wmw999 2,584
Recommended Posts
airdvr 210
Lucky...don't beat around the bush. Tell us what you really think.
Please don't dent the planet.
Destinations by Roxanne
Destinations by Roxanne
QuotePlenty of relationships have survived cheating. We don't know why Hillary stayed with Bill. It could've been for power. It could've been that her marriage vows actually meant something to her.
Bill never cheated on her. That was a "vast right wing conspiracy" to besmirch his reputation.
Is there anyone who is that big of an idiot?
First rule of politics - Squint into the camera and admit to what is already proven.
Personally, I'm glad he got a bj. I think that if everyone got some, the world would be more relaxed.
However, she genuinely didn't know that her husband was seeing Gennifer Flowers for 7 years ?
Paula Jones? groped Kathleen Wiley? Monica ?
Or any women within reach for the last 20 years.
Either she knew and is lying to support her 1st Wife political ambitions, or she doesn't know and is too clueless to be in charge. Great choice.
I also didn't like how the womens groups were remarkably silent during all this.
The womens groups vilified Paula Jones as trailer-trash. That is a reason to not come to her side?
(To me, it is the least of their members that they should be protecting.)
She has made a lot of statements that are always self-serving, but rarely credible to anyone.
Whitewater investigation - another vast right wing witchhunt
- "I have no recollection..."
Huge money for memoirs - "I have a great recollection..."
It really doesn't matter what platform that she espouses. Who could believe anything that she says?
Quote,... I'm still unlikely to vote for her. Partly for Quade's reason (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is pretty icky), and partly because she, as HC, is too divisive a figure. Not that she's unqualified; personally I think she's eminently qualified, possibly the most qualified. But her identity will make the job of president more difficult than a more conciliatory and less divisive (i.e. not HC) person would.
A somewhat less-qualified person might be more effective at building a presidency that can actually get stuff done than she. There might not be as much sniping and general bullshit.
Well, one can hope at least
Wendy W.
So we need a democrat who's not as bright as Hillery or a Republican whos brighter than Bush in order to bring the country together.
joedirt 0
Quote
Absolutely, couldn't agree more, just leave it to corporations and they will take care of us as they have. You know, takecare of our pensions, our wages, our pathetic medical care, everything.
It must really suck to have to rely on other people to take care of you. Try Tony Robbins or something.
Lucky... 0
QuoteHave you ever thought of taking anger management counseling?
You should......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Does that course include proof reading, spellchecking, and proper punctuation?QuoteHave you eer thought of taking some substantive writing courses?
You should......
I've composed my posts in word and/or gone over and meticulously checked them for grammatical errors and I still get the same nothing from you guys, so why waste time? I see plenty of posts with minor errors, some actually have substance, and then there are yours. Don't addess this point, as you won't anyway, but you are so out of gas as to give examples as to why H Clinton would make a bad pres that you are relegated to complaining about gramatical errors.
For your info, substantive writing is writing about substance, not superficial nothing, like you.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteHave you ever thought of taking anger management counseling?
You should......
Have you eer thought of taking some substantive writing courses?
You should......
So should you after that incomprehensible chop and reply to Lawrocket. It's possible to write a rebuttle that isn't line by line.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
And here comes the mob mentaility. Perhaps, wait, OBVIOUSLY you have never done any legal writing where you address enumerated claims. There I go again, wasting keystrokes to those unable to relate.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
Here I find myself reading postings from so-called intelects, lawyers, law school attendees, other professionals and all they have to qualify a potential president is how she eacyed to her hubby fucking around, or if she's a bitch or not. So much for intellectual people. In case you forgot, she is currently a Senator, so perhaps you could try the scientific model and actually evaluate her performance, voting record, etc.
That's a great question. I don't think I've heard of her doing a single thing of substance in the Senate. Just running for reelection and for President. Part of that is the distance - California doesn't care too much about NY state politics, but still I'd expect to hear something - legislation authored, stands taken.
RIGHT!!!! You've never heard of..... EXACTLY. You know, let me introduce you to Google; type in, :Clinton senatorial voting record" and I'm willing to bet you would find a list of issues she';s voted on. This is Republican backer, Lawrocket's thread, perhaps bewteen him, the lawyer wanna-be and you, you can find her record and make some kind of flimsy argument. Again, THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT, MAKE YOUR ASSERTIONS.
Or you can do as any good Republican (oxymoron) would do and just watch Fox to get all your Hillary info.
Lucky... 0
QuoteMan, I love when I log on to see all these new posts from the main forum page...until I find out that it's just Lucky having diarrhea of the keyboard again.
And then you find yourself compelled, just can't help yourself to dive right in to that so-called diarrhea...... ore of a sefl-indictment from you, on you than anything else...... just slither away and thanks for your contribution to the Hillary thread.... in case you forgot the thread title.
