Hillary Out of Touch

B_Fire-3

Just Browsing
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Posts
76
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Presidents don't do shit anyway, so I only care if it's somebody I can stand that isn't overly aligned with the forces of evil. Hillary fuckin' sucks. Ron Paul, McCain, or Barack are all good enough choices. If presidents actually did shit, I would not be pleased with any of the candidates.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Posts
3,028
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
123
Michelle Obama’s Princeton Thesis Reveals Doubts About Her Own Integration - You Decide 08!

Michelle feels like she will never be fully integrated into white society as a black woman.

Imagine how Hillary feels, with a husband that was in my estimation a good president overall but morally questionable at best.

I don't see her as being bipolar or mental but aggressively fighting for the chance to serve her country to best of her ability. Bill has said some stupid things but we all know he isn't the one running for Pres. Hillary is.

I hope she wins. She has my vote irregardless.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
Yeah! Hillary sucks!

She doesn't believe in change!

And change is good!

And I have hope!

And hope is good!

You should vote Obama if you believe in hope!

You should vote Obama if you want to change.... things.

Because the future is yet to come, and the past is yesterday and the present is here... and in the present we should all blindly elect Obama. Even though we don't know anything that he stands for. He stands for hope!

This sums it up indeed: Obamania, on KoolAid (TM)

"He is...like...so totally cool dude...like...he uses buzz words and shit...ergo he will solve all world problems."

The non sequitur is lost on me. I must be too pragmatic for my own good.

Heaven forbid we could have a rational discussion about what he's effectively accomplished in the course of his 3 years in the US Senate, that other Democrats working there haven't accomplished.

Heaven forbid we would question what exactly "change" means (in terms of precise actions matching the very complex and precise problems we are facing) when he has never truly demonstrated his ability to work with the other side on any major initiative. He's voted with his fellow rank-and-file Democrats on a wide range of issues.

As he mentioned in his own book...he is a "blank slate" on which people project their fantasies...Being that those fantasies are often mutually exclusive, he is bound to disappoint many people.

Once again, despite his ranting on bitter partisan politics...he fillibustered the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts (who is hardly a Clarence Thomas), against not only ALL Republicans but the vast majority of Democrats in the Senate.
 

D_Kaye Throttlebottom

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Posts
1,536
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
123
Once again, despite his ranting on bitter partisan politics...he fillibustered the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts (who is hardly a Clarence Thomas), against not only ALL Republicans but the vast majority of Democrats in the Senate.

once again, I ask for what did Obama do to fillibuster the nomination, other than cast a vote for No on his confirmation?

Chief Justice Roberts, has been compared to Clarence Thomas for his support of legislation having the jurisdiction over such as school prayer, abortion and marriage and will support the legislations decision, versus interfering with a vote as being unconstitutional. So when someone a constitutional challenge against Defenese of Marriage or the Marriage Protection Act, to Federal Court and appeals it to the supreme court, it is likely that Roberts will uphold the legislation's law, because historically he has stated it's not the judge's role to intervene, that's the job of the legislation to make law. Different from a local judge in Gerogia that ruled that a voter-endorsed ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.

The same thing with local states trying to strip the morning after pill, creating new anti-abortion law. He will uphold state laws against ruling anything as unconstitutional. So I don't think Obama was being difficult or just oppositionally defiant when he casted a vote of no for Justice Roberts.

I've yet to read anywhere that Obama fillibustered Roberts confirmation, whereby fillibustering would mean that he kept inundating him with questions so that they never got to vote on whether they were ready to vote on his confirmation. Obama did not fillibuster, he voted against confirmation. If you are citing his vote against Justice Roberts versus the other 1/2 of the dems that voted to confirm him, as a sign that Obama is more left than he is a centrist, I disagree. Being a centrist isn't always about voting in the middle as much as the solutions being better for the majority for the country. At any rate - I still fail to understand how Obama fillibustered Roberts confirmation or your other position that Obama called Roberts a bigot.

FYI - for the curious - Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (now that's change you can count on :rolleyes:
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
once again, I ask for what did Obama do to fillibuster the nomination, other than cast a vote for No on his confirmation?

Correction: He was involved in Alito's filibuster. Obama changed his mind on Roberts: he was originally inclined to vote in his favor and gradually soured on him.
Chief Justice Roberts, has been compared to Clarence Thomas ...

Clarence Thomas is the most despised justice on the planet and his opinions could be predicted with 100.00% accuracy by a $39.99 computer program. Roberts is obviously more complex and no one, including Obama (see Barack's own podcast transcripts), doubted his intelligence, integrity and brilliant records as a jurist at least.

At any rate - I still fail to understand how Obama fillibustered Roberts confirmation or your other position that Obama called Roberts a bigot.

I did not suggest Barack called him a bigot. It is only my personal opinion that Roberts is no Scalia or Thomas, and therefore was a "compromise" choice at the time.


The Roberts thing is only 1 illustration of my point that a man who claims to be a "uniter" has to accept compromise and work with the other side.


W certainly screwed us with his sweet talk of "compassionate conservatism" 7 years ago. We should be more circumspect this time around when a relatively unknown quantity chants unity.


Obama's voting records are squarely to the left by all measures. The
populist, low-grade demagogy of his anti-free trade stance, did nothing to dispel that notion.


I don't buy your argument that centrism is about believing that your positions are in the general interest. You can be certain that Huckabee's crackpot ideas are, in his mind, in the nation's best interest too.

FYI - for the curious - Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (now that's change you can count on :rolleyes:

...