NationStates Jolt Archive

Every time Hillary Clinton's name comes up in debate, there are pages of vague scorn, that she would "run the nation into the ground." Does anyone have any SPECIFIC reasons or examples of this? I have yet to hear anything beyond a vague allusion to her more or less photo-opp condemnation of the "Hot coffee" mod in GTA SA. Why are you people so scared of Hillary becoming president? I just want to understand your concerns.

http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/piss2.gifhttp://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:9pXnMZlBjnQFkM:clinton.senate.gov/images/home/topmast/topmast_hillary.jpg

http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/piss2.gifhttp://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:9pXnMZlBjnQFkM:clinton.senate.gov/images/home/topmast/topmast_hillary.jpg

seconded

She eats babies...without chocolate!

She's pure eeevil.. evil and hairspray.

The reasons why we believe Hillary will ruin the world as president are too obvious for anyone to explain without feeling stupid.

She's a shameless panderer...enough said. Even other politicians have a hard time matching her level, except perhaps Bill Frist or Tom Delay.

Funny story from my friend in Washington: One of her top aides was hospitalized and she called the hospital and demanded that they provide her aide with "Only the best care."

Don't forget she wants equal healthcare for all.

Also, call it a hunch, but I feel that she might be more of a divider than a uniter, if she took office.

The reasons why we believe Hillary will ruin the world as president are too obvious for anyone to explain without feeling stupid.
Exprain away.

The reasons why we believe Hillary will ruin the world as president are too obvious for anyone to explain without feeling stupid.Exprain away.
Yes. That is why I made the thread, after all.

Look what her husband did.
Now if her husband humiliated our nation, then why would we want her?

I hate her because she hates the militatry, she's a leftist who tries to appear centralist (and fails). Also, she comes on wayyy too strong. I would elect Laura Bush over her because I feel more comfortable with Laura Bush. Also, Hillary acts like she has a penis, or a vagina with teeth. The last reason, is well, she's ugly. She is U-G-L-Y! I don't want to have to look at that everytime I watch CNN or Fox News.

Look what her husband did.
Now if her husband humiliated our nation, then why would we want her? Yeah, I was really humiliated by all that prosperity and hope during the nineties. The surplus was destroying our nation!
Thank god our current beloved commander-in-chief rode to our rescue, freeing us from those horrors we know as "civil liberties". If not for him, what horrors might have occured!
After all, an unjustified war over a lie, tax cuts for the rich, a nine trillion dollar deficit, a system of secret torture prisons, unwarrented phone tapping, and an entire city left to drown are nothing compared to getting a BJ by your secretary! Clinton should be hanged and they should give bush a metal.
you know, to go along with all the others he won in his distinguished military career.

I hate her because she hates the militatry, she's a leftist who tries to appear centralist (and fails). Also, she comes on wayyy too strong. I would elect Laura Bush over her because I feel more comfortable with Laura Bush. Also, Hillary acts like she has a penis, or a vagina with teeth. The last reason, is well, she's ugly. She is U-G-L-Y! I don't want to have to look at that everytime I watch CNN or Fox News.
And you'd rather look at this! http://www.bushbacklash.com/NewFiles/Images/bushdopegesture.jpg

And you'd rather look at this! http://www.bushbacklash.com/NewFiles/Images/bushdopegesture.jpg

Would you want to look at this??

http://edition.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/clinton.legal.fees/link.hillary.clinton.jpg

Not really sure what's she doing here.

http://brian76.mystarband.net/hilary.jpg

Even at her best she fugly.

http://clinton.senate.gov/images/home/topmast/topmast_hillary.jpg

Every time Hillary Clinton's name comes up in debate, there are pages of vague scorn, that she would "run the nation into the ground." Does anyone have any SPECIFIC reasons or examples of this? I have yet to hear anything beyond a vague allusion to her more or less photo-opp condemnation of the "Hot coffee" mod in GTA SA. Why are you people so scared of Hillary becoming president? I just want to understand your concerns.

If you want to know what is wrong with Hillary why don't you ask Bill? After all, if there were nothing wrong with Hillary he would not have to have not sex with Monica. :rolleyes: Would he? :confused:

What the hell?

Are you lot seriously concerned about how your political leaders look?!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Nothing brings out my inner racist like Americans.

What the hell?

Are you lot seriously concerned about how your political leaders look?!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Nothing brings out my inner racist like Americans.

Well yea, I am lol. Hey what can I say. I don't need to be scared first thing in the morning before I had my coffee!

Every time Hillary Clinton's name comes up in debate, there are pages of vague scorn, that she would "run the nation into the ground." Does anyone have any SPECIFIC reasons or examples of this? I have yet to hear anything beyond a vague allusion to her more or less photo-opp condemnation of the "Hot coffee" mod in GTA SA. Why are you people so scared of Hillary becoming president? I just want to understand your concerns.

The problem with her is she is a democrap. Unfortunately, that's still better than the only other choice, the republicants are worse. Tell me again why I live here....
Plus, she has a major beef with video games. And that is something I cannot stand.

What the hell?

Are you lot seriously concerned about how your political leaders look?!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Nothing brings out my inner racist like Americans.
Calm down, the picture swapping was all in good fun.
Obviously anyone can have stupid looking photos taken of them over many years in the public eye. I'm sure one could be produced for any celebrity.

Would you want to look at this??

http://edition.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/clinton.legal.fees/link.hillary.clinton.jpg

Not really sure what's she doing here.

http://brian76.mystarband.net/hilary.jpg

Even at her best she fugly.

http://clinton.senate.gov/images/home/topmast/topmast_hillary.jpg
Yes, because the physical appearence of a potential candidate matters so much more than their position on issues. Oh, their personal life matters a lot too. Can't forget that. :rolleyes:

I may not be a supporter of Hillary by ANY means, but come on, Wilgrove, attack her stance on issues, not the person!

Well yea, I am lol. Hey what can I say. I don't need to be scared first thing in the morning before I had my coffee!
But...But... ABE LICON!!!

Exprain away.
Actually, I was just making fun of people who hate Hillary Clinton, but when you ask them why they can't answer you.:p

But...But... ABE LICON!!!

First it's Lincoln, and second, I would rather see him on the news everyday than Billary.

First it's Lincoln, and second, I would rather see him on the news everyday than Billary.

Whoops my Bad.

I don't know man he's kind of Rotting right now :p

Calm down, the picture swapping was all in good fun.How sure are you...

Oh well, on the topic: There's a lot of damn good reasons to dislike her.
She has no desire to untangle the MI-complex. She is not going to fight for public healthcare. She isn't going to try to turn the US into a multi-party representative democracy. She isn't going to stop imposing taxes on people, to hand the money over to privately owned corporations. She isn't going to try to limit consolidation within the private sector..

There's only one single reason to vote for her, if it comes to that; she's not republican.

hillary is a wackjob conservative

Also, Hillary acts like she has a penis, or a vagina with teeth.
I think that's it in a nutshell. Every Hillary basher I have met seems to take it as a profound insult that as first lady, she didn't just smile and wave but actually held opinions! And... and... she asked to help with her husband's policy!

Dear God, what IS America coming to when women presume to have opinions and think they can run the government?

They MUST be butch!

hillary is a wackjob conservative
Really most conservatives call her a liberal.

She's a populist who thinks she has the right to legistlate the day-to-day activities of her fellow human beings.

Really most conservatives call her a liberal.
shes not, shes right of center on many issues

Really most conservatives call her a liberal.Which makes one wonder.. What exactly do these conservatives consider conservative policy?

shes not, shes right of center on many issues
Maybe it's just a being near bill thing...

What's wrong with Hillary? EVERYTHING! Can't she make up her mind about being right wing or left wing? Besides, she looks like a man. Hell, I think she IS a man.

I think that's it in a nutshell. Every Hillary basher I have met seems to take it as a profound insult that as first lady, she didn't just smile and wave but actually held opinions! And... and... she asked to help with her husband's policy!

Dear God, what IS America coming to when women presume to have opinions and think they can run the government?

They MUST be butch!

Mule fritters.

Who elected her to do that? Which senate vote confirmed her appointment?

No one elected Laura Bush, and no senate confirmed her appointment, so she does not interfere in the government of the United States.

The real reason to oppose her is that she has no policies, only an urge to rule (as opposed to govern). She will do or say anything to get power.

Since no one else has given a serious answer, let me be the first.

She's not nearly as left-wing as the right-wing likes to make her out to be, for starters. She was for the war in Iraq and has never renounced that stance--in fact, she continues to defend it. She's a firm believer in the power of corporate money, and she's failed to realize that corporations already have control of one party--the Republicans--so there's no need to give them control of both. Democrats are supposed to be the party of the common person--it's time she remembered that.

And then there's the pandering. She's no more shameless about it than John McCain, but I don't like him either. But she takes stances on the oddest issues--videogames, a flag burning amendment that won't change anything. She's not my favorite, that's for sure, but she's better than anyone the Republican party will put up. I won't vote for her in the primary, but I would in the general, and then I wold take a long hot shower, just like I did after voting for Kerry.

Since no one else has given a serious answer, let me be the first.Pfft! BEat you to it by a full page full of nonsense :p

Since no one else has given a serious answer, let me be the first.

She's not nearly as left-wing as the right-wing likes to make her out to be, for starters. She was for the war in Iraq and has never renounced that stance--in fact, she continues to defend it. She's a firm believer in the power of corporate money, and she's failed to realize that corporations already have control of one party--the Republicans--so there's no need to give them control of both. Democrats are supposed to be the party of the common person--it's time she remembered that.

And then there's the pandering. She's no more shameless about it than John McCain, but I don't like him either. But she takes stances on the oddest issues--videogames, a flag burning amendment that won't change anything. She's not my favorite, that's for sure, but she's better than anyone the Republican party will put up. I won't vote for her in the primary, but I would in the general, and then I wold take a long hot shower, just like I did after voting for Kerry.

Saved me the trouble of writing it up. Thanks. :p

Because she didn't work for it...rode the clinton train to be senator. And before someone can say that about bush...he worked his way to be govenor of Texas.

It's telling that the only cogent responses to the question comes from liberals.

Mule fritters.

Who elected her to do that? Which senate vote confirmed her appointment?

No one elected Laura Bush, and no senate confirmed her appointment, so she does not interfere in the government of the United States.
Odd, I didn't hear about a convirmation vote for Karl Rove or other White House positions that carry a lot of weight...

Well yea, I am lol. Hey what can I say. I don't need to be scared first thing in the morning before I had my coffee!

