MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 4, 2008 15:33:57 GMT -5
I can't believe that there are people that consider NY/NJ/Connecticut to be her home turf.
I really hope this crying ACT isn't a theme in this race.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 15:45:45 GMT -5
Ohhh please Balls. Spare the claims of stupidity. You just don't agree with Hilary's politics and you think she's a crooked opportunist. OK, that's fair. But you can't call people stupid for supporting her especially coming on the heels of (depending on your political outlook) arguably one of the most dismal presidencies in history - a presidency that was gained through(again, depending on which side of the fence you're looking at) arguably nefarious means.
I don't begrudge you the right to despise Hilary Clinton - I don't think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread either, but here is the problem we face today: Clintons and Bushes have become the Hatfields and the McCoys, reducing Conservatives and Liberals into behaving like Bloods and Crips - out to humiliate one another.
It saddens me that most voters are either morons who vote based on who makes for funnier jokes on David Letterman, or those who consider themselves politically astute don't really comprehend economics and foreign policy, but rather try to outdo their counterparts with catchy slanderous sounbytes like "Fuzzy Math" and "Family Values."
I haven't seen ONE issue discussed in this thread....all I've seen is "Hilary is a bitch."
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 4, 2008 15:51:53 GMT -5
Chris--Hillary itself has NOTHING to do with politics. It's SO beyond that. She is absolutely unqualified. Any human being that would find her worthy of a vote is so dumb that they do not deserve the right to vote. She was elected in a state that she had no relationship with, to a job that she had no qualification for. She is not experienced, and worst of all, she is corrupt.
She has played the gender card to perfection, and the idiots bought it. When she gets in trouble, she plays the victim. The idiots bought it.
Obama is a different story. With HIM it's all about politics. At least he's an honest person. Hillary is as vile as they come. Obama got to where he got on his own. Hillary shacked up with the right guy, became famous as his WIFE, and got elected based on her celebrity.
That's stupid.
It doesn't even get to politics with Hillary. It doesn't have to. She is simply unfit for the job.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 16:06:24 GMT -5
I might have said that any person who found Ronald Reagan worthy of a vote was dumb.
And I even have recent justification for that since reports have come out that his mental faculties were already compromised while he was in the White House.
But I wouldn't say that, because I don't believe that anyone who truly voted for Reagan based on his (or his handler's more appropriately) stances on key issues is dumb. I would say that their political positions differ immensely from mine, but not dumb.
By your logic, if Hilary had the greatest plan for Iraq and Health Care (she doesn't, but what if) ever concocted, she isn't worthy of a vote because of some spin-doctored perception of corruption. Come on, man. Obama is honest? Yeah, honestly ambivalent and vague about the specifics of issues...gee THAT'S a great attribute. What politician isn't corrupt on some level. JFK may very well have been the most criminally corrupt President ever - a good President nonetheless.
Again man, I don't care if you hate her, but don't act as if she some naive babe in the woods when it comes politics...I think she's got a reasonable grasp on the issues and her stances are founded in an educated evaluation of the issues (whether you agree with it or not)....she's not some dunce arbitrarily pulling shit out of thin air.. You act like Bill married some skank stripper who parlayed a marriage into political office....she's not a dumb person and she's not entirely unqualified. And time of public service is your measuring stick? Strom Thurmond served the public for about 8 billion years and he was probably the most unqualified person ever to run for the Presidency.
|
|
|
Post by iamnotatablelamp on Feb 4, 2008 16:14:58 GMT -5
thank you Chris.
and this is why i cannot get involved with this board's political thread.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 4, 2008 16:18:44 GMT -5
What has Shillary actually done? What are her accomplishments. She was going to fix healthcare back in 93 or so.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 16:58:05 GMT -5
Aww come on, Pete. What has any ONE politician ever accomplished. She is a state Senator...she has played in important role in passing or preventing much legislature that may have benefited your state or the country as a whole. Or maybe she pushed along legislature that you vehemently disagree with. Either way, the correct way to look at this is to ask yourself, "What issues does Hilary Clinton support that agree with or disagree with my own political stances?" Not, "She's a bitch, she's carpet bagger, oh she cried, she has fat ankles."
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 4, 2008 17:22:39 GMT -5
she hasn't done anything. With a Governor or businessman, I can say that the person has "run" something. It's like the email going around that Deanna Favre should play QB because she hangs out with Brett and all.
I"m still for Romney, but I guess McCain will be my choice.
