online dating service

Free Dating Site    

REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES
Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest 100% free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Senator Clinton      Mod Threads Home login  
Page 2 of 3 1, 2, 3
 Author Thread: Senator Clinton
 littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/9/2008 6:30:50 AM
I'd say it was sexist, but they call Obama "Barack" as well. Not with the same frequency, but still often enough that I can't say it's ENTIRELY gender related.

I notice that people who don't like Obama call him Mister Obama and those who do like him call him Senator Obama.

The Hillary thing is for a few reasons. One very practical reason is that there was already a Clinton running for office, and she needs to distinguish herself from that.

The second is that she was best known as first lady to the country. We know our First Ladies as Betty, Ladybird, Laura, Nancy..and Hillary. That was how she was known to us, and she's keeping that moniker for familiarity reasons, I assume.
 willynilly

Joined: 5/12/2006
Msg: 27
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/9/2008 7:54:49 AM
The point I was making is that the race card appears to be trumping the gender card. Granted civil rights have been denied in this country - nobody would contest that, let alone a woman or a black. I actually might agree that the best way to neutralize race relations is with a bi-racial candidate. But the party has to decide that together. This has to come out of the closet. The civil rights movement of the 60s was covered in blood, sweat and tears. I believe you dishonor the integrity of that hard fought battle by using a Don't Ask - Don't Tell approach. MLKs death was not a photo op. What would he say about Obama's bid for the Presidency?
 TimPommell

Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/9/2008 8:21:46 AM
Willy... is it your thought that Obama could win simply by virtue of a "guilt ridden conscious"? Looking at the issues and the potential candidates, I would vote for Obama before McCain.... I am a conservative, and feel that while McCain is a Republican, he is by no stretch of the imagination a conservative. Simply voting in favor of hot button conservative issues does not make one a conservative; particularly when 90% of the Senate votes the same way. If that were the only requirement, there would be no party lines at all, since Hillary and Obama have also voted in favor of some conservative issues.
Obama would get my vote because we don't have to guess at which way he'll go.... his record seems to be more moderate, and to my knowledge, he has never presented himself as a Liberal, contrary to Clinton. The most prudent approach to considering who best aligns with the truth is in the Congressional Record. Hillary at one time claimed to be a Liberal and has voted more centrist her entire time in office. While bemoaning the evils of this administration into a CNN microphone, she casts her votes in favor of its policies. McCain claims to be a conservative but has voted center and left of center on most issues as well.... Both represent the epitome of bought and paid for politicians. Politicians who are known for the money they’ve made in Washington rather for the service they’ve delivered to the nation as its national representatives. Obama seems to be the only one running at this time (with the likelihood of getting the nomination) that has demonstrated that what he says and what he does are not mutually exclusive! In my opinion, the lesser of the three potential evils, and with that in mind, I will hold my nose and vote democrat for the first time in my life…..
 mightybird

Joined: 1/21/2008
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/9/2008 8:47:37 AM
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
 TimPommell

Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/10/2008 3:44:20 AM
Mighty... I looked over the article you mentioned... I'm not entirely clear on what represents "liberal" for the reporting purposes... Not all Democratic legislation is "liberal" just as not all Republican legislation is "conservative". The article seems to indicate more party line voting than anything else, and if that is the case it's more than slightly misleading....
 My2cntsin

Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/10/2008 1:26:26 PM
Ok...the only thing the Republican got against Hillary is the fact that she was DUPED like all Americans into believing there was going to be a short but sweet war in ridding of the materials of mass destruction. Needless to say...WE WERE ALL DUPED into this charade of LET'S PLAY WAR..what are they doing...MAKING MONEY especially for the war? OR using our social security moneys? and THAT is why they say we will not have any money for retirement....when we decide to retire?

I want someone who refuses to PLAY WAR anymore..who will put funds into our childrens educational system

There is an internal social disfunction and we need someone to deal with the back yard security system FIRST.

Dump the ideas saving the world for now...
 Sariangel

Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/11/2008 12:42:07 AM

Because she’s a woman, the impression of personalizing or making her a first name so saturated, is a great political ploy.


I think it was because Clinton was addressed as Hillary when she was the first lady (most first ladies are called by their first names). As well, it's easy to see it's because her husband was President Clinton and still called such [the media wouldn't want to confuse the spouses in that retractions aren't pleasant].

I don't see any dark conspiracy here.

I'm more interested in why the media doen't use Obama's middle name (Hussein), yet we see Hillary Rodham being used frequently (Rodham actually being Clinton's maiden name).
 TimPommell

Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/12/2008 6:24:56 AM
My2, I agree and disagree with you....