Well, for what it's worth, here in Canada, our head of state is far hotter than your head of state.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/governorgeneral/michaelle_jean.html

And I don't know what colour the sky is in your world, but from a reasonable political perspective, neither Mrs Clinton nor her husband is particularly liberal, and never has been. It's just that everybody seems liberal compared to the current crop of neoconservative, socially backward Republicans. Hell, even freakin' Attila the Hun would seem like a liberal beside someone like Dick Cheney.

New question: What, exactly, is wrong with Michael Moore?

This I want to see. *grabs popcorn*

New question: What, exactly, is wrong with Michael Moore?

This I want to see. *grabs popcorn*

He's fat!

New question: What, exactly, is wrong with Michael Moore?

This I want to see. *grabs popcorn*

He lies and manipulate truth to fit his adgenda. So does Rush Limbaugh but still.

Actually, I was just making fun of people who hate Hillary Clinton, but when you ask them why they can't answer you.:p

I can. It is her politics. I don't hate her, I dislike her very much.:eek:

hillary is a wackjob conservative

ROLFLAMO! Yes, a left wing consetvative. ::D

Why don't I like Hillary Clinton.........
(I'll be serious person number 2 on this forum btw.....)

Hillary Clinton is NOT what the United States (my country..I'm American) needs right now. Our country is currently facing many HUGE problems that need to be dealt with seriously. The next president needs to strive to do whats best for our country as a whole and not what will win their political party a "few points" against the other party. Hillary Clinton will do exactly that. She has shown the country that she will not take firm action on a policy. She wastes her time protesting little things like "violent video games" and "flag burning" when their are so much more critical things that need to be dealt with. Problems like our Social Security system, public education system, the huge deficit in the budget, the War on Terror, energy, the environment, America's losing competitiveness in the global market, immigration, etc. The list goes on and on and all of these need to be dealt with and many people aren't going to like the solutions. Hillary Clinton won't make those tough choices that would make people unhappy. Actually, I don't think anyone in the 2 major political parties today are willing to make those tough decisions and do what is best for the country. The American political system (Lol, and usually Americans in general) are the kings of procrastination. Any huge problem that needs to be dealt with is not going to be dealt with until it falls on our doorstep and causes a load of havoc (Examples: Hurricane Katrina and 9/11). Despite being an optimist at heart, It is hard to not be pessimistic about our future with a political system that is currently inept and solving major problems. I'm afraid that none of this is going to be dealt with (in the correct manner.....not to be too inflammatory, but President Bush and Congress in general has made some very poor decisions) until it literally is wrecking havoc to America. I do trust America will make it through it all, but unless we get a President that will be one of those "Abraham Lincoln"'s or "Franklin Roosevelt"'s then I fear we will go through it with quite a bit of suffering.

I'm not really certain on all the other character faults of Hillary Clinton (Well, everyone has them), but I do know that she is not the answer to our problems.....

Hmmm....plus I was always hoping the first Woman President would be as great as the first Male President......ya know....one of those people that tremendously alters the way our country works (for the better). Hillary Clinton would not do this and I am certain that if she is elected that she will leave her presidency as discredited as President Bush will be.

:headbang: This is my first Post by the way....don't be too harsh ;)

shes not, shes right of center on many issues

She is running for President. She wants you to think she is right of center on some issues.

She is running for President. She wants you to think she is right of center on some issues.
That's her plan? Wow, democrats are better at shooting themselves in the foot than I thought. Make your base hate you to gain a few gullible moderates... interesting strategy.

I think in '08, once again we'll be voting for the lesser evil, which sucks.

I think in '08, once again we'll be voting for the lesser evil, which sucks.

Unfortunately, that is so true......... :(

I think in '08, once again we'll be voting for the lesser evil, which sucks.
Has there been a time when you haven't had to?

:headbang: This is my first Post by the way....don't be too harsh ;)

Welcome to NS. A very good first post. Right now neiter party deserves my vote. We need a third party or even a fourth party in this country. Business as usual in Washington needs to come to a halt.

Has there been a time when you haven't had to?

Kennedy?

Bill Clinton?

Ronald Reagan?

Has there been a time when you haven't had to?

The first election. We all liked Washington.

That's her plan? Wow, democrats are better at shooting themselves in the foot than I thought. Make your base hate you to gain a few gullible moderates... interesting strategy.

What base? The left hates her because of her stance on the war. Al Gore has a better chance with the left than Hillary does.

Has there been a time when you haven't had to?

Yes. Reagan.

Kennedy?
Perhaps.

Bill Clinton?
No.

Ronald Reagan?
You must be joking.

The first election. We all liked Washington.
Who was the opposition? Washington was a bit authoritarian for my taste. He had an excellent foreign policy though, IMHO. Also a very honorable style of choosing whom to appoint to government positions. If Jackson had one major downfall it was the Spoils System.
Anyways, I meant personally, had you had a time when you weren't forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I know you weren't there for Washington.

The first election. We all liked Washington.

We? We? Damn boy, I'm old but I ain't that old. ...mumble...young pup insinuating...mumble...

We? We? Damn boy, I'm old but I ain't that old. ...mumble...young pup insinuating...mumble...

Oh yeah...You're the one almost as old as Eut...

:p Originally Posted by Celtlund:
Welcome to NS. A very good first post. Right now neiter party deserves my vote. We need a third party or even a fourth party in this country. Business as usual in Washington needs to come to a halt.

