PDA

View Full Version : Democrats only



hondo
01-27-2008, 12:01 PM
Edwards looks dead.
So who would you vote for: Obama or Clinton & why?

wolfdancer
01-27-2008, 01:22 PM
Clinton....because I'm bored

Drop1
01-27-2008, 01:58 PM
Edwards,because he looks dead. I don't like the choices. Paris Hilton,because she has more in common with the common folk,or folkers.

hondo
01-27-2008, 03:21 PM
Not a choice. He's dead, I tell you, Dead!

Qtec
01-27-2008, 10:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Edwards looks dead.
So who would you vote for: Obama or Clinton &amp; why? <hr /></blockquote>

I would go for Obama. Simply because I would never vote for Hillary.
IMO Hillary wants the job because its an achievement- not because she wants to change the system for the benefit of the country. She just wants to be President. Thats it.

Did you see that tiff they had at the SC debate?

web page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA)

Q

LWW
01-28-2008, 05:21 AM
Oh, I see.

Y'all are following the great democratic tradition of voting as often as you can in each election.

LWW

hondo
01-28-2008, 06:24 AM
Current vote among Democrats:
Clinton-2
Obama-1
Nobody-1
Keep those votes coming. It's getting exciting. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Qtec
01-28-2008, 09:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Oh, I see.

Y'all are following the great democratic tradition of voting as often as you can in each election.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Well, according to statistics, you have to vote at least 3 times in the US these days in order to be sure that one vote is counted. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
01-28-2008, 01:51 PM
Q, if you would vote Republican, they would count your write-in vote from the Netherlands, maybe even twice!!
There's a video on Youtube, about how easy it is to rig the Diebold machines, and with all the negative publicity, Diebold has renamed them

Gayle in MD
01-29-2008, 10:02 AM
Hillary. This is no time for another inexperienced president, IMO. I don't think Obama is nearly as intelligent as Hillary, nor do I think he's as well equipped for the job. He strikes me as not able to discuss the issues in depth. I don't think he could ever win a debate against Hillary, nor do I believe that he is as well informed on foreign affairs.

As for who voted for the war, and who didn't, that isn't much of an issue, since they were all lied to by the Administration. Obama is trying to turn one vote, into a presidency. Hillary has been working for the disadvantaged since she graduated from Law School, which proves to me that equal rights, and opportunity for all, have always been of importance to her, since long before she could have ever imagined being in the public eye, as a former first Lady, or as a Senator.

Just my 2 c.

Deeman3
01-29-2008, 10:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hillary. she could have ever imagined being in the public eye, as a former first Lady, or as a Senator.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Plus, she has Bill to fight her battles for her as well as take over is she has any more of those unfortunate memory losses that have effected her during testomony in the past. Of course, we could get some of that White House furniture back as well. A win/win for everyone. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

hondo
01-29-2008, 11:44 AM
One more day. Currently 3 - 1 - 1, Clinton.

wolfdancer
01-29-2008, 12:30 PM
Say, did you read the thread's heading?
Does this mean you are mending your ways, and joining the peoples party?

Deeman3
01-29-2008, 01:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Say, did you read the thread's heading?
Does this mean you are mending your ways, and joining the peoples party? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Does that mean the left stayed out of the Republican's only section?

No, still a neocon....I am just waiting to hear more of that crazy talk that the media is not biased....You can't be sane and believe that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>

LWW
01-29-2008, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Say, did you read the thread's heading?
Does this mean you are mending your ways, and joining the peoples party? <hr /></blockquote>
Don't forget ... Olberman's not a liberal! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
<font color="blue"> Does that mean the left stayed out of the Republican's only section?

No, still a neocon....I am just waiting to hear more of that crazy talk that the media is not biased....You can't be sane and believe that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
01-29-2008, 01:36 PM
Truthfully, isn't it hard not to be biased after all that has happened?
The latest double talk is the reduction in forces... the 20k troops that we sent over for the surge, are coming home...does that mean we won? Or were they sent over, to be recalled and make GWB look good?
And now as election draws near another tax cut? anybody ever here of deficit financing?
I don't know if we can ever recover from the damage he has caused....
He has to be the worst President ever, and that includes Ide Amin.

