Is Hilary finished?

[Dragon]

Bill Clinton = Brady Bill
Hillary Clinton = I don't even want to think about it...

And I have an arsenal of Preban and Postban toys that they better not touch...

[ivan1]

WASHINGTON (Feb. 10) - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton replaced campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle with longtime aide Maggie Williams on Sunday, engineering a shake-up in a presidential campaign struggling to overcome rival Sen. Barack Obama's financial and political strengths.

[ivan1]

A good night for Obama...

I think rehearsal has started:

[apk919]

Originally Posted by LARRY

But the kind of human rights violations the Bush Administration has embarked on are so shocking and anti-American that I cannot live with a Republican in the White House any longer.

Since a Democratic President was the only man in human history to shockingly authorize the use of nuclear weapons on women and children, and another Democratic President authorized indefinite detention based solely on race, can I assume that you cannot live with a Democrat in the White House either?

[Slade]

I don't think it's over yet - it's pretty close between hilary and obama. Anything but more of the same... close minded marching towards conventional military solutions as Bush and his posse have done. Anything but that, please. McCain seems to be the most vocal during the '04 Bush re-election (unbelievable!) - I actually liked the guy and respected him before that.

[raggedy1]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread daily, and to be honest I don't feel like reading over all the pages, but I did do a search on "Peter Paul" and came up with no hits on this thread.

A friend just sent me this link to a google video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...09937779036019

It's close to 14 minutes long but I found it worth the watch. It presents a criminal case on Hillary Clinton and her fundraising schenanigans.

Hmm, let's see. She treats people like dirt. She is (most likely) guilty of perjury. She won't be getting my vote.

[Flash G]

Originally Posted by raggedy1

I haven't been keeping up with this thread daily, and to be honest I don't feel like reading over all the pages, but I did do a search on "Peter Paul" and came up with no hits on this thread.

A friend just sent me this link to a google video:

It's close to 14 minutes long but I found it worth the watch. It presents a criminal case on Hillary Clinton and her fundraising schenanigans.

Hmm, let's see. She treats people like dirt. She is (most likely) guilty of perjury. She won't be getting my vote.

Lame. Obviously a one-sided hit piece.

The most laughable part is that no one even has a shred of evidence that she did anything wrong. AND, the fact that they say she should be put away for 5 years because she asks Cher to sing at a fundraiser?!?

It's just laughable. That's the reason the "mainstream" media has ignored it.



.

[ivan1]

[quote=Flash G;926080 she should be put away for 5 years because she asks Cher to sing at a fundraiser?!?

.[/QUOTE]

That alone says something about her judgment

[raggedy1]

Maybe Paul has an axe to grind. I take everything with a grain of salt.

Taking everything into account, she still would never get my vote.

[Moto44]

Originally Posted by raggedy1

Maybe Paul has an axe to grind. I take everything with a grain of salt.

Whether there is any truth in the argument or not, it's refreshing to hear someone say this. Youtube has opened up a new era in propaganda.

Say what you will about the mainstream media, before youtube, where would you have ever seen a piece like this produced on behalf of Ron Paul, complete with images of Adolph Hitler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpKDLxwBifs

This was posted on a sportbike forum and hailed by a crowd of Ron Paul supporters as the "best one yet".

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Flash G

That's the reason the "mainstream" media has ignored it.

Yea because the "mainstream" media isn't politically biased at all right?

[benjh1028]

Originally Posted by Flash G

It's just laughable. That's the reason the "mainstream" media has ignored it.
.

The mainstream media generally avoids anything that seems remotely detrimental to the democratic party.

Ben

[benjh1028]

Originally Posted by LARRY

If all you care about is guns, move to Georgia where they will NEVER take your guns away and shoot at things.

And next year we hope to get indoor plumbing! Hey Daddy get off me, you're crushing my cigarettes!

I was wondering the other day why I tend more to the Republican party, and think I can simplify it - I just want what I am due. Meaning this, I work hard to earn money to support myself. I don't believe in the democratic system of re-distribution of wealth (taxes and govt programs). Everyone has the same opportunity, so why should I be penalized for working harder than the next person. Not my job to support others.

