary mom concerned about her two children, whom she includes in her video, is a prominent Pittsburgh union activist?and aide to Leo Gerard, President of the American Steel Workers Union/John Edwards supporter.

Her video:



If you go to the United Steelworkers YouTube page, you?ll see that Ms. Anderson?s video question is the featured video?along with a John Edwards ?08 icon (click for full-size):





***

?Constructive incompetence? or ?convenient ineptitude??

You decide.

***

More: ?Total crap.? Can?t argue with that.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Religious Dick on November 30, 2007, 09:03:56 AM
Presented without comment....

(http://www.moonbattery.com/shrillary_nutcracker.gif)

http://www.homeandbeyond.com/prod-ds-b000ub0004.html
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on November 30, 2007, 01:00:16 PM
Bill Clinton Lied

By Glenn Kessler and Anne Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 29, 2007; Page A08

A former senior aide to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disputed Bill Clinton's statement this week that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning," saying that the former president was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion.

Clinton's comments in Iowa on Tuesday went far beyond more nuanced remarks he made about the conflict in 2003. But the disclosure of his presence in briefings by Rice -- and his private expressions of support -- may add to the headaches that the former president has given his wife's campaign in recent weeks.

Hillary Mann Leverett, at the time the White House director of Persian Gulf affairs, said that Rice and Elliott Abrams, then National Security Council senior director for Near East and North African affairs, met with Clinton several times in the months before the March 2003 invasion to answer any questions he might have. She said she was "shocked" and "astonished" by Clinton's remarks this week, made to voters in Iowa, because she has distinct memories of Abrams "coming back from those meetings literally glowing and boasting that 'we have Clinton's support.' "

Leverett, a former career foreign service officer who said she is not involved in any presidential campaign, said the incident affected her because of her own doubts about the wisdom of an attack. "To hear President Clinton was supportive really silenced whatever questions I had," she recalled. Leverett, who worked in the same office as Abrams at the time, said Rice and Abrams "made it a high priority" to get Clinton's support, meeting with him at least twice. Abrams was tasked to answer Clinton's questions and "took the responsibility very seriously," Leverett said. "Elliott was then very focused on making sure that we followed up on Clinton's questions to keep Clinton happy and on board."

One of the specific questions Clinton asked, Leverett recalled hearing, is what the United States would do if Iraq's "military used chemical weapons against our Gulf allies."

She recalled being told that Clinton made it clear to Rice and Abrams that they could count on his public support for the war if it was necessary.

Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said that "she is not going to comment on past conversations with former presidents in either capacity as [national security adviser] or secretary of state." White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on behalf of Abrams.

Leverett added that the White House at the time had little concern about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's support for the war and "they discussed inviting her to various White House events as a sort of reward for her support."

Leverett and her husband, Flynt Leverett, also a former top Rice aide, have become critics of the Bush administration since they left the White House, accusing the administration of trying to censor their writing because of their criticism of Iran policy.

In an interview last night, Sen. Clinton said of her husband's comments, "There was nothing new in what he said."

An adviser to the former president said that, while Clinton recalled meeting with Rice before the war, it was strictly an informational session about technical war planning, not the merits of an invasion. Clinton did not, the adviser said, believe he was being solicited for an opinion about whether to invade.

Although Bill Clinton is still viewed as a political asset, particularly in the hotly contested Democratic primaries, he has also repeatedly made remarks that have put him out of step with his wife's message and irritated Clinton campaign aides who have been forced to address them.

After the Democratic debate in Philadelphia last month, the former president insinuated that his wife's Democratic rivals were mounting attacks on her akin to the "Swift boat" campaign Republicans launched against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 race -- an explosive charge that prompted some of Hillary Clinton's rivals to lash out more aggressively than ever.

The following week, Clinton strayed off-message again, continuing to reinforce the theme that other candidates were piling on his wife after her strategists had decided to drop the issue. In a speech on Nov. 12, Clinton complained about the "boys" in the campaign "getting tough" on his wife. It was then that Clinton campaign aides began quietly distancing themselves from the former president, saying his comments were not part of their coordinated effort.

Jay Carson, a longtime Clinton spokesman who recently moved to Sen. Clinton's campaign, quickly sought to put the former president's comments on Iraq into context -- arguing that Clinton had always had concerns about attacking Baghdad.

"This administration assured us that Saddam Hussein had [weapons of mass destruction], that the war was over 2,500 casualties ago and that the insurgency was in its last throes," he said. "Their claim that President Clinton privately offered his support for the war should be viewed with the same level of credibility."

And the campaign made clear that Clinton would remain his wife's chief, and best, surrogate.