Deeman3
01-29-2008, 02:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Truthfully, isn't it hard not to be biased after all that has happened?
The latest double talk is the reduction in forces... the 20k troops that we sent over for the surge, are coming home...does that mean we won? Or were they sent over, to be recalled and make GWB look good? <font color="blue"> I think you and i can agree that GWB gives not a hoot about making himself look good. </font color>
And now as election draws near another tax cut? anybody ever here of deficit financing? <font color="blue"> I think this is a fair assessment of both sides in this dirty lillte secret. By the way, I go on record as opposing any bailout of the economy by Dems or Repubs. It will be a wash as far as buying votes go but keep the lower income groups happy for a few months. </font color>
I don't know if we can ever recover from the damage he has caused.... <font color="blue"> Oh! Ye of little faith. Hillary will make it all better. She will spend us out of it. </font color>
He has to be the worst President ever, and that includes Ide Amin. <font color="blue"> I believe history will judge him better than you do. Give us a few years of noble apoligising around the world and some butt kissing with the UN and we will be fine. Notice that almost all the leaders winning elections around the world are those that are pro-American. Someon gets in trouble, they are still not calling on the French to bail them out. Besides, China will be right there for Hillary, they certainly paid for it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

All in all, you gotta get over this fatalistic view of what can be accomplished with a little of you money here and my money there.

Now we have the left abandoning Obama at the first signs of Billary 2.0 with this being a complete master plan from the right? Come on, you gotta wait until California to dump him.

By the way, what was wrong with President Amin? He must be o.k. they made a flick about him and was never hungry. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

LWW
01-29-2008, 07:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> He has to be the worst President ever, and that includes Ide Amin. <hr /></blockquote>
And just when I thought you couldn't possibly say anything dumber ...

LWW

pooltchr
01-29-2008, 07:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
I would go for Obama. Simply because I would never vote for Hillary.
IMO Hillary wants the job because its an achievement- not because she wants to change the system for the benefit of the country. She just wants to be President. Thats it.


Q <hr /></blockquote>

Since it happens so rarely, I must admit that you have made a valid observation with which I agree. I believe she has nothing but her own ego in mind. She believes she is entitled to the office after spending 8 years in the shadow of Bill. While I'm not a big fan of Obama's politics, I do believe he is motivated by honorable intentions, while Hillary's seem much more self-serving.
Steve

wolfdancer
01-29-2008, 09:28 PM
Wow !!! ...you better get that retort over to AZB, while it's still hot.
Is posting on these boards...is that your whole life?
I'm retired, and all my time is free...but I worry about someone who works a full week,and has no other outlet except for these boards...I get to play pool 3 times a week, and golf when it's warm enough....this is just a way of blowing off a little steam for me....I'm not even that political...but Bush and his war....that would make any free thinking American political.....
This seems to be your day's hi-lite...trying to come across as an uber-intellect....trying to win an argument against someone you don't know and you'll never meet...to what avail????
why don't you ask the misses for a tenner, and go down to the nearest bar, and give some real live people the benefit of your spiel?

Drop1
01-29-2008, 10:34 PM
I suppose a blow job is out of the question,better settle for the tenner.

Gayle in MD
01-30-2008, 03:51 PM
Do you ever get tired of posting right wing Bullsh*t? Regardless of who the Democratic candidate for president is, you can bet your ass it won't be another win for Repiglicans. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Deeman3
01-30-2008, 04:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Do you ever get tired of posting right wing Bullsh*t? <font color="blue">Of course not. </font color> Regardless of who the Democratic candidate for president is, you can bet your ass it won't be another win for Repiglicans. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <font color="blue"> I know you are probably right but didn't you make that same prediction for the last two elections? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

LWW
01-30-2008, 04:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Do you ever get tired of posting right wing Bullsh*t? Regardless of who the Democratic candidate for president is, you can bet your ass it won't be another win for Repiglicans. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Coming from you this is comedy of the highest level.

LWW

wolfdancer
01-31-2008, 12:46 PM
cain't you reed, ignoramus? Democrats only....
I can post on the Republican side, because I have a special dispensation from the Pope...also because I had to repeat 3 grades in primary school

wolfdancer
01-31-2008, 12:55 PM
Gayle, while Dee is a die hard Republican, he does post without the animosity of a lww, bama,or lloiter....come to think of it....so does everyone else.
I believe his post had a bit of political humor in it...

LWW
01-31-2008, 01:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> cain't you reed, ignoramus? Democrats only....
I can post on the Republican side, because I have a special dispensation from the Pope...also because I had to repeat 3 grades in primary school <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Gayle, while Dee is a die hard Republican, he does post without the animosity of a lww, bama,or lloiter....come to think of it....so does everyone else.
I believe his post had a bit of political humor in it...<hr /></blockquote>
I tell you what, that there's some funny shiite!

Only a heavy haterade drinker could write those two posts back to back.