As for an important role in passing legislation, that's true, she pushes things along, however running a country, state or grocery store requires more "smarts". Hell, at least Reagan told the world that "the buck stops here", he may not have been the best president, but at least he was a leader.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 18:04:26 GMT -5
I'll put it this way. How many of you REALLY actually know what Hilary Clinton's stances on the economy, her plan for withdrawing from Iraq, her plan for health care, her plan for the environment are to any meaningful depth beyond "she's a democrat, I'm a Republican, I hate her."
I'll bet not many. That's all I'm saying. It would be nice if at any time people who actually plan on voting could actually articulate in tangible concepts why they prefer one candidate over another.
And to put it in terms of your Brett Favre analogy...umm, if Deanna Favre had started 4 seasons at QB for a D1 school and was chosen as an All-American, I might give her a shot leading the huddles for The Pack too! Better check your facts on Hilary's stellar scholastic career, her active role during her time as First Lady, not to mention her career as a state senator, before you compare her to some jocks wife.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 4, 2008 18:35:45 GMT -5
How can you know Hillary's stances on ANYTHING? She changes her mind based on what she is told to say. She is NOT a leader. She has NO plan for anything. Everything she does is just for her power.
You COULD say that anyone who would vote for Reagan was dumb, but you would be wrong. Reagan was qualified to be President of the US. He was Governor of California for years, and EARNED his spot. He DESERVED to be the leader of the GOP and the free world.
Hillary got to where she is because of her husband's coattails. People sympathize with her because she plays victim and because her husband got his cock sucked.
Unlike all of the other candidates on both sides of the aisle, she has not accomplished a single thing on her own. And when she gets in trouble, she stages yet another crying act.
Hillary does not have a plan for anything. She couldn't even take a simple stance on immigration.
And JFK was not a good President. He was a terrible President that is remembered fondly because he got shot. He WOULD have been a good President because he grew into the job, but his record was not very good.
And while Bill didn't marry a stripper, she DID parlay everything she has on HIS coattails. She has done NOTHING on her own. NOTHING.
If Deanna Favre got her starting job because of her husband and name, accomplished nothing during her time as QB, and started to cry when her team was losing and she was threatened by a better QB, that would be a better analogy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 18:48:29 GMT -5
"How can you know Hillary's stances on ANYTHING? She changes her mind based on what she is told to say. She is NOT a leader. She has NO plan for anything. Everything she does is just for her power."
In other words, your answer to my question is NO! You have not investigated one ounce of effort into investigating her very clear with no ambiguity whatsoever, stances on the REAL issues that face this nation....because Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Fox News called her a "carpetbagger" and "Flip-flopper." Sounds reasonable.
At LEAST I comprehend the Republican stances on most of the key issues and I can actually articulate them as well as why I may be opposed (if I even am) to them.
If you have paid one ounce of attention to anything at all beyond catchy soundbytes and fast-talking smear tactics, you would see that of ALL Presidential candidates left in the race, Republican or Democrat, it is in fact Barack Obama who has given us the least amount of insight into his tangible plans for real issues.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 4, 2008 19:48:41 GMT -5
In other words, Hillary's stances is that she has no stance--ON ANYTHING. It's a further example of her inability to be a leader.
I don't watch Hannity or O'Reilly. I don't need them to tell me the obvious. Do you know what a carpetbagger even is? She went to a state to which she had no relationship. No history. Ran on her celebrity because the idiots buy into that. And won.
I can understand the democrat stances. But Hillary isn't about that. She will change her stances and sell out anyone as long as she gets elected. And if that fails, she will cry.
Turn herself into the victim, and hope the old women vote for her.
As for Obama, I know he's not qualified either--but it's based on politics, not ethics. It says plenty about the democrat party that they are so close to nominating that cunt.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 20:09:15 GMT -5
Again, repeating a faulty mantra over and over, doesn't necessarily make it so.
Hilary Clinton has laid out very explicit plans, particularly regarding Iraq, with real timelines and numbers. Because you haven't bothered to investigate them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Again, she HAS stances..she has long-held stances on key issues. I'm not saying you should agree with them.
You've played this flip flop card before on the war and immigration, and your logic just isn't there. She supported a war based on faulty, fabricated information that scores and scores of other members of the legislative branch based their own support for the war on, Dems and Republicans alike, yet you choose to cite Hilary as the sole "flip flopper." Faulty! You claimed she flip flopped on immigration when in fact she still supports tough laws on immigration, only adding a caveat that we should not waste financial resources sending Dog The Bounty Hunter after every illegal already here. That's not a flip flop either. But whatever...you are like a billion other Democrats AND Republicans...you will always take spoon fed cutesy little soundbytes from Fox News and base your entire understanding of a politicians strengths and weaknesses on that. This is just like liberals calling Bush ANTI-ENVIRONMENT because he wanted to drill for oil in Alaska....nevermind he was looking for a short term solution to reduce dependency on foreign oil while alternatives to fossil fuels were being researched...just take the VERY superficial idea that BUSH WANTS TO DRILL IN ALASKA = ANTI-ENVIRONMENT. That's what you are doing here - HILARY DOESN'T WANT TO HUNT DOWN ILLEGALS AND DEPORT THEM = SOFT ON IMMIGRATION. Superficial understanding of the issues such as this is beyond help.