Ok...the only thing the Republican got against Hillary is the fact that she was DUPED like all Americans into believing there was going to be a short but sweet war in ridding of the materials of mass destruction. Needless to say...WE WERE ALL DUPED into this charade of LET'S PLAY WAR..what are they doing...MAKING MONEY especially for the war? OR using our social security moneys? and THAT is why they say we will not have any money for retirement....when we decide to retire?
I don't recall anyone inquiring as to a timeline until 2 years + into the war effort ... by the way, the Iraq war ended the day Saddam went into hiding, and the whole issue of Saddam ended with his hanging as far as I'm concerned.... what we're participating in now is a peacekeeping mission, and sadly soldiers are NOT trained as diplomatic police officers, and therefore not the best qualified to do the job they're currently tasked with. As for Social Security money, there is none. Rather than actually having actual funds separated for Social Security, what we have is a filing cabinet in West Virginia filled with Treasury Bonds equal to the taxed amount AND the amount of projected interest. The raiding of Social Security as a budgetary supplement was a product of the Carter Administration and the overwhelming Democratic Majority of the 94th Congress. In my opinion, the last thing we need to do is allow them to "fix" it again! I know this sounds like a partisan spin, but in all actuality, the Republicans had the opportunity to correct the problem and did absolutely nothing to that end ... I say send them ALL packing in November!


I want someone who refuses to PLAY WAR anymore..who will put funds into our childrens educational system
I'm all for putting a stop to the war as soon as possible, but throwing more money at the failed Federal involvement in the educational system is probably more damaging to our country than the war itself!


There is an internal social disfunction and we need someone to deal with the back yard security system FIRST.
I completely agree! We need to get the Federal Government down to a smaller level rather than being the largest employer in the world with the greatest benefits and retirement packages in addition to the lowest level of production and efficiency!


Dump the ideas saving the world for now...
We can accomplish both ends by simply tightening foreign policy purse strings... Enact a 6 month ban on foreign aid funding and the deficit will be erased and the economy will rebound. The rest of the world’s economies will collapse, but we will be fine!
 Blacksheep

Joined: 6/28/2004
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/12/2008 8:30:15 AM
Hey Tim, couple things came directly to mind when reading this particular paragraph.



Socialist countries, such as Canada seem to approach issues from a unique perspective, that being of a collective consciousness. Truly a noble perception, however, one need only consider the historical record of other such national “people” approaches that suppress individual perspectives, such as the former Soviet Union etc., to discover that the collective mindset eventually leads to the cessation of freedoms and ultimately utter chaos.


"They hate us, cause they hate freedom" ,
"If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists",
"Voting for John Kerry is a vote for terrorists",
"Liberals love the terrorist and hate America",
"America, Love it or leave it",
"Republican party is the party of GOD!",
"Islam=Terrorist"
"Warrentless Wire Taps are for your safety",
"I'm a patriot because I support my president",
"President Bush is making us safe"
"Gay Marriage will ruin the sanctity of Straight Marriage",
"Evil Doers want to stop our way of life",
"Iraq has WMD and Saddam conspired with Bin Laden to plan 9/11",

Above are quotes made by politicians and those who support them here on these threads.

You're right,

"the collective mindset eventually leads to the cessation of freedoms and ultimately utter chaos.


I couldnt agree more!


Now If this country can get passes silly political labels, and see the big picture, I think Barack Obama will be the next President of America, and While he will have to work twice as hard as any previous president to stitch the gapeing wounds this country has been suffered with, racially, economically, security wise, and diplomatically..... I think he has the best chance of pulling it off out of any candidate on either side.

It will be interesting to see if he wins the nomination if Hillary will find a position somewhere in his administration.
 TimPommell

Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/18/2008 9:16:20 AM

Hey Tim, couple things came directly to mind when reading this particular paragraph.
Sheepster! Long time no debate!


"They hate us, cause they hate freedom" ,
"If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists",
"Voting for John Kerry is a vote for terrorists",
"Liberals love the terrorist and hate America",
"America, Love it or leave it",
"Republican party is the party of GOD!",
"Islam=Terrorist"
"Warrentless Wire Taps are for your safety",
"I'm a patriot because I support my president",
"President Bush is making us safe"
"Gay Marriage will ruin the sanctity of Straight Marriage",
"Evil Doers want to stop our way of life",
"Iraq has WMD and Saddam conspired with Bin Laden to plan 9/11",

Above are quotes made by politicians and those who support them here on these threads.