Now, wolfie, why don't you be a man of integrity for once.

You pronmised to leave, and I'd be happy if you quit shadow posting like a pompous arse.

LWW

wolfdancer
01-31-2008, 01:08 PM
If you want to put a little wager on shadowing....I'd bet that you have out shadowed me, by about 2 to 1.AND Lord knows, neither of you can let a post of Gayle's go by ....she done got you trained, boy....jes like Pavlov's dog
Look at the bright side....no one else here gives a sh*t about you posts, since they are so far removed from reality...I'm your only audience and responder....you should be thanking me!!!

LWW
01-31-2008, 01:16 PM
Yet you copy my words on a daily basis ... face it wolfie, you'll feel better, you aren't capable of independent thought.

Sit Toto, sit ...

LWW

wolfdancer
01-31-2008, 01:21 PM
I get it now.....they are going to bring back the "Howdy Dowdy" show...and you are auditioning here for Clarabelle, the Clown? or did you want to be the dummy, Howdy? and Bama could pull your strings /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

LAMas
01-31-2008, 05:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Edwards looks dead.

So who would you vote for: Obama or Clinton &amp; why? <hr /></blockquote>

Edwards is out.
My son is a Teamster and wonders if he doesn't vote for Osama, his buds will think he's a racist.

If he doesn't vote for Billery, his buds will say he's a Male Chauvinist.

Can't win.

DickLeonard
02-01-2008, 09:21 AM
Gayle we almost had the perfect matchup Hilliary and Rudy. With both New Yorkers running for President we would have stopped the flow of New Yorkers tax money supporting the country. The tax revenue would comeback to New York as it should. ####

wolfdancer
02-01-2008, 11:01 AM
Dick, Rudy should have known about the Gracie Mansion curse...Mayor of NYC is a dead end job.
I thought John Lindsay had a chance, but "what works in NYC, isn't understood in the rest of the country".
Rudy Guiliani at John's funeral, finished his eulogy with this line "...but most of all he was a New Yorker"
Hillary is a New York Senator and might become President...but she'll never be a "New Yorker"

Gayle in MD
02-02-2008, 08:54 AM
Yes, I did. Since then I've read a number of books which have revealed the corrupt election practices the Republicans used to throw both of the last two Presidential elections, one of those books was written by a Repiglican Operative, who wrote about being hired by the RNC to break the law. He wrote the book after he had been convicted, but then, such facts often escape the nutty NEOCONNED right.
Deeman: [ QUOTE ]
I think you and i can agree that GWB gives not a hoot about making himself look good.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> Right, that's why he hired the biggest public relations firm in NYC to help him to sell his lies about Iraq. That's why he dresses up like a pilot and sends his people in early to insist on a Mission Accomplished Banner, you do know that it WAS Bush's guy, the former employee of said Public Relations Firm, who hung up the banner, right?


And really, don't you think it's a bit absurd for any Neocon, such as yourself, to even utter the word "Spending"
in any form of criticism against Democrats, after we've watched the biggest spenders of all times in a spend fest to beat anything we've ever seen before? Try just counting all the billions missing, before you use the word, "Spending" again. Regardless of how you paint your war mongering party, they have lost more billions than all the Democrat's earmarks put together.</font color>
Gayle in Md.
So Proud I've Never Voted For George Bush! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
02-02-2008, 08:58 AM
I believe it was just another Clinton Bashing fest, full of untruths, remenicent of Limpballs and COLT-er. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
02-02-2008, 09:00 AM
Maybe, but what will those dollars be worth after we finally get rid of the chimp? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
02-02-2008, 09:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Try just counting all the billions missing, before you use the word, "Spending" again. Regardless of how you paint your war mongering party, they have lost more billions than all the Democrat's earmarks put together.
<hr /></blockquote> So in your mind the Dems are relieved of all responsibility for their fiscal actions if a Rep is out there doing worse?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-02-2008, 09:27 PM
No, and I never said that. Just pointing out that when it comes to spending, Repiglicans have won the gold medal, and in fact, they've lost or misplaced more billions than Democrats have spent. Bush, is the last man on earth with any right to accuse others of overpsending. But I suppose those who get their salaries from the killing machine, don't mind that kind of money being spent.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-03-2008, 10:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle:</font><hr> And really, don't you think it's a bit absurd for any Neocon, such as yourself, to even utter the word "Spending"
in any form of criticism against Democrats... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> So in your mind the Dems are relieved of all responsibility for their fiscal actions if a Rep is out there doing worse? <blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle:</font><hr> No, and I never said that. Just pointing out that when it comes to spending, Repiglicans have won the gold medal, <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> That might be what you "think" you are pointing out but yours words are here to all to read. You think it is absurd to point out Dems fiscal spending because you want to detract from their mis-use of taxpayer money and point fingers at someone else. You never ever give responsiblity to someone or a group of people if it is not in your favor.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-04-2008, 08:56 AM
Apparently there has been no misuse, Ed. No Democrat is in jail, to use your logic.