No I have no clue what a carpetbagger is (insert sarcasm here). I'll tell you this much, I knew what the term carpetbagger meant and it's historical meaning LONG BEFORE Hilary Clinton ran for Senate, and if you care to drudge up the history of carpetbagging on the part of Republicans, I'd be happy to indulge that conversation. Carpetbagging is not something unique to Hilary Clinton, even though it's a bit extreme to refer to her as such.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 4, 2008 20:18:43 GMT -5
Hillary Clinton has never done a thing. She does not have stances on key issues. She doesn't even have a voice that isn't coached.
She has not accomplished one thing on her own. She wouldn't even be where she is if not for who she married. Obama has earned his place. She is just trying to be annointed. It's disgusting.
She supported the war because it was the popular thing to do. If the war was still popular, she would still support it. She is not qualified to make foreign policy decisions. I'm sure her stances are up for sale.
Again, I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS. So playing the Limbaugh/OReilly card does not fly.
Hillary Clinton is all about fear tactics, class warfare, and socialism. But more important, she only cares about her power base. She is a danger to this country and most important, she is not a leader. She has no qualification to run this country. None.
And now you are doing the biggest Clinton apologist technique--"others do it." Sorry, but what happened after the Civil War is not relevant to Hillary Clinton's carpetbagging. She was not qualified to be a senator, and she is NOT even close to being qualified to be President.
But hey, she cried, so she can be the victim.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Feb 4, 2008 20:35:31 GMT -5
In other words, your answer to my question is NO!
Cho, in all due respect, I like you. But I am driven to call you a stupid idiot here.
I KNOW ALL ABOUT Hillary's take on issues. She's a friggin LIBERAL, you moron! YOU KNOW HER TAKE. I KNOW HER TAKE. I know exactly how she is on the issues. And, on top of that, I have indeed read up on the issues, I am a friggin subscriber to the Weekly Standard, for crying out loud.
Balls, stop arguing just to argue, and talk issues. You KNOW Hillary is simply a fucking liberal, and you are just like "who cares, she flip flops???" Cho, I am CONSERVATIVE. For all the rips McCain takes, he is 1000 times more my speed than Hillary. Hillary is NOT CONSERVATIVE, SHE IS A LIBERAL.
Happy?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 4, 2008 20:38:39 GMT -5
I agree with Balls on the lack of skills for shillary. Well, she did have a few people bumped off when her man was in the White House. Chris, you still haven't said what exactly she has done. Yeah, she was smart, she went to Yale. So did W, for that matter. The crying makes her look weak. I'm sure FDR cried when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, but it wasn't on the cover of every damn newspaper in the country.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Feb 4, 2008 20:44:58 GMT -5
In all due respect, could you imagine Hillary if she was in office on 9/11? The friggin' woman looks like she cries at a store opening!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 4, 2008 20:45:27 GMT -5
Let's say FDR DID cry at Pearl Harbor. No one can equate that with crying over a campaign because you are losing.
And it's not that Hillary is just a flip flopper. Politics don't even get in the picture with her. She does not have the character or experience necesssary to be President. She is not qualified.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 20:45:39 GMT -5
"Hillary Clinton has never done a thing. She does not have stances on key issues."
Again, you can KEEP saying the earth is flat, but even a mild effort return enough empirical evidence to show you wrong...but hey, what's the point right? She cried.
I've always wished that there were a mandatory test to enable people to vote - a test to demonstrate that you have at least a legitimate understanding of the issues and the candidates stances on those issues. I'm sure that you, and many like you would not pass, Balls. I say this not to imply that you aren't smart. I know you are actually highly intelligent. I say because I believe you are highly stubborn and unmotivated to entertain any ideas that lie outside of whatever your agenda maybe in any particular area. I suspect that because you are a staunch Republican, and that Clinton has basically been painted Public Enemy #1 to the Republicans, and that Hilary is his wife as well as a high profile powerful woman, you are towing the party line and have painted her in your mind as all of these immoral things and you're not deviating from that regardless of any facts that may (or may not) be out there to prove the contrary. I'm guessing that you also think that Laura Bush is a much more admirable person than Hilary, despite the fact that she's a modern day June Cleaver (an loyal, mousy little dope).
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 20:47:21 GMT -5
"Yeah, she was smart, she went to Yale. So did W, for that matter"
hehehe....now THAT'S funny! W had a "C" average!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 4, 2008 20:52:52 GMT -5
hey, i had a c average as well...... but not at Yale. The crying makes her look weak. For that reason, I'd never vote for her for even mosquito control.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 21:00:03 GMT -5
Now come on Tom. That's kinda fucked up. Why do I have to be a "stupid idiot" when I'm trying to get the same kinds of answers from Balls that you are?
OK, she's a liberal. Fair enough...and you're a conservative. That's kinda towing the party line and generalizing every candidate, but at the VERY least that is based on some fundamental understanding of the differences between the two on the issues. If that's your bag, towing the party line, fine. Personally, I'm a registered democrat, but I still make it a point to truly comprehend the issues and evaluate candidates on a per-person basis. I feel it's the more responsible thing to do - not saying that you're irresponsible. For example, when Jack Kemp was a serious nominee for President, he was a Republican candidate that I would have been happy to live with. All I'm asking for is a little bit of responsible voting, not, "Fuck her, she has fat ankles. She sucks because ummm...well she was married to Bill and let him get away with getting blow jobs on the side."
Pete - you keep trying to pin me down for one specific contribution she made. I don't know what she's done as Senator as I am not a New Yorker. I know what her stances are on many issues, and I agree with some, and disagree with others. I know one thing though....you're trying to paint her as some dopey nincompoop who happened to fall off the turnip truck at the right time...she's a lot more accomplished than just being "smart." She played an active role in many of Bill Clinton's successful social programs (and I guess success is a relative term depending on what side of the coin you're on) and the overriding point is that she wasn't merely his wife waiting for him with dinner cooked...she knows her way around Washington with the best of them...come on, seriously...like Tom said...the ISSUES. She's not dumb, she's not weak, she's not a crook (any more than any other politician)....she's just a powerful liberal woman and that makes for an easy target for the venom of conservatives. I mean, who's your guy Pete...name specific things he's "done."
I'm not telling any of you to vote for her. I'm not. I just wish people could understand and articulate real political issues as opposed to all of this silly irrelevant based-on-nothing-tangible character assassinations.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 4, 2008 21:08:51 GMT -5
And JFK was a C student at Harvard.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 21:17:30 GMT -5
Yeah, and he was every bit the spoiled child of privilege that Bush is....although a much better President.
I think your characterization of JFK is much like your insulting assessment of Jackie Robinson.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 4, 2008 21:20:50 GMT -5
He was NOT a better president than Bush. People will always remember him for being shot. He COULD have been a good one. But he wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 4, 2008 21:21:57 GMT -5
He was not a better President than Bush? ? Dear GOD, PLEASE BE talking about George H Bush! That is TOO funny. Even your precious Republican candidates are scampering to distance themselves, albeit in the most polite and subtle ways, from the train-wreck of Shrub...but you're here saying that he was a better President than JFK. Rose had the right idea.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 4, 2008 21:42:49 GMT -5
I am all for Romney. He's been a governor, ran a company, ran the olympics. Hillary Clinton is not qualified to run a three trillion dollar company. She helped out Bill, big deal. She's closer to Deanna Favre than she's closer to a decent President. She's either strong or weak, you can't be both in the public eye. What about Whitewater? She's corrupt as John Gotti.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 6:37:41 GMT -5
No JFK was not a better President than George W. Bush. He didn't accomplish much in his time in office other than taking a bullet to the head. Cuba was the turning point, but not enough time passed after for him to truly establish a legacy, other than of course his death. JFK before the Cuban Missile Crisis was way out of his league and his presidency was one debacle after another.
Of course, Bush and JFK are both irrelevant to this thread.
But the bottom line is still that there is NOTHING worse than the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency. She is simply not qualified. She has not accomplished a single thing on her own to deserve running the country.
She has done nothing to show that she could be Commander in Chief of our military. She is simply not a leader. The fact that the democrat party entertains her as the nominee is mindboggling.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Feb 5, 2008 8:55:13 GMT -5
I think its obvious to me what has happened here. Cho sees the cause becoming hopeless, and he is lashing out. He went from being conversational, to waking up and realizing his nominee is going to be that twat Clinton, and he knows all hope is lost. And he is sniping now, and actually trying to defend the undefendable.
I'm just happy my side of the body politic will be holding on to the White House.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 5, 2008 9:04:44 GMT -5
I never count chickens, and the closer she gets, the scarier she gets. Besides, her crying act works on people.
|
|