That's a rather unfair categorization, since many aren’t actual quotes of the administration, they’re more interpretations of statements and it’s as though you’re implying just the opposite is true.... I can’t speak for the ignorant conservatives any more than you can speak for the ignorant liberals, but I do have an opinion on each of your bullet points…
1.) The Islamic terrorists do hate us, actually they hate all westerners. Aside from the comment being a little vague, it certainly isn't an untruth.
2.) Any reasonable person recognizes there is a 3rd option. Anti-terror, pro-terror and complacent... I recognize some feel that more diplomacy should have been used, but Congress did not see it that way, that would be a bi-partisan Congress by the way...
3.) A vote for Kerry was a vote for cut & run... He did campaign with the platform of an immediate withdrawal, and leaving before the terrorists are in check is nothing short of enabling them... I think the surge proved it required MORE, not less to stabilize the area.
4.) I agree with the love it or leave it slogan, always have, always will... Common sense dictates if you're unhappy being someplace, you need only place one foot in front of the other until you reach happy land...
5.) The party of God? Never heard that one, kind of indefensible so I won't even bother trying.
6.) Islam EXTREMIST = Terrorist, or at least terrorist sympathizer... WE didn't start this fight, we just took it off our continent to their backyard...
7.) Warrantless wiretaps is a fallacy, the Patriot Act merely provides for the installation of electronic surveillance during the warrant approval process, it’s really sad that the liberals who voted for it are touting it as a neo-con movement to eliminate our rights. (And they say Republicans use scare tactics.)
8.) You can't seriously consider this offensive given the liberal position that republicans are undermining the constitution, when the majority of Congressional Democrats voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act. I completely agree that it's silly to proclaim one party more patriotic than the other, but I will say that this push towards political correctness is undermining the very fabric of our nation.
9.) We are safer now than we were before 9/11... There may be more threats, but clearly the lack of attacks on us since we took the fight to them is indisputable proof that it was the correct approach to eliminating attacks on US soil.
10.) Gay marriage is a States issue, and I personally think everyone deserves the opportunity to be screwed by the divorce courts!
11.) Assuming "evil doers" equates to Islamic terrorists, I don't see where it's an incorrect statement. Salman Rushdie wrote a book called Satanic Verses and a fatwa was declared by the Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran. Call me crazy, but a death warrant issued because of dissent in a book is just a tad extreme and perhaps just a tad on the “evil” side...
12.) Bill Clinton even said Saddam had WMD's in the 90's, can we let that go since we know for a fact that under the Clinton Administration Saddam used some of them to kill his own people? Did he really have to launch one into your neighborhood before you can accept the fact that EVERYONE in a position to know, even Saddam himself, claimed WMD's existed in the Iraqi arsenal? As for Saddam's involvement in the bombing of the WTC, I don't think they found a check with his signature, but we did and do have all sorts of evidence that he encouraged attacks against the US, offering monetary rewards and training facilities for Al Qaeda.

Now If this country can get passes silly political labels, and see the big picture, I think Barack Obama will be the next President of America, and While he will have to work twice as hard as any previous president to stitch the gapeing wounds this country has been suffered with, racially, economically, security wise, and diplomatically..... I think he has the best chance of pulling it off out of any candidate on either side.
I agree he will end the immediate divisiveness between the parties by silencing the vitriol of the left. I'm fairly sure he's a more predictable centrist than any other candidates and I personally intend to vote for him if he receives the democratic nomination ... I'm a conservative, and quite frankly a little sick of the classification of the current administration as being conservative, when Bush is actually more liberal than Clinton, and McCain is such a bleeding heart liberal hot headed dimwit, I think he'll wreck our economy and end up going after Iran before wrapping things up in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think it's time we let the Liberals have the reins for a while and return to the days of Jimmy Carter (you know, back when the Muslim extremists first started bombing our foreign posts and taking our citizens hostage)... If McCain is elected, he's likely to be the last republican elected in my lifetime, and if Obama is elected, and chooses his cabinet with the same type of idiots Carter did, conservatives taking the House, Senate and the Whitehouse in 2012 will be a foregone conclusion.

It will be interesting to see if he wins the nomination if Hillary will find a position somewhere in his administration.
I can't see where she would fit into his cabinet at all, her approach to campaigning is indicative of her perceived right of ascension.... her ego dictates she'll bide her time hoping for a shot at 2012, anything less than the Presidency is beneath her.
 Blacksheep

Joined: 6/28/2004
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/19/2008 7:55:16 AM
Yeah it has been a while hasn’t it, lol Okay Tim, Nice Looooooong Reply Post, I would expect nothing less from you . (Blacksheep puts hands together, interlocks fingers, turns both around and cracks all joints...... ready to deliver now)


1.) The Islamic terrorists do hate us, actually they hate all westerners. Aside from the comment being a little vague, it certainly isn't an untruth.


1 a. They want us to stop medaling in their affairs, not that I think they are going about it the right way, nor do I believe in their oppressive ideology in regards to women or understanding/tolerating other religious beliefs.
But the reality of this is we interfered with them first decades ago and continue to this day.


2.) Any reasonable person recognizes there is a 3rd option. Anti-terror, pro-terror and complacent... I recognize some feel that more diplomacy should have been used, but Congress did not see it that way, that would be a bi-partisan Congress by the way...


2a. Yes, understood... but there were other ways of fixing the problem than insistence on war in Iraq, especially when the target should have been Bin Laden in Afghanistan.


3.) A vote for Kerry was a vote for cut & run... He did campaign with the platform of an immediate withdrawal, and leaving before the terrorists are in check is nothing short of enabling them... I think the surge proved it required MORE, not less to stabilize the area


3a. "More" was the advice of top military brass PRIOR to invading Iraq, but others in the administration decided they would be greeted as liberators with roses laid at their feet (possibly watching too much History Channel) and showed these generals the door (otherwise called voluntary retirement).


4.) I agree with the love it or leave it slogan, always have, always will... Common sense dictates if you're unhappy being someplace, you need only place one foot in front of the other until you reach happy land...