A good example of this behavior is the "Stimulus Bill." I absolutely hate this for the simple reason that the government is trying to "bail out" people who were irresponsible in the first place. Nobody takes responsibility for their actions these days. Second, I paid the federal govt over $50,000 this year. So how large will my rebate check (its actually just a pre-funded credit against next years taxes) be - $00000000! Yet, people who didn't pay taxes last year will receive this benefit - WTF? And before people state that it was a bipartisen bill, look at the original republican plan. While still not truly "stimulating", at least it recognized that in order to receive a tax benefit you needed to pay into the system to begin with.

And don't get me started on socialized medicine as it would be one of the largest disasters in our country's history.

In my world, the only thing the federal government really needs to intervene in is national security - and it doesn't look like the socialists, I mean democratics, really give a rats ass about it.

What we really need is a strong 3rd party - Transio, you still running?

Ben

[LARRY]

Originally Posted by apk919

Since a Democratic President was the only man in human history to shockingly authorize the use of nuclear weapons on women and children, and another Democratic President authorized indefinite detention based solely on race, can I assume that you cannot live with a Democrat in the White House either?

Poor argument.

And you know it.

A Democrat in the White House is the only answer to the loss of personal freedom Americans have faced in the last 8 years thanks to the Bush Administration and their Iraq war.

This is not 1945. This is 2008.

Barak or Hilary for President.

[NMRJock]

Originally Posted by LARRY

A Democrat in the White House is the only answer to the loss of personal freedom Americans have faced in the last 8 years thanks to the Bush Administration and their Iraq war.

Seems like we'd be trading the loss of one handful of personal freedoms for the loss of another.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by LARRY

Poor argument.

And you know it.

A Democrat in the White House is the only answer to the loss of personal freedom Americans have faced in the last 8 years thanks to the Bush Administration and their Iraq war.

This is not 1945. This is 2008.

Barak or Hilary for President.

There are lots of differences, not just the year. It's not a trivial argument. There were more Japanese Americans "interred" during WWII than "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay. A number of Germans including one American citizen of German descent were hung as "illegal enemy combatants". Fewer people died at Pearl Harbor than on 9/11. Japan and Germany fought mostly conventional wars using uniformed combatants. Islamic fundamentalists are using any tactic that seems to work including using the infirm as suicide bombers. You may be willing to ignore this, I'm not. I just happened to be on that little island of Manhattan during the attacks in 1993 and 2001.

BTW, what loss of personal freedom have you actually suffered? Longer lines at the airport? Having to use your passport to travel? My cousin is suffering from respiratory problems related to his work as a fireman on 9/11. Now that's a loss of freedom.

[raggedy1]

I'm all for the loss of a few personal freedoms if it would mean a more secure country, but I fear the loss has not equated to much more security after all. In any event, I'm not for socialist tendencies myself so I am not a huge fan of the democratic ways.

I believe I registered as democrat long ago but now consider myself an idependant thinker. I don't like any of the candidates. I was hoping for someone other than McCain for the Republican ticket, and it's a definite NO to Clinton. I guess I'll have to learn more about Barak. Will an Independant ever have a chance in this country (Paul)?

[LARRY]

Originally Posted by apk919

There are lots of differences, not just the year. It's not a trivial argument. There were more Japanese Americans "interred" during WWII than "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay. A number of Germans including one American citizen of German descent were hung as "illegal enemy combatants". Fewer people died at Pearl Harbor than on 9/11. Japan and Germany fought mostly conventional wars using uniformed combatants. Islamic fundamentalists are using any tactic that seems to work including using the infirm as suicide bombers. You may be willing to ignore this, I'm not. I just happened to be on that little island of Manhattan during the attacks in 1993 and 2001.

BTW, what loss of personal freedom have you actually suffered? Longer lines at the airport? Having to use your passport to travel? My cousin is suffering from respiratory problems related to his work as a fireman on 9/11. Now that's a loss of freedom.

Wow. Are you clever!

Take a political argument and make it a personal argument.

Who are you voting for and why?

[LARRY]

Originally Posted by NMRJock

Seems like we'd be trading the loss of one handful of personal freedoms for the loss of another.

The freedom of a bright, intelligent person in the White House?

Sounds wonderful to me.

Who are you voting voting for and why?

[John]

Originally Posted by raggedy1

Hmm, let's see. She treats people like dirt.

Which I have been saying for years. I have seen it first hand, as have the numerous Secret Service agents I've known. She is a rotten ****, plain and simple. Patti Solis Boyle was very similar as well, but more reserved and calculated and didn't lose her temper like Hillary did on a daily basis.