Yes, I agree...our political system needs to change a lot. Successful Third Parties always cause large changes in the 2 major political parties.....we need something that will change the system and fix the problems....

Originally Posted by Dinaverg:
The first election. We all liked Washington.

Lol, yep .... don't think we will ever have someone liked as much him. But, did you know Washington was actually fairly unpopular when he left the presidency? Don't wanna bore you with the details, but he wasn't very popular at the end.....

Yes. Reagan.What was there to like about him?

Well, for one that stupid healthcare bill. And aslo people generally aren't very fond of anti-video gamers. Acually, in the begining I thought she was okay for a Democrat, but now...http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/angry/mad.gif

:p

Yes, I agree...our political system needs to change a lot. Successful Third Parties always cause large changes in the 2 major political parties.....we need something that will change the system and fix the problems....
Not many successful third parties to speak of. Bull Moose didn't do much for the Republicans' platform.



Lol, yep .... don't think we will ever have someone liked as much him. But, did you know Washington was actually fairly unpopular when he left the presidency? Don't wanna bore you with the details, but he wasn't very popular at the end.....
Have anything to do with his Farewell Address where he attacked anything even resembling political parties, when they had already formed? Political parties don't take kindly to attacks...

What was there to like about him?

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/index_images/greatest_american_reagan.jpg
Reagan-
Strength for now, deficit and economic collapse for later

This message is paid for by the Committee to Hate Reagan

What was there to like about him?

As long as you had money, didn't live in South America, and didn't enjoy freedom in any way shape or form, Reagan was amazing! :p

As long as you had money, didn't live in South America, and didn't enjoy freedom in any way shape or form, Reagan was amazing! :pAh.. Sorry, I forgot to view it from the perspective of the 0.2% richest people in the world. My mistake.

Ah.. Sorry, I forgot to view it from the perspective of the 0.2% richest people in the world. My mistake.

Who did you think decided elections in the capitalist world?

Anyways, I meant personally, had you had a time when you weren't forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I know you weren't there for Washington.

Yes, twice.Both times the third party candidate was a national candidate. The first one was George Wallace, the second time it was Ross Perot.

It's telling that the only cogent responses to the question comes from liberals.
That's because we've got the only cogent reasons to dislike her. Most people on the right who see her as some sort of man-destroying liberal she-bitch couldn't tell you where she stands on a single issue--they're just filled to the gills with Hillaryhatred which is based on little more than innuendo and a lack of self confidence about their penis sizes.

Oh yeah...You're the one almost as old as Eut...

NO! I'm OLDER than Eut. :fluffle: I turned 63 this month, he hasn't even reached 60, that young pup.

Yes, twice.Both times the thired party candidate was a national candidate. The first one was George Wallace, the second time it was Ross Perot.Yet another reason why I have precious little respect for you.

You know, it doesn't even matter to me whether Wallace was a racist in his heart or if he was a racist solely for political gain--he pandered to the darkest side of humanity in a search for power, and for that, he will always be a shitbag to me.

What was there to like about him?

What was ther to not like about him?

Yes, twice.Both times the thired party candidate was a national candidate. The first one was George Wallace, the second time it was Ross Perot.
Mmhmm... well, voting for a third party doesn't really count, they tend to be less of a source of pure evil than the big two.

As long as you had money, didn't live in South America, and didn't enjoy freedom in any way shape or form, Reagan was amazing! :p

Et tu Bill?

.. Most people on the right who see her as some sort of man-destroying liberal she-bitch couldn't tell you where she stands on a single issue--...

That's because she can't tell you where she stands on the issue until she cehcks the most recient poll. :rolleyes:

Ronald Reagan was voted "The Greatest American"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4631421.stm
And he remains one of the most popular American presidents, so obvously many people in the USA who aren't in the richest 0.2% like him.

That's because she can't tell you where she stands on the issue until she cehcks the most recient poll. :rolleyes:
Responding to polls is a facet of modern politics, and if you believe that Bush's people don't pay attention to polling before they roll out a new program, you're only fooling yourself. For someone who claims to be so old, you sure have a naive fucking view of the world. But what else should I expect from someone who supported "Segregation now, segregation forever" Wallace? :rolleyes:

The left is still but-hurt about that 49 state electoral landslide in 1984. Just like they are still but0hurt about their "first black President" getting caught committing felonies, and then commiting more felonies to cover it up, and they now think they have to tar George Bush to redeem the Clintons.

Yet another reason why I have precious little respect for you.

You know, it doesn't even matter to me whether Wallace was a racist in his heart or if he was a racist solely for political gain--he pandered to the darkest side of humanity in a search for power, and for that, he will always be a shitbag to me.

I did not vote for him on the basis of his racial views.

Nazz I can respect you even though I don't always agree with you. You have the right to your opinon just as I have the right to mine. Just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I respect you any less.

Originally Posted by Free Farmers:
Not many successful third parties to speak of. Bull Moose didn't do much for the Republicans' platform.

What are you talking about? Ever heard of the Populist Party, Socialist Party (though this one didn't do as much, because it was discredited), Progressive Party (Bull Moose was this, but still that was only when Theodore was with it. It switched to Progressive later), and all of the Independent candidates. All of these have caused change in the platforms of the 2 major political parties. A few third parties actually become one of the 2 major political parties the Whigs took over after the Federalists (I think thats the name), the Republicans took over after the Whigs. Third Parties do shape the system...but since they are usually overlooked, it usually takes a particularly strong issue that neither of the major political parites are dealing to cause people to vote for them.