4a. Or you can do like the French did years ago and cut the heads of the elitist who destroyed your "happy land", then rebuild it back to what it was or better afterwards. I for one like the French method better since I hate moving.


5.) The party of God? Never heard that one, kind of indefensible so I won't even bother trying.


5a. That one comes from right here on P.O.F forums, I agree with you, it is rather indefensible.


6.) Islam EXTREMIST = Terrorist, or at least terrorist sympathizer... WE didn't start this fight, we just took it off our continent to their backyard...


6a. Christian EXTREMIST = Terrorist too! WE did start this fight and we did so before either you or I swam upstream. The President was IKE, the country was Iran.
Prior to that, another "western country" England, carved up lands under Muslim control in their colonial efforts to create Israel.
America has from then till current supported Israel while they commit human rights violations un-abetted against all their neighbors.


7.) Warrant less wiretaps is a fallacy, the Patriot Act merely provides for the installation of electronic surveillance during the warrant approval process, it’s really sad that the liberals who voted for it are touting it as a neo-con movement to eliminate our rights. (And they say Republicans use scare tactics.)


7a. The FISA act, and other similar instruments of the American Gestapo, are nothing more than attempts to control the American Vox Populi, reality is they have very little ability to control terrorism since its like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. and if lucky enough to find said "needle" then you have to have enough translators to translate, then enough people with inside knowledge of terror organizations to decode the coded messages. We don’t have these capabilities.
Republicans could have done anything they wanted up until 2006 since they had majority in every branch of Government.


8.) You can't seriously consider this offensive given the liberal position that republicans are undermining the constitution, when the majority of Congressional Democrats voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act. I completely agree that it's silly to proclaim one party more patriotic than the other, but I will say that this push towards political correctness is undermining the very fabric of our nation.


8a. "those who will trade freedom for security deserve neither" Nuff said.


9.) We are safer now than we were before 9/11... There may be more threats, but clearly the lack of attacks on us since we took the fight to them is indisputable proof that it was the correct approach to eliminating attacks on US soil.


9a. Not a good argument, Just cause you don’t jump out the window, doesn’t mean gravity isn’t still working. We have quadrupled the hate against ourselves with our recent actions, even in Non-Muslim countries! Proof of this is in other countries where leaders were seen by their populations as being too close to Bush (Australia for example) and those leaders were thrown out on their asses come next elections).
We have created a power vacuum and history proves that nothing good ever fills a power vacuum.


10.) Gay marriage is a States issue, and I personally think everyone deserves the opportunity to be screwed by the divorce courts!


10a. I always thought of this as a distraction from REAL issues which this administration has failed at miserably! And the bible thumpers went for it cause they didn’t want Gay people to show the hypocrisy of "church goers" by having a lower rate of divorce than STR8 people, lol


11.) Assuming "evil doers" equates to Islamic terrorists, I don't see where it's an incorrect statement. Salman Rushdie wrote a book called Satanic Verses and a fatwa was declared by the Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran. Call me crazy, but a death warrant issued because of dissent in a book is just a tad extreme and perhaps just a tad on the “evil” side...


11a. Equally evil is launching 100 cruise missiles against Civilians in a Major city of Baghdad, Iraq killing 30,000 plus men women and children (a country which had nothing to do with 911) in retaliation for 4 planes being flown into our buildings killing 3000 plus civilians,...... All the while largely letting the real criminal Bin Laden escape could also be seen as pretty evil too.


12.) Bill Clinton even said Saddam had WMD's in the 90's, can we let that go since we know for a fact that under the Clinton Administration Saddam used some of them to kill his own people? Did he really have to launch one into your neighborhood before you can accept the fact that EVERYONE in a position to know, even Saddam himself, claimed WMD's existed in the Iraqi arsenal? As for Saddam's involvement in the bombing of the WTC, I don't think they found a check with his signature, but we did and do have all sorts of evidence that he encouraged attacks against the US, offering monetary rewards and training facilities for Al Qaeda.


12a. Bin Laden has been trying for years to kill Saddam and get control of Iraq, but couldn’t get the job done. Saddam was a **stard, but he ruled with an Iron fist. He wouldn’t take to kindly to anyone trying to upset his absolute control of Iraq.
Bin Laden is a radical nut job who believed Saddam should be beheaded for being a secularist Muslim, and not following the Radical brand that Bin Laden follows.
So in actuality, we helped Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda get into a country they had no way of getting into before. That’s not slowing terror down, its increasing its capabilities.



Now back on track with the thread, Barack Obama Will be the next POTUS, and Hillary has one last shot at avoiding illumination in TX, PA, and OH.

I supported her in the past and still think she makes a formidable opponent and would make a great POTUS, However Barack will make a better one since the best thing a Prez. can do is motivate the people, and he does this very well.
Hillary should play the Cheney roll (experience in the background) .
If Barack would even offer her the opportunity that is.
 cocytus

Joined: 11/9/2007
Msg: 37
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/19/2008 8:27:15 AM
It is sad that the Democratic leadership is so wrapped up in their loyalty to the Bill Clinton "legacy" that they are failing to see the obvious: Senator Clinton can't win.