"President Clinton is a huge asset to the campaign. Everywhere he goes, he draws large, supportive crowds," said Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802485.html?nav=rss_print/asection
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 30, 2007, 01:11:17 PM
>>That's only documentation if you believe that the Bible is literal truth. Since it hardly qualifies on that score, I'd need to see some corroborating evidence.<<

Something like 2 billion people on this planet feel the Bible qualifies as literal truth. Only a small minority puff out their chests in  impotent rage and claim otherwise.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2007, 01:34:33 PM
Something like 2 billion people on this planet feel the Bible qualifies as literal truth. Only a small minority puff out their chests in  impotent rage and claim otherwise.

Just because 2 billion (which is a minority itself...) think it's the literal truth - which I dispute anyway, most of those 2 billion do not consider it "literal truth" - does not overcome the many inaccuracies in the book.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 30, 2007, 04:30:55 PM
>>Just because 2 billion (which is a minority itself...) think it's the literal truth - which I dispute anyway, most of those 2 billion do not consider it "literal truth" - does not overcome the many inaccuracies in the book.<<

I see, because you say so, it must be so.

 ::)

And because I say so, you're wrong.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Henny on November 30, 2007, 05:57:40 PM
>>That's only documentation if you believe that the Bible is literal truth. Since it hardly qualifies on that score, I'd need to see some corroborating evidence.<<

Something like 2 billion people on this planet feel the Bible qualifies as literal truth. Only a small minority puff out their chests in  impotent rage and claim otherwise.

Rich, since when do Catholics take the Bible as the literal truth? Surely you were taught the same things I was in Catholic school.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 30, 2007, 06:00:30 PM
>>Rich, since when do Catholics take the Bible as the literal truth? Surely you were taught the same things I was in Catholic school.<<

Please provide evidence otherwise.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 30, 2007, 06:22:29 PM
The Holy Mother Church certainly does NOT believe that all the Bible is literal truth.

The Song of Songs, for example, is NOT a love poem written by Solomon for his lover. It is, and the Church will corraborate me on this, a love poem written by JESUS for the HOLY MOTHER CHURCH.

That, gentlemen, is far from literal.

"Thy breasts are as two young roes that are twins..."

O Richie, Puh LEESE.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2007, 06:22:58 PM
I see, because you say so, it must be so.

Nope. Because many of those 2 billion agree that the bible is not to be taken literally. Got nothing to do with just little ol' me. See Henny's post earlier for but one example (the Roman Catholic Church - and therefore those who are adherents to that belief).
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 30, 2007, 06:30:13 PM
>>Nope. Because many of those 2 billion agree that the bible is not to be taken literally.<<

I see, so you can provide me with Church doctrine, Catholic or Protestant that disputes the virgin birth.

 ::)

I'll wait.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2007, 07:25:18 PM
I see, so you can provide me with Church doctrine, Catholic or Protestant that disputes the virgin birth.

 ::)

I'll wait.

Don't need to. As I said, since the bible is not literal truth, we cannot rely on it as evidence. More corroborating evidence is needed, which you have yet to provide.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Henny on November 30, 2007, 08:26:32 PM
>>Rich, since when do Catholics take the Bible as the literal truth? Surely you were taught the same things I was in Catholic school.<<

Please provide evidence otherwise.

Well, besides I can't believe that we're having this discussion...

Dei Verbum.

Here's a summary: http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article2.html

Here's the whole thing: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 30, 2007, 09:12:58 PM
>>Well, besides I can't believe that we're having this discussion...<<

Neither can I, but I think we're just splitting hairs here. I was disccussing the virgin birth. I take it you would agree that that little item is to be taken literally?

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Richpo64 on November 30, 2007, 09:13:50 PM
>>More corroborating evidence is needed, which you have yet to provide.<<

Okay ...

<chuckle>
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 01, 2007, 01:05:58 AM
McCain promises to beat Hillary Clinton 'like a drum'


Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday that if he wins the party's nomination he will beat Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton "like a drum."

Asked if there were any Republicans he hoped to beat in the same fashion, the Arizona senator laughed and said, "I hope all of them."

"As your nominee, as a Republican nominee, I will be very respectful of Sen. Clinton. But I will beat her and I will beat her like a drum," he told about 100 supporters outside a small restaurant. "There are fundamental differences between us in philosophy."

McCain told reporters after the speech he had made a similar declaration in the past.

"That's a line I used frankly in 2000 when I said I could beat Al Gore like a drum. It got good coverage then," he said.

A Clinton campaign spokesman did not want to comment Friday.

At a stop later Friday in Seabrook Island, about 25 miles south of Charleston, McCain said he was better suited to take on Clinton than Rudy Giuliani because he has "a record of being conservative."

While McCain was specifically harsh on Clinton, he said he hoped his own Republican rivals could be more respectful of one another.

"I also understand that sometimes a difference in policy can spill over into, maybe unnecessary personalizing," he said.

"Mayor Giuliani and I disagree on a line item veto. I think you should have a line item veto as president of the United States which 43 governors have. He disagrees," McCain said. "The fact that I point out that disagreement doesn't mean anything personal."

During Wednesday's debate, Giuliani and Mitt Romney were involved in a testy personal exchange over immigration. It started when Romney said Giuliani had retained New York's status as a sanctuary city while he was mayor. Giuliani, the front-runner in national polls, accused Romney of employing illegal immigrants at his home.

Earlier, McCain walked through a neighborhood of modest brick homes in a subdivision where many of the residents are retirees. He didn't have to knock on any doors - dozens of people gathered at the end of their driveways to meet him.

Jack Hobgood, 79, said he has liked McCain for years, ever since he saw him on television sitting on a congressional panel.

His neighbor, 68-year-old John Foss, also retired, was noncommittal about McCain.

"He's a good possible candidate," said Foss, who moved here 14 years ago from New York. "I haven't made up my mind yet. You have about seven candidates running. Let's weed them out and go from there."

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/APP/711300749&template=apart
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Henny on December 01, 2007, 10:22:17 AM
>>Well, besides I can't believe that we're having this discussion...<<

Neither can I, but I think we're just splitting hairs here. I was disccussing the virgin birth. I take it you would agree that that little item is to be taken literally?



Of course.

I was thinking more Old Testament. Sorry, I misunderstood.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 01, 2007, 11:22:35 AM
Iraq is fading as an Issue

"Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war... The apparent shift in voter intensity about Iraq, also captured in some polls, shows how dramatically the political context of the war debate has changed from last summer. Democrats believed then that mounting public pressure would soon force Republicans to take flight from Bush, allowing Congress to impose a more rapid end to the war on an unwilling administration. It has not happened yet, and if anything it Democrats are facing a stiffer challenge at year?s end than they had at the beginning to frame the public debate on their terms."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7109.html
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 01, 2007, 08:08:45 PM
Clinton Booed at Heartland Forum

December 01, 2007 6:04 PM

ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: A day after dealing with a hostage crisis, Sen. Hillary Clinton faced a tough crowd in Iowa. Clinton did not receive the warmest of welcomes at the Heartland Form in Des Moines, IA, and although the hostage scare was mentioned, the announcer brushed it off quickly in order to get to questions. Clinton, who was forced to call in to speak to the crowd of thousands because of weather difficulties, took questions on topics from healthcare to illegal immigration.

The senator was asked if she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, "I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."

Soft booing could be heard from the audience. The man repeated his question about the first 100 days. Clinton replied, "Well you've to get congress to pass the legislation and the president to do as much as possible, which I will do." Louder boos came from the crowd.

Clinton was thanked for her appearance and the moderator expressed sympathies for the ordeal she suffered yesterday. Clinton thanked the moderator. More booing could be heard from the crowd again after she hung up the line.

Barring any travel troubles, Clinton is still planning on attending the Brown and Black Presidential Forum in Des Moines Saturday night.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/clinton-booed-a.html
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: yellow_crane on December 01, 2007, 08:46:57 PM
Clinton Booed at Heartland Forum

December 01, 2007 6:04 PM

ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: A day after dealing with a hostage crisis, Sen. Hillary Clinton faced a tough crowd in Iowa. Clinton did not receive the warmest of welcomes at the Heartland Form in Des Moines, IA, and although the hostage scare was mentioned, the announcer brushed it off quickly in order to get to questions. Clinton, who was forced to call in to speak to the crowd of thousands because of weather difficulties, took questions on topics from healthcare to illegal immigration.

The senator was asked if she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, "I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."

Soft booing could be heard from the audience. The man repeated his question about the first 100 days. Clinton replied, "Well you've to get congress to pass the legislation and the president to do as much as possible, which I will do." Louder boos came from the crowd.

Clinton was thanked for her appearance and the moderator expressed sympathies for the ordeal she suffered yesterday. Clinton thanked the moderator. More booing could be heard from the crowd again after she hung up the line.

Barring any travel troubles, Clinton is still planning on attending the Brown and Black Presidential Forum in Des Moines Saturday night.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/clinton-booed-a.html


Despite at who the boo's are directed, a greater prevalency of boo's in an election cycle signals two possibilities:

one)  Rove, DeLay, Ailes, et al, are back at work, and are planting booers.

two)  the general electorate really is sick and tired.

If it is the latter, the more boo's the better.

Crowds assembled for political debate cannot remain sedate and unpassionate, given our current downspin as a country.   The worst scenario would be for the crowds to remain at attention, paralyzed by political correctness.

Without the mantles of being unconditionally opposed to Hillary, I still think she had it coming. 

She is so attuned to exceptional spinning that it has created her most glaring performance peril--too smooth for the room.

Maybe she is too busy walking the rocks at Bill's micromanaged instruction, and would be more effective if she trusted her own instincts.  It would not take a flourished expert to realize that, in a situation like this, where questions are repeated, your best move is to get as simple and direct as you can.  Instead, Hillary believed that playing ping-pong to win was the best choice;  sadly, those were not born booers.  Sounds like they were merely looking for straight answers, and she could have easily turned those boos into wild cheers.

If those boo's were a sign of things to come in this election, Hillary had better get back to the planning table.  The Clinton Machine is as performance ready as any in history, and keeps up to the minute.   Maybe that is where the problem lies.  They have misread the sheeple, and continue to operate on previous plans made when everybody was to afraid to boo.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: BT on December 01, 2007, 09:11:47 PM
Good analysis of Hillary's weaknesses Crane.

Your other normal knee jerk blaming of Republican bogeymen was skimmed over. It has the same meaning as hi, how are you doing. Like a stutter it is filtered. It is a prelude to the meat of your posts, often hidden, but always there.

The frontrunner's of both parties are playing prevent defense in the fourth quarter and hoping to run out the clock.


Hillary is not inevitable and Giuliani is wounded.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: yellow_crane on December 01, 2007, 09:50:18 PM
Good analysis of Hillary's weaknesses Crane.

Your other normal knee jerk blaming of Republican bogeymen was skimmed over. It has the same meaning as hi, how are you doing. Like a stutter it is filtered. It is a prelude to the meat of your posts, often hidden, but always there.

The frontrunner's of both parties are playing prevent defense in the fourth quarter and hoping to run out the clock.


Hillary is not inevitable and Giuliani is wounded.


Thanks for the well-intentioned confrontation re my postings; they are duely noted in relevance.

Giuliani's wounds are old wounds.  Giuliani has always carried sen sen.  One perspective is how now voters seem ready to hold in abeyance any sins, in order to find something completely fresh.  They will accept some shit to get the sugar.

After watching the Republican debate, I saw Giuliani less wounded at that fight than Mitt.  Mitt's struggles for clarity suggested too much programming, similar to those seen of Hillary and Kerry.  It comes off as dishonest to those unable to articulate the full impression.

When I watched Huckabee, I wondered if the Democratic candidates were at all suddenly more worried.  If Huckabee contines to gain this kind of steam, putting him against Hillary would be like Mr. Rogers against that New York hotel hellion whose name escapes me.

I predict Huckabee gaining from both sides, Republicans and Democrats.


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on December 01, 2007, 10:13:42 PM
I would vote for Huckabee as I suspect many in evangelical circles would. Is he mainstream enough to win the general election?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: BT on December 01, 2007, 10:34:13 PM
The blue tarp boys in the neighborhood like Huckabee. He is rising quickly. But they fear something will rise up out of his arkansas past, as playing the game in arkansas apparently requires a modicum of corruption, think southern sheriff or northern ward boss.

I think Romney would make a better president but he is a bit too polished and thus perhaps is vain. And that could cause his downfall. His religion doesn't bother me at all. If given the choice of him over Hillary i would choose him. If given the choice of him versus Richardson, i would have to think hard about it.

McCain is a maverick and i wouldn't vote for him ever. Ron Paul is a non starter.



Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on December 02, 2007, 02:17:20 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20202692/displaymode/1107/s/2/
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 02, 2007, 12:42:59 PM
DES MOINES REGISTER IOWA POLL
****NEW LEADERS****
Huckabee 29 (up 17% since October), Romney 24 (down 5), Giuliani 13, Thompson 9, McCain 7, Paul 7

Obama 28, Clinton 25, Edwards 23, Richardson 9, Biden 6

Obama leads among women, erasing Clinton?s October advantage.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on December 02, 2007, 01:14:56 PM
The blue tarp boys in the neighborhood like Huckabee. He is rising quickly. But they fear something will rise up out of his arkansas past, as playing the game in arkansas apparently requires a modicum of corruption, think southern sheriff or northern ward boss.

I think Romney would make a better president but he is a bit too polished and thus perhaps is vain. And that could cause his downfall. His religion doesn't bother me at all. If given the choice of him over Hillary i would choose him. If given the choice of him versus Richardson, i would have to think hard about it.

McCain is a maverick and i wouldn't vote for him ever. Ron Paul is a non starter.





I concur. I would also vote for a Mormon over Hillary and that should say something about the anti-Hillary sentiment "out there". As far as something out of his past, I am getting a little sick and itred of the exacting scrutiny. Everyone has skeletons; only the REALLY BIG ones should count. Has it really gotten to the point where only St. Francis of Assissi could get elected for ANYTHING based on their past? Have we crossed a line somewhere along the way? (This applies across the board, regardless of Party, by the way.)
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 02, 2007, 02:54:09 PM
I don't see St Francis of Assissi, or anyone like him, being electable as an American political leader.

Dodd, Biden, are all Richardson experienced men whose expertise would benefit them as president because they have attained the respect of both sides.

Kucinich has many, many times the guts of any of the others. He is also a convincing speaker. Lamentably, he is short and his name is Dennis (as in the Menace) and Kucoinich (as in what the hell kind of name is that).

Obama lacks experience. Hillary has experience, but there are entire anti-Hillary cults in this country who have been in training at Hillary hating for decades. It seems to me mostly because she is an assertive woman, and some buffoons cannot abide assertive women.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on December 02, 2007, 02:56:54 PM
"It seems to me mostly because she is an assertive woman, and some buffoons cannot abide assertive women."

Or is it becuase some did not like Bill Clinton's policies, therefore, they wouldn't like Hillary's?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2007, 03:00:52 PM
I'd go with the latter
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on December 02, 2007, 11:28:06 PM
Saint Francis is a good example .

He was a rich and undiciplined youth that reformed himself drasticly in his adulthood.


Some people change direction.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: BT on December 03, 2007, 12:00:40 AM
Quote
Has it really gotten to the point where only St. Francis of Assissi could get elected for ANYTHING based on their past? Have we crossed a line somewhere along the way? (This applies across the board, regardless of Party, by the way.)

I think there is a serious conflict between the desires for honest open public servants and leaders who can cut a deal and get results.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on December 03, 2007, 12:05:56 AM
Quote
Has it really gotten to the point where only St. Francis of Assissi could get elected for ANYTHING based on their past? Have we crossed a line somewhere along the way? (This applies across the board, regardless of Party, by the way.)

I think there is a serious conflict between the desires for honest open public servants and leaders who can cut a deal and get results.



Yes, I feel that conflict myself.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on December 03, 2007, 10:16:02 AM
Quote
Has it really gotten to the point where only St. Francis of Assissi could get elected for ANYTHING based on their past? Have we crossed a line somewhere along the way? (This applies across the board, regardless of Party, by the way.)

I think there is a serious conflict between the desires for honest open public servants and leaders who can cut a deal and get results.



But cannot there be both, e.g. an honest leader who CAN achieve results?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: BT on December 03, 2007, 10:42:17 AM
Quote
But cannot there be both, e.g. an honest leader who CAN achieve results?

Certainly, but the safest course is to do nothing.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 03, 2007, 11:43:49 AM
Romney to Address His Faith

Mitt Romney will deliver a speech entitled "Faith in America," addressing his Mormon religion, on Thursday at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Tex.

His campaign is describing the address as an opportunity for Mr. Romney to "share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor's own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected."

Mr. Romney personally made the decision to give the speech last week, feeling it was the right moment to do so, his advisers said. After he decided he would make it, the campaign consulted with former President Bush's library, which invited him to deliver it there.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 03, 2007, 03:35:01 PM
Does anyone wonder whether Romney wears the special Mormon underwear?

Neither boxers nor briefs, it is sort of a unionsuit, with symbols and cutouts in entirely unobscene places.

The proper term is 'church garments', I think.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on December 03, 2007, 03:42:44 PM
Does anyone wonder whether Romney wears the special Mormon underwear?  Neither boxers nor briefs, it is sort of a unionsuit, with symbols and cutouts in entirely unobscene places.

Is this actually something you "wonder about" in a Presidential candidate Xo??   ???   PLEASE say you don't.  Lie if you have to




Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 03, 2007, 03:56:56 PM
I find a religion that requires special underwear a tad fascinating.

I was raised a Methodist, but all my mother ever worried about was CLEAN underwear.In case of an accident you know.

Maybe she felt that if I had appeare d in the ER  with holes or stains on my undies, perhaps she felt that she might be surreptitiously accused or child neglect, But the avoidance of ragged undies is not a specifically Methodist thing.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 03, 2007, 05:19:33 PM
Hillary in full panic; Releases Obama's kindegarten and third grade "essays" This is no fucking joke!

'I Know I Am, But What Are You?!'

The Chicago Tribune's political blog The Swamp notes the latest example of the increasingly bizarre nature of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Apparently in answer to Barak Obama's sarcastic digs at Hillary Clinton for her well-known long-standing desire to become president, Sen. Clinton's campaign put out a press release noting that Sen. Obama wrote 'essays' in kindergarten and third grade saying he wanted to become president.

Yes, you read that correctly. From the Clinton press release:

Quote
In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.? "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/7278-I-Know-I-Am,-But-What-Are-You!.html
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 04, 2007, 10:40:31 AM
Perhaps there is somewhere you could go to get a life.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on December 04, 2007, 11:02:45 AM
Perhaps there is somewhere you could go to get a life.

Yea, where you could go and think about other people's underwear
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 04, 2007, 01:04:34 PM
December 4, 2007

Vulnerable Democrats Afraid of Clinton

By CARL HULSE

MANHATTAN, Kan. ? Nancy Boyda, a Democrat who ran for Congress in this district last year, owed her upset victory partly to the popularity of the Democratic woman at the top of the ticket: Kathleen Sebelius, who won the governor?s seat. Now, with a tough re-election race at hand in 2008, Ms. Boyda faces the prospect that her electoral fate could be tied to another woman: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton is a long way from winning the Democratic presidential nomination, and over the last few weeks has struggled to hang on to the air of inevitability that she has been cultivating all year. But the possibility that she will be the nominee is already generating concern among some Democrats in Republican-leaning states and Congressional districts, who fear that sharing the ticket with her could subject them to attack as too liberal and out of step with the values of their constituents.

And few incumbent Democrats face a greater challenge next year than Ms. Boyda, whose district delivered almost 60 percent of its votes to President Bush in 2004.

Ms. Boyda, 52, is a former Republican who represents the state capital, Topeka, and a surrounding expanse of prairie and pasture interspersed with conservative small towns, military posts and this college community, home to Kansas State University. It was by appealing to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans that she was able to defeat Jim Ryun, a five-term congressman, by 51 percent to 47 percent last year.

This time both Mr. Ryun and another Republican, Lynn Jenkins, the state treasurer, are lined up to run against her. And while vulnerable Democrats like her are not likely to have an easy time even if Senator Barack Obama, John Edwards or any of the other Democratic presidential candidates wins the nomination, Republicans in Kansas say Mrs. Clinton?s presence on the ticket would unite their party in opposition to her and give dispirited conservatives a reason to get excited about the race.

Ms. Boyda is one of a group of House Democrats ? including fellow freshmen like Zack Space of Ohio, Nick Lampson of Texas, Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana ? who will be battling for re-election in Republican territory.

In the Senate, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana faces a similar challenge, and in an indication of what she and other Democrats, including Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, could face, Republicans unveiled a Web commercial on Monday linking Ms. Landrieu directly to Mrs. Clinton. In the advertisement, Mrs. Clinton?s face morphs into Ms. Landrieu?s, and they are described as ?two peas in a pod.?

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton, who has long sought to parry concerns within her party that she is too polarizing, dispute the idea that she could hinder Democratic candidates in Republican districts. They note that New York Democrats gained a net of four House seats in her two Senate elections and that she campaigned actively for House contenders in both.

?Anyone can speculate, but there are a set of facts that tell a very different story,? said Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign. ?The actual evidence makes clear that she is an asset in tough districts.?

But Patrick Leopold, campaign manager for Ms. Jenkins, said a Clinton nomination would work in favor of either his candidate or Mr. Ryun, the other prospective Republican opponent of Ms. Boyda. ?Whether you are a moderate Republican or a conservative Republican in Kansas, you are pretty much of the same mind on Hillary Clinton,? Mr. Leopold said. ?There is no question Hillary is going to be a drag for Boyda.?

The mere mention of Mrs. Clinton?s name as a potential president drew a strong reaction from Tom Doperalski, an official in rural Pottawatomie County who had just finished meeting with Ms. Boyda about how to contend with growth issues arising out of the increase of troops stationed at nearby Fort Riley.

?The people I talk to, they just cannot imagine a worse scenario,? said Mr. Doperalski, a Republican who heads the county commission. ?They just don?t think she can be trusted.?

Ms. Boyda, who is trying to establish a political identity as independent, said her intent was simply to show the voters of both parties in her district that she was delivering for them. Of the presidential race, she said: ?It is something I have no control over, quite honestly. They will demonize any Democrat who becomes the nominee. I just put my head down and work.?

She said she was putting her faith in Kansans? willingness to split tickets. ?Kansans are very practical people,? she said. ?They just want people who will get the job done.?

To try to create some distance from her party, Ms. Boyda has publicly opted out of a special Democratic fund-raising and strategy program for endangered House members. She is taking conservative assaults head-on, appearing regularly on talk radio programs in her district to try to establish a dialogue and, she says, challenge misconceptions about her record.

She is also keeping a busy schedule of appearances throughout the district in an effort to show residents that she has not ?gone Washington.? An impression that Mr. Ryun had done so hurt his chances in her race against him last year.

House Democrats do not like to discuss the idea of reverse coattails for fear of giving it too much credence and angering the Clinton camp. But they are privately nervous about what Mrs. Clinton?s nomination might mean in Republican-leaning locales where they made gains in 2006 that were crucial to their becoming the majority.

Democrats say they have not polled on the issue, though a private survey that surfaced this year found that the nomination of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama could cut into support for House Democrats in tough districts.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, says incumbent Democrats in generally Republican districts proved very capable of holding on in the last presidential election. He says the national race gives House candidates a chance to emphasize their independence by breaking with the presidential nominee when they differ.

?This is an opportunity to distinguish themselves on the issues from whoever the nominee is,? Mr. Van Hollen said. ?If they approach it right and tell their constituents where they stand, it enhances their credibility and independence.?

There are indications that Ms. Boyda is making progress on that score. Greg Unruh, the administrator of a hospital that she visited the other day, said, ?I may be of a different political party, but she has done a good job as a freshman.?

And Mr. Doperalski, the county commissioner, as well as his two fellow Republicans on the three-member board, says any antipathy toward Mrs. Clinton will not necessarily mean enmity toward Ms. Boyda. ?She will be judged on the job she does,? he said.

Joe Aistrup, chairman of the political science department at Kansas State, said Ms. Boyda was putting the advantages of incumbency to good use, and would need them. Mr. Aistrup estimated that as the nominee for governor, Ms. Sebelius was worth five percentage points to Ms. Boyda?s vote total in 2006 ? the difference between winning and losing ? and said the congresswoman should count on no such assistance from above this time.

?I don?t think Hillary Clinton helps her in any way, shape or form,? he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/politics/04ballot.html
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 05, 2007, 01:09:52 AM
Reich: Clinton lacks 'conviction about anything'

(CNN) ? Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor issued a blistering criticism of the former president's wife on Monday, accusing her of "not telling the truth" on Social Security and taking marching orders from her top pollster.

Reich, who has not endorsed a candidate but has written glowingly of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in recent months, ripped Hillary Clinton for saying Sunday that Iowa voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk."

"I don?t get it," Reich wrote on his blog. "If there?s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC?s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she?s been doing."

Reich, who calls Clinton "my old friend" in the blog post, has a long-standing relationship with the Clintons, going back to when Reich and the former President were classmates and Rhodes Scholars at Oxford in the late 1960s. He left the Clinton administration in 1997 and now teaches public policy at the University of California-Berkeley.


Reich called Obama's Social Security plan to lift the cap on payroll taxes above $98,000 "a progressive solution" and said Clinton's preference to form a commission to examine how to fix Social Security is "avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible."

He also picked apart Clinton's health care plan: "HRC doesn?t indicate how she'd enforce her mandate, and I can't find enough money in HRC?s plan to help all those who won?t be able to afford to buy it."

Reich called the New York senator's recent attacks on Obama a "series of slurs."

"If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up."

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/03/reich-clinton-lacks-conviction-about-anything/
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: The_Professor on December 05, 2007, 12:53:08 PM
I think Hillary is being careful to not alienate anyone. I am sure her handlers have told her that she will get the nomination if she doesn't make any major gaffes, so the conservative route is the preferred route. It is otherwise known as Risk Avoidance. Or "wishy washy, if you will. No amount of Cialis will change this approach.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 05, 2007, 10:49:01 PM
Clinton campaign is pushing that Obama is a Muslim

December 5, 2007

The infamous Obama-is-a-secret Muslim smear (repeatedly shown to be false) has been winging around the internet via an email forward since late December last year. As I documented for the Nation, it's a permutation of a charge first leveled by a fringe figure in Illinois, but has since been forwarded around by ordinary people either out of ignorance, credulousness or malice. We now have the first example of the smear being forwarded by a someone tied to a rival campaign. Yesterday, Gary Hart, the Jones County Chair of the Democratic party in Iowa (and a Dodd supporter) wrote a diary on DailyKos saying he'd been forwarded the infamous email by an unnamed "Clinton county chair."


In a comment posted in response, the Clinton campaign's Internet Director Peter Daou, posted a statement from the campaign confirming that the email had indeed been forwarded by a "volunteer county coordinator," but said it was "wholly unauthorized" and that the campaign was "unaware of it."

"We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down," the statement continued "and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."

I've got a call into Gary Hart right now for further details.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=257119
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 05, 2007, 11:05:22 PM
UPDATE: Greg Sargent has talked to Hart and confirmed that he did, indeed, receive the email. Ben Smith at the Politico has acquired a copy of the email itself and discovered that it was also sent to a Clinton campaign staffer. Which means the campaign knew that one of their country chairs was sending this around.  

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on December 06, 2007, 08:09:42 PM
Clinton's Lead Evaporates in South Carolina

A new Rasmussen Reports survey of likely primary voters in South Carolina shows Sen. Hillary Clinton with a small lead in the Democratic presidential race with 36% support, followed by Sen. Barack Obama at 34% and John Edwards trails at 13%.