Originally posted by Free Farmers:
Have anything to do with his Farewell Address where he attacked anything even resembling political parties, when they had already formed? Political parties don't take kindly to attacks...

Well, the political parties that were forming did divide the country (the Federalist and the Democratic Republicans) which, since Washington was only doing what he saw as best for the country tended to side with one party on one issue and the other on another, which makes both parties not happy with you. No his Farewell Address (which wasn't really an Address as we know it, it was only a small column in the Newspaper, not even the front page), was largely overlooked and ignored. It's only so noted now when people look back on it.

Ronald Reagan was voted "The Greatest American"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4631421.stm
And he remains one of the most popular American presidents, so obvously many people in the USA who aren't in the richest 0.2% like him.

That poll is clearly bull. Dubya, who barely has a 30% approval rating, beat out 40 other presidents. Wow, that makes sense.
Clinton gets into the top ten, nuff said.

Also, read the link you post:
Some observers suggest the image of Mr Reagan, who was criticised as an intellectual lightweight during his presidency, has been enhanced following his death as millions of Americans cast a rose-tinted look back at his presidency.

Responding to polls is a facet of modern politics, and if you believe that Bush's people don't pay attention to polling before they roll out a new program, you're only fooling yourself. For someone who claims to be so old, you sure have a naive fucking view of the world. But what else should I expect from someone who supported "Segregation now, segregation forever" Wallace? :rolleyes:

Nazz, I knew I would take hits for the Wallace thing before I posted it, so quit trolling. OK? :fluffle:

I did not vote for him on the basis of his racial views.

Nazz I can respect you even though I don't always agree with you. You have the right to your opinon just as I have the right to mine. Just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I respect you any less.

I've always liked and respected The Nazz, even though I really don't agree with anything he says.

But I am surprised to see someone who admits to voting for George Wallace. :runsandhides:

Every time Hillary Clinton's name comes up in debate, there are pages of vague scorn, that she would "run the nation into the ground." Does anyone have any SPECIFIC reasons or examples of this? I have yet to hear anything beyond a vague allusion to her more or less photo-opp condemnation of the "Hot coffee" mod in GTA SA. Why are you people so scared of Hillary becoming president? I just want to understand your concerns.
I suspect it's because they are afraid of a woman having power.

The left is still but-hurt about that 49 state electoral landslide in 1984. Just like they are still but0hurt about their "first black President" getting caught committing felonies, and then commiting more felonies to cover it up, and they now think they have to tar George Bush to redeem the Clintons.
WTF? No seriously WTF?

That poll is clearly bull. Dubya, who barely has a 30% approval rating, beat out 40 other presidents. Wow, that makes sense.
Clinton gets into the top ten, nuff said.
:
The poll is almost a year old.

I suspect it's because they are afraid of a woman having power.
Except that I think a majority of Americans would have no problem with a woman a president. I know I wouldn't, if it were the right woman.

I did not vote for him on the basis of his racial views.

Nazz I can respect you even though I don't always agree with you. You have the right to your opinon just as I have the right to mine. Just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I respect you any less.
See, to me there are some things that are dealbreakers when it comes to politicians. You can have the greatest ideas in the world, but if you stoop to dividing groups by race in order to turn out your vote, then you're an irredeemable scumbag in my eyes and you'll never get my vote. Wallace was that kind of man. You can't separate the man and the racism, even if you tell yourself that you voted for him for other reasons. You can apologize for that vote, but the fact remains that you supported an open racist for the Presidency of the US.

I know politics is a bare-knuckled sport, and I expect all manner of mud to get slung in the course of the campaign. The best politicians turn that mud back on their opponents. But there are some lines you should not cross, and Wallace crossed that line, as have more recent politicians. Any politician who gets an endorsement from the CCC and doesn't repudiate it immediately is a dirtbag in my eyes. Any politician who goes after another politician's family for political gain is a dirtbag in my eyes and unworthy of my vote.

Jeez man. There's just some shit you don't do, no matter how good the rest of your intentions.

The poll is almost a year old.
What!?! It last time I checked it was may when they were updated!! Stop fucking with my mind!!

But I am surprised to see someone who admits to voting for George Wallace. :runsandhides:

So I should not have been honest?

What are you talking about? Ever heard of the Populist Party, Socialist Party (though this one didn't do as much, because it was discredited), Progressive Party (Bull Moose was this, but still that was only when Theodore was with it. It switched to Progressive later), and all of the Independent candidates. All of these have caused change in the platforms of the 2 major political parties. A few third parties actually become one of the 2 major political parties the Whigs took over after the Federalists (I think thats the name), the Republicans took over after the Whigs. Third Parties do shape the system...but since they are usually overlooked, it usually takes a particularly strong issue that neither of the major political parites are dealing to cause people to vote for them.
I've heard of them and as far as I know only the Bull Moose ever even got a single electoral vote. Furthermore, while they may change a few minor things in a minor way, they still have little effect on the actual platforms.
The Whigs were not some longshot third party, they were just Federalists with some new members so they would have a chance in the elections again. The Federalist party just got a makeover, it didn't die.
Same with the switch from Whig to Republican.