She is a polarizing figure...she has a LOT of baggage...and she would unite the opposition against her and her party.
This obvious to all the pundits watching this (although, to their credit, they've only HINTED at these facts) race and it's obvious to anybody that is more than a casual viewer of the election proceedings.

Senator Clinton, if she is nominated, will cause a number of Democrats to avoid voting at all (particularly the young and a number of minorities) and her nomination will be used as a battle cry by Republicans to continue their reign in the White House.

Barack Obama is the better candidate for the position for no other reason than the fact that while Obama voters may not vote for Clinton, Clinton voters will almost certainly vote for Obama.
However, given the racist nature of this country and its politics, I'm sure that if Obama is nominated, he'll either lose or squeak out a VERY narrow victory, because of the heavy usage the code words "inexperience","urban" and "liberal."
Oh yes, and the term "affirmative action."

It's sad that Senator Clinton's ambition to be President in what will likely be her only run has blinded her to the obvious.
And that is that.she can't win.
 TimPommell

Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/20/2008 3:05:59 AM

Yeah it has been a while hasn’t it, lol Okay Tim, Nice Looooooong Reply Post, I would expect nothing less from you . (Blacksheep puts hands together, interlocks fingers, turns both around and cracks all joints...... ready to deliver now)
I’d love to be brief, but your posts require more than an off the cuff response!


1 a. They want us to stop medaling in their affairs, not that I think they are going about it the right way, nor do I believe in their oppressive ideology in regards to women or understanding/tolerating other religious beliefs.
But the reality of this is we interfered with them first decades ago and continue to this day.
How does that explain their targets in Jordan, France, Germany, Algeria, Spain, Morocco, etc…?


2a. Yes, understood... but there were other ways of fixing the problem than insistence on war in Iraq, especially when the target should have been Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
The target was Al Qaeda and the Taliban, not just Bin Laden.


3a. "More" was the advice of top military brass PRIOR to invading Iraq, but others in the administration decided they would be greeted as liberators with roses laid at their feet (possibly watching too much History Channel) and showed these generals the door (otherwise called voluntary retirement).
There’s a lot of tendency to do the Monday morning arm chair quarterbacking… of course (in hindsight) mistakes were made. The key is to recognize those deficiencies and correct them as quickly and efficiently as possible, and I think that’s what the surge did.


4a. Or you can do like the French did years ago and cut the heads of the elitist who destroyed your "happy land", then rebuild it back to what it was or better afterwards. I for one like the French method better since I hate moving.
You’re referring to that happy land where Muslims riot at will? The land of the 35 hour work week, constant strikes, and 8 to 12 week vacations?


6a. Christian EXTREMIST = Terrorist too! WE did start this fight and we did so before either you or I swam upstream. The President was IKE, the country was Iran.
Prior to that, another "western country" England, carved up lands under Muslim control in their colonial efforts to create Israel.
America has from then till current supported Israel while they commit human rights violations un-abetted against all their neighbors.
I think you’re trying to make too much of US involvement… for literally THOUSANDS of years the area has been unstable and at war with each other as well as inside it’s borders. Our involvement over the last 50 years has saved lives, not cost them….


7a. The FISA act, and other similar instruments of the American Gestapo, are nothing more than attempts to control the American Vox Populi, reality is they have very little ability to control terrorism since its like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. and if lucky enough to find said "needle" then you have to have enough translators to translate, then enough people with inside knowledge of terror organizations to decode the coded messages. We don’t have these capabilities.
Republicans could have done anything they wanted up until 2006 since they had majority in every branch of Government.
Hold the phone…. Out of the past 50 years, Democrats have held the majority of power over 80% of the time, even the “bad things” you speak of done years ago were under Democratic Majority in the House and Senate, and this may come as a shock, but prior to Bush, a Democrat has been in the Whitehouse for 20 of the previous 40 years. What are the significant policy changes made that rescinded Republican policies? If an administration does nothing to change an existing policy, do they not “own” that existing policy, both good and bad, from their point of acceptance?


8a. "those who will trade freedom for security deserve neither" Nuff said.
Now you’ve opened a can of worms…. Why is it that we are only entitled to one of the two? For the past two hundred years, we enjoyed both… Now some cave dwellers in the Middle East think we live too high on the hog and have to be taken down a few pegs, and suddenly we’re required to sacrifice both? If you’re referring to wiretapping, it has always been illegal to conspire to commit a crime, so we actually haven’t given up any “freedom” merely made it easier to catch criminals.


9a. Not a good argument, Just cause you don’t jump out the window, doesn’t mean gravity isn’t still working. We have quadrupled the hate against ourselves with our recent actions, even in Non-Muslim countries! Proof of this is in other countries where leaders were seen by their populations as being too close to Bush (Australia for example) and those leaders were thrown out on their asses come next elections).
We have created a power vacuum and history proves that nothing good ever fills a power vacuum.
I’d rather be safe and confident than popular. If our actions keep the explosions limited to the Middle East, then I’m happy. To be perfectly honest, if they want to wipe themselves off the map, I think they should be allowed to do so unfettered. Since they decided by the actions of 9/11 we needed to be involved in containing their exuberance for suicide bombings and IED’s, I’m more than happy to oblige if it means my children and grandchildren will be safer here at home.