Key finding: "Obama?s showing has improved significantly among black voters. He now attracts 51% of the African-American vote in South Carolina while Clinton picks up just 27%. A month ago, the candidates were even in this important constituency."

Among Republicans, Mike Huckabee continues the surge he's seen in Iowa and now leads with 25%, followed by Mitt Romney at 18%, Fred Thompson at 18%, Rudy Giuliani at 12%, and Sen. John McCain at 9%.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Plane on December 06, 2007, 11:14:57 PM
As  a Republican , I don't consider it my role to choose the candidate of the Democrats.

That being said , there are good things to be expected from another Clinton presidency.

Remember it was Bill Clinton that put in the "don't ask don't tell policy" pretty much as a ricochet from attempting to use the power of the presidency to  emplace its opposite.

Hillary managed to make one of Nixons favorite ideas  seem odious to Republicans when she pushed for national health care .

The Clinton Co-presidency ushered in the "Republican revolution" and the most dramatic turn over of the Congress between parties since the Civil War, without them would anything of the sort have been possible? Newt is smart but not that smart.

Following the Republican Revolution Bill and Hillary started getting ahead of the Republicans by co-opting all of their best ideas , NAFTA , Welfare reform , and by pushing a Republican agenda stole the wind from the Republican sail, this might be frustrating when the credit goes the wrong way ,but it gets good things done.

Reagan built up the Armed Forces but the Clintons got better use of it , from them we know that it is possible to go to hot war and have very few casualties (on our side).

If Hillary wins the Presidency, Ann Colter , Rush Limbaugh and Marlin Maddox can open new bank accounts .

Lets be sanguine , once in a while every team has  building year , and if there is anyone we could elect that wold make the Republicans look good Hillary Clinton is not the worst choice , She might even be the best choice , none of the other candidates have so much actual experience already in making Republicans look good.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on March 29, 2008, 03:34:43 PM
Leahy tells Clinton to quit

Published: March 28, 2008 at 6:48 PM

WASHINGTON, March 28 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the most prominent Democrats in Congress, Friday called on Hillary Clinton to give up her presidential race.

-----------------

When I started this thread last year, I never dreamed this would happen.

It now looks like it's going to be a nightmare ending for the Democrat race. When Hillary wins Pennsylvania and a handful of the other remaining 10 states, she is going to have momentum. Obama has yet to close the deal with voters, after many, many chances to do so. This one is not going to end pretty. And who does all this disarray help?

(http://www.brevardgop.org/JohnMcCain.jpg)


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: sirs on March 29, 2008, 03:41:19 PM
If Hillary gets the nomination, despite Obama having far more delegates, I can't imagine the anger and wrath Obama supporters and perhaps a majority of the Democrats across the country will have.  If that were to happen, might as well let McCain take the oath of office at the GOP convention, as she'll be politically dead in the water, having completely fractured the Democrat party.  Dean is right, they better have this dealt with before the Convention, if they want any shot at beating McCain
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on October 24, 2010, 06:26:23 PM
I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Hillary had been elected president.

We would have HillaryCare right now, her long awaited dream.

We would have the trillion dollar Hillary stimulus package.

We would have $1.9 trillion worth of Hillary's debt.

Would people have been more mad at Hillary or Obama?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Kramer on October 24, 2010, 06:33:44 PM
I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Hillary had been elected president.

We would have HillaryCare right now, her long awaited dream.

We would have the trillion dollar Hillary stimulus package.

We would have $1.9 trillion worth of Hillary's debt.

Would people have been more mad at Hillary or Obama?

If XO had a couple of crystal balls he could tell us. On the other hand he likely will tell us anyway -- just because he likes to hear himself go on and on and on and on about anything and everything.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: R.R. on October 25, 2010, 03:19:31 PM
XO's balls have been broken so many times he doesn't have any left.

Hillary is smarter than Obama and probably would have cut and run from Pelosi's healthcare spending. But who knows. She may be plotting a rerun in 2012. 

The Democrats were dumb enough to nominate Obama. Now we are getting screwed. Couldn't they tell he was reading off a damn teleprompter?
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
Post by: Kramer on October 25, 2010, 11:05:01 PM
XO's balls have been broken so many times he doesn't have any left.

Hillary is smarter than Obama and probably would have cut and run from Pelosi's healthcare spending. But who knows. She may be plotting a rerun in 2012. 

The Democrats were dumb enough to nominate Obama. Now we are getting screwed. Couldn't they tell he was reading off a damn teleprompter?

Unfortunately Obama fooled more than just Democrats. That won't happen twice though, he's done.