Well, the political parties that were forming did divide the country (the Federalist and the Democratic Republicans) which, since Washington was only doing what he saw as best for the country tended to side with one party on one issue and the other on another, which makes both parties not happy with you. No his Farewell Address (which wasn't really an Address as we know it, it was only a small column in the Newspaper, not even the front page), was largely overlooked and ignored. It's only so noted now when people look back on it.
I know what the Farewell Address was, I did think it was more widely read than that though. You would think such a thing would be read by the people who had adored him so much to allow him to do whatever the hell he felt like doing.
In any case, yes the back and forth manner of governing prolly pissed them off more than the Address.

Every time Hillary Clinton's name comes up in debate, there are pages of vague scorn, that she would "run the nation into the ground." Does anyone have any SPECIFIC reasons or examples of this? I have yet to hear anything beyond a vague allusion to her more or less photo-opp condemnation of the "Hot coffee" mod in GTA SA. Why are you people so scared of Hillary becoming president? I just want to understand your concerns.

I am concerned that Hillary will abandon the gloriouspell-mell rush towards fundamentalist Christianity that this nation is on. Theocracy is the only way and if she stands in the path of the Neocon, we shall stone her to death!

I think in '08, once again we'll be voting for the lesser evil, which sucks.

Unless Rudi G runs. If he doesn't, then yes, that'll happen.

Any politician who goes after another politician's family for political gain is a dirtbag in my eyes and unworthy of my vote.

Like when Kerry and Edwards repeatedly called out Dick Cheney about his lesbain daughter in order to get bigots to not vote for him?

Like when Kerry and Edwards repeatedly called out Dick Cheney about his lesbain daughter in order to get bigots to not vote for him?
Or like when bush called Kerry a liberal, northern senator to get bigots to not vote for him?

Or like when bush called Kerry a liberal, northern senator to get bigots to not vote for him?
Now, try and follow along. In response to a comment about politicians talking about their opponents family, I made my comment. Your comment in turn, was about one politician correctly labeling another.

Do try and keep up.

NO! I'm OLDER than Eut. :fluffle: I turned 63 this month, he hasn't even reached 60, that young pup.

Actually, he turned 63 Saturday. Cjeck that thread of his...It might be the Wiccan symbol one, or the Yay Me one.

You know, if Teddy Roosevelt was alive today, I would so vote for him. The first Zombie or cloned President!

Now, try and follow along. In response to a comment about politicians talking about their opponents family, I made my comment. Your comment in turn, was about one politician correctly labeling another.

Do try and keep up.
Hey if the, region of this country becomes a mud slinging issue Why can't you're family?

And it doesn’t seem that good of a strategy anyhow Since the whole thing will get overlook by the fact that Kerry was FOR gay marriage

Or are you just trying to get my head to explode from rage/confusion? :p

(seriously though Could you Please answer some of my previous posts?)

Like when Kerry and Edwards repeatedly called out Dick Cheney about his lesbain daughter in order to get bigots to not vote for him?
Hmmm. So mentioning that the VP's daughter is lesbian when she's not only out but an activist for same-sex rights and when asked a question in a debate about the question of same sex marriage is somehow "going after her?" What kind of fucked up world do you live in, bub? Let me guess--it's the kind where Democrats are always wrong. :rolleyes:

For the record, here's Kerry's statement during the third debate: (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html)KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.
And here's the [url=http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.htmlEdwards/Cheney exchange:[/url]
EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.

Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not.

We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.

I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.

But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.

No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.

This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.

IFILL: New question, but same subject.

As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.

Are you trying to have it both ways?

EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along.

We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.

For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.

I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.

But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.

I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.

Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.

Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.

There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
Gee, Cheney, who's never been known to back down from a challenge, didn't seem to take much offense at those remarks, now did he? So now, what was that about attacking the Cheneys' daughter? Hmmmm?

Dang it Nazz! now I'll never Get thoose answers! :p

(oh well you did avoid a flame war):D

Gee, Cheney, who's never been known to back down from a challenge, didn't seem to take much offense at those remarks, now did he? So now, what was that about attacking the Cheneys' daughter? Hmmmm?
I understand that maintaining composure and decorum in a debate is foreign to you, but not everybody responds like this.

Fuck you, you fucking liar. Moveon made no such comparison, and only lying douchebags still make that claim.

Some actually maintain thier composure, and get angry in private. If you know anything about the situation, you would know that entire Cheney family was angry about it, and you know full well that it was a sleezy attempt to get people to not vote for Bush-Cheney based on that.

Or not...:(

I understand that maintaining composure and decorum in a debate is foreign to you, but not everybody responds like this.



Some actually maintain thier composure, and get angry in private. If you know anything about the situation, you would know that entire Cheney family was angry about it, and you know full well that it was a sleezy attempt to get people to not vote for Bush-Cheney based on that.
And why were they mad? Go to those statements and point out where either Kerry or Edwards were insulting or degrading or even mentioned anything that the rest of the goddamn world didn't already know.

Oh wait--you can't.

And by the way, you've still never corrected yourself on that Moveon slur. So go ahead and keep quoting me--you only destroy your own credibility, what little you have, whenever you do it.

Like when Kerry and Edwards repeatedly called out Dick Cheney about his lesbain daughter in order to get bigots to not vote for him?


Like when Bush and Cheney attacked Kerry's past during Vietnam? Dick Cheney is the biggest biggot of them all.

Or not...:(
There's no flame war here--that quote is from a long dead thread, and my point still stands in it. Sal y Limon is a liar, and an unapologetic one, apparently. He quotes that post on occasion in an attempt to male me look bad. I stand by it. It was righteous anger, and he knows it.

I've heard of them and as far as I know only the Bull Moose ever even got a single electoral vote. Furthermore, while they may change a few minor things in a minor way, they still have little effect on the actual platforms.
The Whigs were not some longshot third party, they were just Federalists with some new members so they would have a chance in the elections again. The Federalist party just got a makeover, it didn't die.
Same with the switch from Whig to Republican.


I know what the Farewell Address was, I did think it was more widely read than that though. You would think such a thing would be read by the people who had adored him so much to allow him to do whatever the hell he felt like doing.
In any case, yes the back and forth manner of governing prolly pissed them off more than the Address.

I thought the Whig party merged with the National Soil Party (I think that's the name) to get the modern Republican Party. However, yeah their stances didn't particularly change much.

Alright, I'm tired of all of these older, richer people telling me what to do. It's high time we lowered the age for the Presidency significantly. Further, I should run. Yes, you heard me. I'll run, right now. I'll get nowhere, but I'll still run.

...

Ah, who am I kidding? No way would a nineteen year old ever get away with it.

Point is, every single candidate I've seen thus far hasn't appealed to me in the slightest. We need a strong third party candidate. The Republicans have fucked up. The Democrats most assuredly will, as it seems to be their nature lately. So I suspect we'll--for the first time in history--have a third-party candidate become President. Who? I've no idea.

Meanwhile, I'll continue trying to reform the Libertarian party from within. Haven't started yet though. I think I need to get through college before I even think about it. Once I do...

Anyway, as for Hillary? She panders far too much and focuses on idiotic issues. The "Hot Coffee" issue upset me especially, as it was nothing but spurring parents up to snatch votes because parents are too irresponsible to monitor what their children are doing.

...yes I'm tired so I'm probably not sounding as together as I typically do. I don't care. I'm still making my points.

There's no flame war here--that quote is from a long dead thread, and my point still stands in it. Sal y Limon is a liar, and an unapologetic one, apparently. He quotes that post on occasion in an attempt to male me look bad. I stand by it. It was righteous anger, and he knows it.
Well let's hope that he dosn't couter post tonight. ;)

Well let's hope that he dosn't couter post tonight. ;)
I'm not bothered. I certainly won't respond in kind if he does.

And why were they mad? Go to those statements and point out where either Kerry or Edwards were insulting or degrading or even mentioned anything that the rest of the goddamn world didn't already know.

Oh wait--you can't.

And by the way, you've still never corrected yourself on that Moveon slur. So go ahead and keep quoting me--you only destroy your own credibility, what little you have, whenever you do it.
The point is, is that it was a calculated politcal move to sway voters away from Bush-Cheney, and it was sleezy, like most of the politics of the left. And most of the world did not already know, just those that follow politics.

And moveon posted ads comparing Bush to hitler. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Moveon.org is a sleezy organization engaged in sleezy politics.

This would be a great time for a third party to rise. They just have to give the American Public what the Democrats and Republican aren't.

I'm not bothered. I certainly won't respond in kind if he does.
Good more time for me to harrass him about not answering what the hell He ment by "first black President" (WTF!?!:headbang: )

Good more time for me to harrass him about not answering what the hell He ment by "first black President" (WTF!?!:headbang: )

I think he's either referring to Sharpton, Jackson, or Clinton who was dubbed the "first black President".

The point is, is that it was a calculated politcal move to sway voters away from Bush-Cheney, and it was sleezy, like most of the politics of the left. And most of the world did not already know, just those that follow politics.So talking about the openly gay daughter of a politician when asked a question about same sex marriage is sleazy, but oh, passing out purple heart bandaids at the Republican national convention isn't? Again, you've got a fucked up sense of reality, bub.

And moveon posted ads comparing Bush to hitler. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Moveon.org is a sleezy organization engaged in sleezy politics.
No, they didn't, and you know it. You're still lying on this, and you do yourself no great favors.

The point is, is that it was a calculated politcal move to sway voters away from Bush-Cheney, and it was sleezy, like most of the politics of the left. And most of the world did not already know, just those that follow politics.

And moveon posted ads comparing Bush to hitler. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Moveon.org is a sleezy organization engaged in sleezy politics.
Hey, guess what, genius: THAT'S HOW ALL POLITICS ARE! Regardless of whether you are "left" or "right" that's how it will be. Quit harping on one "side" as if they're the only ones doing it. Your ignorance makes me sick.

Hillary is a liberal. That's what's wrong with her.

Let's be honest. During the '04 campaign, BOTH sides used tatics that was hitting below the belt. Kerry used the gay daughter thing, and Bush bashed Kerry service in Vietnam. Which is ironic giving Bush's own militatry track record.

I don't care much for moveon.org.

Let's be honest. During the '04 campaign, BOTH sides used tatics that was hitting below the belt. Kerry used the gay daughter thing, and Bush bashed Kerry service in Vietnam. Which is ironic giving Bush's own militatry track record.

I don't care much for moveon.org.
And I hate those tactics. I've always thought one should attack a person's position on issues, not the person themselves. I, frankly, plan on using that tactic if I ever do go into politics. I will never, ever sling mud directly at a person. Any mud slung at me will be tactfully deflected. I will make it clear to people that what is important is the issues. Or at least, so I plan, anyway. Who knows how it'll turn out.

I think he's either referring to Sharpton, Jackson, or Clinton who was dubbed the "first black President".
You're kidding me...:rolleyes:

Let's be honest. During the '04 campaign, BOTH sides used tatics that was hitting below the belt. Kerry used the gay daughter thing, and Bush bashed Kerry service in Vietnam. Which is ironic giving Bush's own militatry track record.

I don't care much for moveon.org.
God, I hate that I'm being forced to defend Kerry here, but how exactly did he "use the gay daughter thing?" Did he run commercials with Mary Cheney out front and center? No. It came up in two of the debates in the context of same sex marriage and there were brief comments, almost offhand. I posted them on the last page. Look them over and see, please. Tell me how they "used" that as a tactic, because I'd love to hear about it.

You're kidding me...:rolleyes:
I'm guessing it was the saxaphone thing that did it.

remember the copresident thingy?

the hidden meetings/agenda on socialistic national health care?

who chaired the abortion - hitlery


you think her in charge wouldn't be worse w/o someone else in charge??? ymmv

remember the copresident thingy?

the hidden meetings/agenda on socialistic national health care?

who chaired the abortion - hitlery


you think her in charge wouldn't be worse w/o someone else in charge??? ymmv
Can we please do without the Nazi-isms? I don't even like her and I'm defending her against this shit.

God, I hate that I'm being forced to defend Kerry here, but how exactly did he "use the gay daughter thing?" Did he run commercials with Mary Cheney out front and center? No. It came up in two of the debates in the context of same sex marriage and there were brief comments, almost offhand. I posted them on the last page. Look them over and see, please. Tell me how they "used" that as a tactic, because I'd love to hear about it.

It's still considered mud slinging because it still attacks the person or the person's family. Did Kerry point out the irony in Bush's gay marriage admendment, yes. Did he do so by saying that Gays should have the same right as everyone else and they deserve to be happy (or miserable) as married people? Well, yes, however, to drag a family member into this mess is just hitting below the belt. If you're going to challenge a person, challenge their position, and their policy, not their personal life.

It's still considered mud slinging because it still attacks the person or the person's family. Did Kerry point out the irony in Bush's gay marriage admendment, yes. Did he do so by saying that Gays should have the same right as everyone else and they deserve to be happy (or miserable) as married people? Well, yes, however, to drag a family member into this mess is just hitting below the belt. If you're going to challenge a person, challenge their position, and their policy, not their personal life.
I think you're using an unrealistically expansive definition of "attack," to be quote frank about it.

I think you're using an unrealistically expansive definition of "attack," to be quote frank about it.

All I'm saying is that any attack that's outside the person you're actually debating with, like family and personal life, is hitting below the belt. If you debate the person on the issuses and policy, that is fine and dandy and the way a debate should be. However to be saying stuff like "Well he has a gay daughter!" or "Well his 3 purple heart are worthless and so was his militatry service!" is hitting below the belt.

I really do wish debates are monitored more like boxing matches instead of just having a guy sitting there asking question and going "1 minute left."

I think you're using an unrealistically expansive definition of "attack," to be quote frank about it.
Well, he does have a point. It was a little underhanded for him to use it. I doubt he was actually trying to use it in the manner suggested, and certainly wasn't purposely pushing the matter. It was just a mistake, the kind that a true politician must avoid. Thing is, I've not ever seen a true politician in my life, and if they do exist, they're incredibly rare.

I think it's odd that in any debate, bringing up a fact in a non-agressive manner, espeically one that pertains in some way to the debate, and can be easily verified as a fact, can be construed as an attack. It was not propaganda, it was the simple statement of a fact, and it is not the fault of Kerry or Edwards if some members of Bush and Cheney's voting block would refuse to vote for a man with a gay daughter.

Gotta love how nobody is actualy talking about Hillary Clinton on this thread.

Hillary want to ban video games! :mad: That's in violation of Freedom of Speech, and that's bad enough!

I'm afraid I have to agree with Wilgrove here. Family members which are non-political should not be mentioned in politics. There is no place in politics for the family life of other politicians as that has almost nothing to do with how well they will do at running the country.

Sure if someone comes from a broken home and is suffering from pathological abuse from their mother or something along those lines, then it might be prudent to point that out to the country, but that person wouldn't get nominated to begin with.


In short family needs to be left out of the political equation.



And as far as Hillary is concerned. She is meglomaniacal, hypocritical, and is avowedly against the military. I will admit right away that the latter point probably is bias due to the fact that almost everyone in my entire family is military or retired military, but she is still a power mongerer.

I won't deny she is good at politics; hell she practically made the election for her husband, but that doesn't mean I want a ravenous she-devil at the helm of the nation.


Our President is Commander in Chief, and this means that they must be the supreme member of our nations military. I do not want someone who is not qualified to run our nations military at the helm.

NT

Gotta love how nobody is actualy talking about Hillary Clinton on this thread.
Well ... the South Park episode tonight had a picture of what originally looked like Chelsea Clinton, but there was this huge live action part that made me think otherwise.
So would Chelsea do the beer bong with Jenna and Laura? Perhaps a little stint on Girls Gone Wild?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/686.gif