Lucky... 0
>>>>>>>>>>>No. I'll vote for who I think is the most qualified person I can that will ultimately be the least detrimental to the country. That may be an independent or may, in fact, be a Republican. I do have one on that side that I believe would actually be a reasonable alternative if he gets the nomination.
So we've had 5 of the last 7 presidential terms from the Repubs, 7 of the 9 SCOTUS justices are from these 5 losers, the debt went from 1T to 9.1T, we’ve lost all kinds of Constitutional rights and you would consider another ride from the party of runaway spending and war mongering? I thought you loved this country, I didn't know, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry, but I can't decipher all that you've just written.
I'm unsure what is not obvious. I'll break it down:
Republicans like Ron Paul supporters, shall we call them closet Repubs, = Ron Paul supports claim to not be Republicans, yet their candidate is registered as a Repub and swears he won’t cross over to Indep if he, when he loses the primary. There is a fine line between Repubs and Libertarians, yet the latter won’t admit that.
should reg Dem and vote in Obama in the primaries, = Register as s Democrat
as the racist yellow dogs = The Yellow Dog Democrats were the Southern gentlemen who hated big city slickers, yet hated blacks worse. This was discovered in the 60’s when LBJ signed legislation to help minorities, as did other Dems further these agendas, so these guys swore off the Dems, voted Repub and we’ve only had 2 Dems since then, both from the south. Point is, would the Yellow Dogs, a less influential group, yet still substantial, vote is a black man? I think the scumbag Repugs will get the general election nod if Obama were to win the Democratic primary.
would go Nazi (Reoub) = Meant to be, Repub, but Nazi is another way of saying, the Republican Party.
in the general if he wins the primary.
General is the general election, as in the presidential November 08 election.
So, to summarize, point is that if I were a Republican and wanted to make the debt hit 20T within 2 more terms, continue trashing the US Constitution, I would want Obama to get the Dem nod, so the Republican nominee would be a lock in the November 08 general election.
So we've had 5 of the last 7 presidential terms from the Repubs, 7 of the 9 SCOTUS justices are from these 5 losers, the debt went from 1T to 9.1T, we’ve lost all kinds of Constitutional rights and you would consider another ride from the party of runaway spending and war mongering? I thought you loved this country, I didn't know, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry, but I can't decipher all that you've just written.
I'm unsure what is not obvious. I'll break it down:
Republicans like Ron Paul supporters, shall we call them closet Repubs, = Ron Paul supports claim to not be Republicans, yet their candidate is registered as a Repub and swears he won’t cross over to Indep if he, when he loses the primary. There is a fine line between Repubs and Libertarians, yet the latter won’t admit that.
should reg Dem and vote in Obama in the primaries, = Register as s Democrat
as the racist yellow dogs = The Yellow Dog Democrats were the Southern gentlemen who hated big city slickers, yet hated blacks worse. This was discovered in the 60’s when LBJ signed legislation to help minorities, as did other Dems further these agendas, so these guys swore off the Dems, voted Repub and we’ve only had 2 Dems since then, both from the south. Point is, would the Yellow Dogs, a less influential group, yet still substantial, vote is a black man? I think the scumbag Repugs will get the general election nod if Obama were to win the Democratic primary.
would go Nazi (Reoub) = Meant to be, Repub, but Nazi is another way of saying, the Republican Party.
in the general if he wins the primary.
General is the general election, as in the presidential November 08 election.
So, to summarize, point is that if I were a Republican and wanted to make the debt hit 20T within 2 more terms, continue trashing the US Constitution, I would want Obama to get the Dem nod, so the Republican nominee would be a lock in the November 08 general election.
Lucky... 0
QuoteOne of my cousins works for a newspaper in NH. That means he has met ALL of the major candidates repeatedly. He said that up close and personal, Hillary Clinton looks better than on TV. There is substance there, and she is a whole lot more human. He's a very intelligent, well-read guy who considers carefully what he says.
That said, I'm still unlikely to vote for her. Partly for Quade's reason (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is pretty icky), and partly because she, as HC, is too divisive a figure. Not that she's unqualified; personally I think she's eminently qualified, possibly the most qualified. But her identity will make the job of president more difficult than a more conciliatory and less divisive (i.e. not HC) person would.
A somewhat less-qualified person might be more effective at building a presidency that can actually get stuff done than she. There might not be as much sniping and general bullshit.
Well, one can hope at least
Wendy W.
I totally agree with this, but what if she wins the Dem primary and which ever Republican loser gets the nod from that side, who do you vote for? You knwo what to expect from the garbage on the right, so what do you do? My mom, a feminist, even doesn't want Hillay for that reason, but what do you do if she wins the primary? I can't see not doing all I can do to get the criminal element out of the WH.
Her voting record? How about her "fuck the poor" voting record?
