Author Topic: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread  (Read 58315 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #120 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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #121 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.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #122 on: November 29, 2007, 10:40:09 PM »
So, you agree that men are involved with pregnancy?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #123 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.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2007, 11:46:52 PM by Plane »

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #124 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.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #125 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.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #126 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.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #127 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.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #128 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...

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #129 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.

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #130 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/


Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #131 on: November 30, 2007, 09:03:56 AM »
« Last Edit: November 30, 2007, 09:15:36 AM by Religious Dick »
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #132 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

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #133 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.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread
« Reply #134 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.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)