10a. I always thought of this as a distraction from REAL issues which this administration has failed at miserably! And the bible thumpers went for it cause they didn’t want Gay people to show the hypocrisy of "church goers" by having a lower rate of divorce than STR8 people, lol
It’s an embarrassing product of extremism, both sides have issues that defy logic and common sense.


11a. Equally evil is launching 100 cruise missiles against Civilians in a Major city of Baghdad, Iraq killing 30,000 plus men women and children (a country which had nothing to do with 911) in retaliation for 4 planes being flown into our buildings killing 3000 plus civilians,...... All the while largely letting the real criminal Bin Laden escape could also be seen as pretty evil too.
You make it sound as though it was a surprise attack, the build up took MONTHS to accomplish and every possible warning was given. In the old days, back when war was supposed to be won, military superiority rained down until there was a decisive end to all hostilities. I’m not saying civilian casualties are acceptable at any level, but compared to the history of war, this was conducted with surgical precision.


12a. Bin Laden has been trying for years to kill Saddam and get control of Iraq, but couldn’t get the job done. Saddam was a **stard, but he ruled with an Iron fist. He wouldn’t take to kindly to anyone trying to upset his absolute control of Iraq.
Bin Laden is a radical nut job who believed Saddam should be beheaded for being a secularist Muslim, and not following the Radical brand that Bin Laden follows.
So in actuality, we helped Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda get into a country they had no way of getting into before. That’s not slowing terror down, its increasing its capabilities.
There’s a distinct error in the logic to your line of thought on this… You forget the training camps, the meetings between Saddam and senior Al Qaeda operatives. The cash rewards to families of Al Qaeda members who committed terrorist attacks specifically against US Citizens. Not to mention the total absence of intelligence it would take for terrorists to run from Afghanistan, a place where they weren’t in significant danger (according to the Main Stream Media), to Iraq, a place where the Main Stream Media has been telling us all along they do not exist….

Now back on track with the thread, Barack Obama Will be the next POTUS, and Hillary has one last shot at avoiding illumination in TX, PA, and OH.
I supported her in the past and still think she makes a formidable opponent and would make a great POTUS, However Barack will make a better one since the best thing a Prez. can do is motivate the people, and he does this very well.
He is very charismatic, almost Kennedy-esque in his speeches, although instead of the “Ask not what your country can do for you…” he has the “Ask not what you can do for your country…” A strong message that carries well among the entitlement and socialist sect…

Hillary should play the Cheney roll (experience in the background) .
If Barack would even offer her the opportunity that is.
I think Hillary would make a horrible VP…. She doesn’t strike me as being at a juncture in her life where second chair on any stage is acceptable. Hillary says she has experience, but exactly what is that experience? She was married to a Governor and a President? So was Laura Bush…. If Laura runs for the Senate and is elected, will she not have exactly as much experience as Hillary? Hillary’s greatest asset and liability is the same thing; her husband. Without that name recognition she’s absolutely nothing more than an average corrupt backwater business attorney who's advice landed ALL of her clients in prison for fraud.
 southernlass

Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/20/2008 3:36:21 PM

Senator Clinton, if she is nominated, will cause a number of Democrats to avoid voting at all (particularly the young and a number of minorities) and her nomination will be used as a battle cry by Republicans to continue their reign in the White House.


I can only speak for Texas as this is where my family and friends are, but I assure you that our vote is going to Clinton over Obama. If Clinton should lose to Obama, our vote is promptly going to McCain.


Barack Obama is the better candidate for the position for no other reason than the fact that while Obama voters may not vote for Clinton, Clinton voters will almost certainly vote for Obama.


Wrong. Clinton voters will not vote for Obama. Clinton voters will be just as irritated that Clinton did not win over Obama and they will definitely move over to McCain and visa versa. Because of the bloody battle for top dog between Clinton and Obama, the losing side is obviously going to go McCain; thus I see McCain as our next president which suits me fine, because I still feel I would rather have McCain than Obama any day of the week.


It's sad that Senator Clinton's ambition to be President in what will likely be her only run has blinded her to the obvious.
And that is that.she can't win.


Well, it's not over till it's over, bud. So let's just wait and see a little bit longer. And if you're right and Hillary doesn't win, I'm holding my breath that McCain grabs the biggest prize of all. I can't believe I'm saying this as a democrat but I'll feel a lot safer with McCain at the helm than I will with Obama on the throne.
 Manwiffkiddies

Joined: 8/28/2006
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/20/2008 7:37:08 PM
I almost fell outta my chair last night when all the major networks cut away from Hillary's speech just a few minutes into it to broadcast Obama's 45 minute speech.
 Blacksheep

Joined: 6/28/2004
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/21/2008 6:18:49 AM
to the victor goes the spoils
 tallblondeinvegas

Joined: 7/19/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Senator Clinton (who cares...Hillary vs Senator)
Posted: 2/21/2008 8:32:48 AM
A woman being called by her first name instead of title and last name is about as common as a woman being called a girl beyond her teens. It's pretty much a harmless part of culture (unless you are so hypersensitive that you just have to make a big deal about it.) Heck, maybe they just call her Hillary because she hasn't been a Senator long enough to even seem legitimate. OTOH, the press still calls Bill "President" instead of "former President or Mr. Clinton" and refers to Bush as "Mr. Bush" more often than "President Bush"....so maybe the mainstream press is just lacking in education and a little training on manners and/or formalities.

Of course, NONE of the mistakes, misrepresentations and leanings (right or left) would make any difference if voters weren't so pop-culture oriented and actually followed candidates, representatives and their voting history/actions independent of what the talking heads choose to say in the 30 seconds they have to say it. The problem is that it takes a lot of time and effort to actually get facts and neither the press nor most voters seem to be able to do it... thus we are all victims of a ridiculously expensive marketing scam called a campaign.

Who cares if Senator Clinton is referred to as Hillary if she doesn't object? The whole topic is just an example of focusing on the wrong thing. It's not about what Senator Clinton says. It's not about what the press says. It is about what Clinton has DONE. Has no one heard the wisdom that actions speak louder than words?
 evnstevn

Joined: 1/11/2008
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Senator Clinton (who cares...Hillary vs Senator)
Posted: 2/23/2008 11:09:23 AM
She finally went postal today and probably sank whatever chances she had left. It made me shudder like hearing fingernails on a blackboard.

 littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/23/2008 12:48:43 PM

Wrong. Clinton voters will not vote for Obama. Clinton voters will be just as irritated that Clinton did not win over Obama and they will definitely move over to McCain and visa versa. Because of the bloody battle for top dog between Clinton and Obama, the losing side is obviously going to go McCain; thus I see McCain as our next president which suits me fine, because I still feel I would rather have McCain than Obama any day of the week.


Once again, look up your facts before asserting blind conjecture as truth. Yes, Clinton supporters WILL overall vote for Obama, so they tell the polls, day after day after week after week, which is WHY he can win the nationals and she CAN'T, because most of his people will NOT vote for her.

Just because "you and everyone you know" says something doesn't a) make it true, and b) stand up against daily polls being done on this very issue that point to the opposite of what you are saying.

McCain loses against Obama in the preliminary matchups, by the way. Obama right now has a 55 percent chance of winning this election. It's not much, but it's outside the margin of error, which means he's leading with McCain. And I know I have told YOU this at least three times, so why do you keep spreading untruths and false suppositions, after myself and several others have told you otherwise, using actual facts instead of "I predict" and "I think".

I don't understand why Establishment Dems don't either get with the program or leave the party. We've got thousands of new people, fresh ideas. We're trying to fix the party that you people ruined, and you're resisting us the entire way. Come on, already. Let another generation have a turn and maybe we won't mess things up half as much as you did. We have no more time left. Certainly, I'd like people to stay with the party but if they are going to continually get in the way of progress and growth, they ought to go elsewhere. Threatening us with voting for McCain if your establishment candidates don't get passed through to the nationals? We don't need that kind of person. We need people energized, devoted, tireless, people who will fight for a cause, people who are interested in the future of the party. We need more younger people, who will BE the future of the party, and we need to come together. Enough with "Silly Season"!

Either you're committed to fixing the party, or get out, but stop trying to stop our change and growth from the inside. The times are new, and the party, your party, was dead. It's been revitalized (not by Hillary) and we've got some work to do. Help us or don't, but don't sabotage us, either.
 Manwiffkiddies

Joined: 8/28/2006
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/23/2008 1:40:13 PM

Either you're committed to fixing the party, or get out, but stop trying to stop our change and growth from the inside. The times are new, and the party, your party, was dead. It's been revitalized (not by Hillary) and we've got some work to do. Help us or don't, but don't sabotage us, either.


Hey we've already had 20 years of Bush & Clinton administrations... what's another 8?

Then maybe after Hillary's had eight years in, we can put Jeb up there... and by the time he's out Chelsea will be ready to run.

That will fix everything.... :D

I'm a long-time Republican voter, U.S. Navy vet, middle class white guy... and Obama has my vote.