She voted against HR 2206, which raised the federal minimum wage to to $5.85 per hour on the 60th day after the enactment of HR 2206, $6.55 per hour 12 months after that 60th day, and $7.25 per hour 24 months after that 60th.
Obviously, making sure that the poor get a working wage is not her top priority. It passed 80-14 in the Senate. Here's her statement: " I want to recognize the many worthy parts of this bill: funding to help those sickened in the aftermath of 9/11, additional relief for Katrina and Rita victims, homeland security funds for high-threat cities like New York City, resources to protect parts of New York affected by recent flooding, $650 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and the first federal minimum wage increase in ten years. I support these measures but cannot support this Emergency Supplemental "
Doign right for the working American ain't her priority, right?
Republicans, by the way, voted for it, Oh, in the House, RON PAUL voted against it. How does that make you feel knowing that Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton both voted the same on this? Oh, yeah - Obama also voted against it.
So there is a coalition of voters between Paul, Obama and Clinton on this. How about that. Is Ron Paul a better guy than you thought or are Clinton and Obama despicable "dogs?"
My wife is hotter than your wife.
She voted against HR 2206, which raised the federal minimum wage to to $5.85 per hour on the 60th day after the enactment of HR 2206, $6.55 per hour 12 months after that 60th day, and $7.25 per hour 24 months after that 60th.
Obviously, making sure that the poor get a working wage is not her top priority. It passed 80-14 in the Senate. Here's her statement: " I want to recognize the many worthy parts of this bill: funding to help those sickened in the aftermath of 9/11, additional relief for Katrina and Rita victims, homeland security funds for high-threat cities like New York City, resources to protect parts of New York affected by recent flooding, $650 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and the first federal minimum wage increase in ten years. I support these measures but cannot support this Emergency Supplemental "
Doign right for the working American ain't her priority, right?
Republicans, by the way, voted for it, Oh, in the House, RON PAUL voted against it. How does that make you feel knowing that Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton both voted the same on this? Oh, yeah - Obama also voted against it.
So there is a coalition of voters between Paul, Obama and Clinton on this. How about that. Is Ron Paul a better guy than you thought or are Clinton and Obama despicable "dogs?"
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Lucky... 0
QuoteLucky...don't beat around the bush. Tell us what you really think.
OK, I've been holding back until now....but..
Sounds like you're a Liberal with a capital "L". Why must political debates be dictated by the Democratic Party or the Republican Party? Why is it not about the individual candidate? My biggest concern for our nation is to limit the power of the government. The bigger the government agency grows, the less choice we have as individuals! Hilary Clinton is the biggest proponent for more government control. That's enough reason for me NOT to vote for her.
~Built for Abuse
www.skydivethefarm.com
www.skydivethefarm.com
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
Absolutely, couldn't agree more, just leave it to corporations and they will take care of us as they have. You know, takecare of our pensions, our wages, our pathetic medical care, everything.
It must really suck to have to rely on other people to take care of you. Try Tony Robbins or something.
I work many hours right now, but my field is shaky and am out of work at times, sometimes long times. WHat I'm talking about is the garbage on the right interfering with union negotiations, trying to exonerate telecom companies for their part in spying via disclosing cell records w/o warrants and teh like. Let's see, how about Enron and the airlines retirement; are ou still gonna continue pretending that is socialism to want your pension? Must really suck to be so blind.
QuoteThere is a fine line between Repubs and Libertarians, yet the latter won’t admit that.
If by "fine line" you mean views on the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution, yeah, then it's a fine line.
Oh, also include views of the commerce clause in there, as well. Including views on religion, drug use, war, taxes, etc.
Oh, but since I agree with the Republicans on, what, a quarter of the issues, it's a fine line. Clearly, if you aren't bigoted against Republicans just because they are Republicans, you are a "dog" like them.
QuoteSo we've had 5 of the last 7 presidential terms from the Repubs, 7 of the 9 SCOTUS justices are from these 5 losers
Actually, it seems that two of the last seven republican presidential candidates were "losers" (even though GHWB actually won one). Those 5 of 7 you listed, um, WON.
In your world, "winning" is "losing," "libertarian" is "republican" and "democrat" is
My wife is hotter than your wife.
One of my cousins works for a newspaper in NH. That means he has met ALL of the major candidates repeatedly. He said that up close and personal, Hillary Clinton looks better than on TV. There is substance there, and she is a whole lot more human. He's a very intelligent, well-read guy who considers carefully what he says.
That said, I'm still unlikely to vote for her. Partly for Quade's reason (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is pretty icky), and partly because she, as HC, is too divisive a figure. Not that she's unqualified; personally I think she's eminently qualified, possibly the most qualified. But her identity will make the job of president more difficult than a more conciliatory and less divisive (i.e. not HC) person would.
A somewhat less-qualified person might be more effective at building a presidency that can actually get stuff done than she. There might not be as much sniping and general bullshit.
Well, one can hope at least
Wendy W.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites