B_jacknapier
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Posts
- 672
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 3
- Points
- 103
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
On the plus side, McCain's actually pretty moderate and willing to work across party lines.
On the plus side, McCain's actually pretty moderate and willing to work across party lines.
On the plus side, McCain's actually pretty moderate and willing to work across party lines.
God help us. It will be worse than what I read the Carter administration was.
Comparing Hillary's campaign to the likes of Iraq is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? For starters, 4000+ people didn't have to die in order for her to run.
That's my biggest fear. In spite of all the crap about liberal bias in the media, the Republicans with the "liberal media's" help managed to gain control of all three branches of government. And in spite of their spectacular failures in all the branches they are still a very formidable force.
That was a bunch of garbage. Hillary Clinton was one of the most influential First Lady's of our time. There was never any doubt that she would run for public office after her vast contributions in the White House as First Lady.
Hillary Clinton ran the hardest run campaign ever in New York and WON. The exploratory committee came back and reported that a majority in the state said that they would never vote for Hillary Clinton. She actively campaigned to chang their minds and proved herself to be the candidate with the skills of leadership and savvy to hold that Senate seat.
Now in your last paragraph that I've put in bold...that describes Barack Obama. Obama is only in his third year as a Senator. That means he has two years in the Senate under his belt. Barely enough time to do anything. His eight years in the Illinois Senate which weren't note worthy, do not qualify him as highly qualified elected official...unless you think your state senator who votes present on a regular basis is qualified to be president.
Hillary Clinton has relied on hard work and determination in the face of adversity to get where she is. She has earned everything she has. Hillary Clinton has supported her husband and she had done more in service to this Nation than Barack Obama on his best day. To say otherwise is sexist and belittling particularly when Obama has done practically nothing.
You express the views that divide this party. Not just for sexist reasons, because I do feel what you said was sexist, but on the general principle of fairness. We used to disagree and but be fair...give credit where credit is do. We don't do that anymore.
any person would gladly tell you that you that failure to do so has resulted in the dismissal of all your arguments as you are viewed as someone who resorts to lies and distortions to belabor your point.
The vast majority of us did so weeks ago...but that doesn't mean we don't enjoy occasionally indulging in the perverse pleasure of poking stupid animals with sticks...
okey:
The vast majority of us did so weeks ago...but that doesn't mean we don't enjoy occasionally indulging in the perverse pleasure of poking stupid animals with sticks...
okey:
You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.
You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.
You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.
sargon20 said:And so those who do not will go for McCain? I surely hope the Democrats are smarter than that.
So you're saying we shouldn't have believed Hillary Clinton when she repeatedly denied any interest in running for the senate and the presidency? We should have seen through her lies?
Oh what rubbish! The sitting senator was told not to run so she could get the seat and the powers that be in New York handed her the nomination on a plate! New York is one of the most politically corrupt states in the country and it's well-acknowledged that the legislature is effectively a rubber stamp for whatever the infamous, "three men in a smoky room," decide. The NY Dems invited Hillary to run and made sure the GOP put up a neophyte in Rick Lazio because Hillary, when she became president, would bring home more bacon to New York than Lazio ever could. The seat was originally supposed to go to Giuliani but when he got cancer and bowed out, Hillary was given the seat.
Actually three years. He was seated in January 2005. It is now May 2008. 2008-2005= 3 years. Compared to Hillary Clinton, he is relatively inexperienced however both are ridiculously inexperienced compared to McCain (or Paul or Huckabee or Richardson or Biden or let's just say everybody else who ran save for Edwards though even he has a few Senate years on Hillary). If, as you argue above, experience is the guiding factor in selecting a candidate, then Clinton was one of the two most politically inexperienced people in the entire race and it would be illogical to support her.
Do you really think Hillary would have the political clout to be a senator from New York had she not been first lady? She wasn't elected to first lady. It was given to her by virtue of her marriage. Had she not married Bill Clinton, she'd be a lawyer of some sort.
Nobody said you were. However, your views demonstrate the fraction in the Democractic Party. In this case, some Independents are voting Dem and even some Republicans. The fraction is between the two candidates regardless of how you as a voter identify...but make no mistake the two candidates are Democrats in the Democratic Party and therefore define the fracture between the two groups voting for them.I'm not a Democrat so I don't belong to, "this party."
Practically everything.What have I said that was sexist? Please, point it out. I'd really like to know.
So if you want to throw around convenient accusations so your candidate can appear unfairly victimized in the cold light of reality, you'd better back it up. I'm sure any person would gladly tell you that you that failure to do so will result in the dismissal of all your arguments as you will be viewed as someone who will resort to lies and distortions to prove your point.
You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Your invalidation of her merits and qualifications is sexist and saying so does not weaken her or my arguments. Sorry, but I disagreed your post and I have every right to say so.