Hillary, though? No flippin way...
 pappy009

Joined: 2/3/2008
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/23/2008 2:30:22 PM
msg 2
--would oprah have endorsed a white man with little to no legislative experience?--

Thats quite interesting, why doesn't Hillary leak out that she wants Oprah as a running mate, wow, Opie would diffenately be Wice Pres. (Quazy wabbit) Then you could use her wealth and tv money to pay down the deficit.
 SWerHappyHeart

Joined: 4/7/2007
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/23/2008 3:12:28 PM
I am proudly supporting Hillary Clinton in her bid. That being said upfront I have to admit I am dismayed at the role of the media in there bias that I see in this election more than in any other. And, I mean both parties and candidates in each party. It scares the heck out of me too! Or rather, how subtly it is done and how many people parrot thoughts from their favorite commentators. There are so few original comments these days coming from supporters of all the candidates.
For the Obama supporters reading this and hoping to 'kick butt' may I ask if he was in the military? I have yet to see that mentioned. Certainly I think it is important even without a draft to have served the country in some way.
I would like to hope I live in a country where race and gender wouldn't be an issue but I know for many (dare I say the ignorant) it still is.
I take exception to anyone generalizing that Obama supports would not vote Clinton if he lost but that Clinton supports would vote Obama. That based on polls? Well, we know what the polls said in New Hampshire - remember?
Let's make decisions based on what we truly would use to 'hire' a president i.e. experience, education, background, etc. She showed a strength during a whole lot of living and community involvement.
I don't want to see gender or race used as a shield from the truth or as a reason for voting for a candidate. Hillary Clinton gets my vote!
 ~MPR~

Joined: 2/14/2008
Msg: 48
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/23/2008 3:32:02 PM
And when her scandalous past get's media attention she will also be outted for the fraud she is , google " the clinton chronicles " watch the documentary and decide for your selves.
 littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/23/2008 6:51:11 PM

She showed a strength during a whole lot of living and community involvement.


Which is why she turned down a 13k a year job as a community organizer in Chicago early on in her career in favor of something paying three times the money..which, ironically enough, was the same job accepted by Barack Obama about a decade later, who also could have gone for bucks, but instead, went for people.


I take exception to anyone generalizing that Obama supports would not vote Clinton if he lost but that Clinton supports would vote Obama. That based on polls? Well, we know what the polls said in New Hampshire - remember?


Polls, albeit not perfect and frequently wrong, are more scientifically accurate than blind and uninformed conjecture is. These polls have been done by 10+ different agencies, sometimes on a daily basis, always with a different sample. The numbers don't change. One poll means nothing. Weeks and months of consistant polls by different agencies with control groups of different American adults (same demographics, different people) are nowhere near infallible, but are about as accurate as we can get.


For the Obama supporters reading this and hoping to 'kick butt' may I ask if he was in the military? I have yet to see that mentioned. Certainly I think it is important even without a draft to have served the country in some way.


It's a bit naive to believe that the only way one can serve their country is through the military. The man's public works record is of good quality, and his various jobs in low-income communities (when he could have easily pulled a Hillary and gone for the money instead) speak for themselves. Military work is not the only way to serve your country. We need as many good people performing public service at home as we do abroad. Also, probably not a good idea to use the line of thought about the military when supporting Hillary, FYI...I don't think she was in the battlefields of 'Nam, either. Sure, you can argue, she wasn't able to go, being female and all, but the fact remains that she is no more of a "war hero" than Obama is. Implying that one should serve in the military to make an effective president undermines your thought when you clearly state that you are a Hillary supporter.

Also, once again, Hillary got booed in Texas. She's the nasty candidate out of all of this. Not Obama, and not McCain or Huckabee, either. The others are maintaining some sense of civility, but she's going down swinging and ultimately hurting the party. Best bet for her political career now would be to drop out, endorse Obama, and run again in the future. If she goes down nastily, which she's currently doing, she's tanked her career. I think she's all or nothing right now, and I doubt she'll run again if she loses this primary (which looks exceedingly likely on all fronts).

Her PR team is atrocious. I'm sure she didn't think up the "Xerox for change" line herself, and she threw it in as a last-ditch attempt during the debates. She should have been advised that it was an unwise move, but honestly, she's not left with much else and she's falling apart in the public eye. It IS sad; as a woman, I'd like very much to see more capable women like Hillary in the public eye. Yes, I said "capable", and I'm an Obama supporter. But there is a difference to me between "capable" and "outstanding", and Obama falls into the latter catergory. When facing someone as dynamic as he is, "capable" just doesn't cut it anymore.
 southernlass

Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Senator Clinton
Posted: 2/23/2008 11:16:51 PM
Polls, polls, polls.
Seems everybody has one, doesn't it?

Audrey, Senator Clinton is well ahead in the polls in Ohio. She is also ahead in the polls here in Texas. You're grasping at straws, little lady. And after Obama's tacky mailer glitch, outright lying to the voters and attempting to pull off his dirty politics, he doesn't seem so Mr. Brilliantine anymore, despite his saccharine sweet, overly white pearly smile (which is as phony as he is).

Give me someone with a little bit of fire in her. This old "establishment broad" is sticking with Mrs. Hillary Clinton, tried and true.

See Polster.com
2008 Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary
Clinton 51%, Obama 39.7

2008 Texas Democratic Presidential Primary
Clinton 48.5 %, Obama 45.7%

Then check out these polls below as well!

http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/primary-election-poll-results/

Go Senator Hillary Clinton!!!! We love ya, baby!!!
Page 2 of 3 1, 2, 3
 
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Senator Clinton