No, I actually wasn't addressing that part of your post because I don't think it really matters.
Not really. Sen. Clinton didn't win by a landslide and had her work cut out for her to win the race when she wasn't a New York native and as you pointed out, she was dogged and accused of "carpetbagging" throughout the race. Sen. Clinton also did not initially have the support of women in the state. As for your conclusion that her seatwas given to her so she could bring "bacon" to NY when she became president. Anybody who watched the debates and race, know it wasn't a shoe-in race despite who you say "orchestrated" it or who was deemed to be a presumptive nominee at the outset. You seem to be confused, Moynihan retired.The race began in November 1998 when four-term incumbent New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced his retirement. Clinton won the election in November 2000 with 55 percent of the vote to Lazio's 43 percent. -Wik
Correction, with 3 years under his belt as a U.S. Obama does not have the experience or qualifications of Hillary Clinton. You made mention that Hillary hasn't completed 2 terms, then you must believe Obama is highly unqualified because he hasn't completed one term. Hillary isn't politically inexperienced. Holding elected office is not the only way in which to gain political experience. Hillary Clinton is one of two candidates in this race who have a good deal of valuable political experience.
Yes. Hillary Clinton served as a lawyer for a number of years. She was an Editor of the Yale Law Review. Hillary made the cover of Time magazine when she was 18 years old, foretelling that she would be a mover and shaker. Hillary Clinton ran a voting registration drive, and ran President Carter's Presidential campaign in Indiana. Hillary Clinton is a U.S. Senator based on her own merits. As First Lady she could have chosen to sit and do nothing like Laura Bush, but she chose to take an active role and serve the Nation. Based on her own merits and what she contributed, Sen. Clinton earned her seat in the Senate. If she had not been First Lady perhaps she would have ran for state senate...but she had other things to do like run an Executive Office in the Executive Office Building on Capitol Hill and gain first hand experience on crisis resolution, Executive Decisions and Foreign and Domestic Policy. She was busy with that or I'm sure she would have run for the State Senate.
Nobody said you were. However, your views demonstrate the fraction in the Democractic Party. In this case, some Independents are voting Dem and even some Republicans. The fraction is between the two candidates regardless of how you as a voter identify...but make no mistake the two candidates are Democrats in the Democratic Party and therefore define the fracture between the two groups voting for them.
Practically everything.
That is a bunch of bunk. You demonstrating sexism in no way victimizes Hillary Clinton. She is a strong candidate by her qualifications and merits. Your invalidation of her merits and qualifications is sexist and saying so does not weaken her or my arguments. Sorry, but I disagreed your post and I have every right to say so.
Dismiss what you can't defend!
Perhaps I shouldn't blame you for not understanding this as you likely don't live in New York and appear to be politically naive. Still, all of this was decided by the powers that be long before she took any oath of office.
No I don't because that wasn't my argument, it was yours. In any event, comparing Hillary to Obama in no way negates the fact that the two of them are comparatively inexperienced in light of all other contenders.
First hand experience? What was she doing there? Nobody elected her, nor was she appointed, to resolve any crises or formulate domestic or foreign policies. She took no oath of office, was accountable to no one, was not a federal employee. If she was doing what you say she was doing then she was doing so with no authority and her actions, as well as those of Bill Clinton who it must be assumed permitted these things, are a betrayal of public trust. If other first ladies sit on their asses, as you say, then it's because that's they weren't elected to do anything. They have no constitutional nor legal role within the federal government what-so-ever and to hand policy powers over to someone with no official position is irresponsible and alarming (as travelgate proved).
You repeat a claim once again without backing your argument. Have I once said that she is not qualified because she is a woman? Have I once stated that her faults (or attributes) are due to her sex? Have I argued any point against her based upon the fact she is a woman? No; not once and I challenge you to prove it. Learn what sexism is before you start throwing the term around.
Yeah, I remember him. I wanted so badly for him to beat Bush. It was such a shock when he didn't get the nomination.
yes, I want that old McCain back as well - that McCain lost, b/c he wasn't "conservative enough." Times changes and more of us want a moderate. The problem is McCain is not alienating that conservative, economic voting block. McCain claims he wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (part of the economic policy that got us in this mess) and echoed that retarded idea about a gas tax repeal that wouldn't go anywhere - we would drive more - it would increase the demand for fuel and companies would raise the price on supply/demand and we'd have a deficit in the highway transportation fund. The man admits he's not an economist. So I'm no inclined to believe the true moderate would return. Or if his just being a moderate would be enough when our economic forecast is so bleak and the value of our dollar so low. If the old McCain did return, I don't know if I would vote for him, maybe, provided his wife isn't in the white house - maliciously destroying anyone that disagrees with her spouse's policies. She's done it before.I doubt I'm the only Moderate Independent who's hoping if McCain does win that we get "old McCain" back. You remember him.