The Democrats cut earmarks by 40 % compared to the spending under the Republican control. The reality is that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that YOUR PARTY,s the REPIGLICANS, ARE THE BIG SPENDERS, and YOUR PRESIDENT, NEVER VETOED A SINGLE SPENDING BILL WHEN REPIGLICANS WERE THE ONES DOING THE SPENDING&gt;

I know how you abhor facts, but those are the facts.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-04-2008, 09:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently there has been no misuse, Ed. No Democrat is in jail, to use your logic.
<hr /></blockquote> Did you bump your head this weekend? That was the most illogical reply I have seen from you in at least a few days. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats cut earmarks by 40 % <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I guess you want to ignore the 60% they went along with. They have not cut anything.

[ QUOTE ]
The reality is that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that YOUR PARTY,s the REPIGLICANS, ARE THE BIG SPENDERS <hr /></blockquote> You called pooltchr ignorant in another post and then you get all stupid with this post. Pooltchr and myself were the first on this board to announce W was a big spender and that we disagreed with it. We have mentioned this countless times when we see this lie of yours posted.

What you have a hard time with is that we agree with you on this subject so you have no one to rant to.

[ QUOTE ]
I know how you abhor facts, but those are the facts.
<hr /></blockquote> You would not know what a fact was if it hit you in the face.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-04-2008, 10:23 AM
Quote gayle:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And really, don't you think it's a bit absurd for any Neocon, such as yourself, to even utter the word "Spending"
in any form of criticism against Democrats...
Quote eg8r:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in your mind the Dems are relieved of all responsibility for their fiscal actions if a Rep is out there doing worse?
Quote gayle:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, and I never said that. Just pointing out that when it comes to spending, Repiglicans have won the gold medal,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That might be what you "think" you are pointing out but yours words are here to all to read. [ QUOTE ]
You think it is absurd to point out Dems fiscal spending because you want to detract from their mis-use of taxpayer money and point fingers at someone else.

<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">LOL, I think when a righty points it out, it's pretty hypocritical, given you are still supporting the Party which has run up the most debt in history, and out spent every majority in history. The fact is, that Democrats cut earmarks, by 40 %, period. The fact that YOUR PRESIDENT continues with a war which is running this country into bankruptsey, and whose policies have brought on an economical crises, doesn't seem to factor into your analysis. It's pretty simple to follow, that cutting taxes, during wartime, increasing spending, borrowing money from communist countries, borrowing more money than all previous administrations combined, removing fiscal responsibility, and government regulations on corporate America, the resulting mortgage crises, as result of predatory lending practices, all these issues combined, amount tois worst demonstration of refusing to accept responsibility that has ever presented itself in AMerican economic history. Your failure to acknowledge that you have, and continue to support this administration, and the Repiglican Party, is in and of itself, colossal failure to take responsiblity for your wrong headed votes for the Repiglican Party. Of course, I don't expect you to see the obvious connections, since you have not yet applied for your neocon crayon. </font color>

You never ever give responsiblity to someone or a group of people if it is not in your favor.

<font color="red">My favor? What is my favor? I have stated many times, I don't vote FOR anyone, or any party, I only vote against those people, person, or party, which I feel is doing the greatest damage to my country. Unlike you, who will continue to vote for REpiglicans, although they have shown you for the last seven years, yet again, that they cannot be trusted in foreign affairs, in econoic affairs, or in domestic affairs. You are the last person who has any right to criticize my views. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

eg8r

Deeman3
02-04-2008, 10:34 AM
She will do the mindless rants and up the name calling no matter what you do. Hillary is threatened, although only mildly by a minority candidate and she is getting sweatey that the 70% she claims hates Bush may not be so warm to her choice for POTUS.

She will end up in a rubber room beating a Bush doll with her bare hands in the end.

If upping the volume and hate speech will really bring people to her cause, I guess its worth her time. No matter how we ever try to debate with logical discussion, she will brand any of us who do not agree as women haters, homophobes and the like. While its gutter politics, its all she's got.

Its a long way until the election but we have our primary here today in one of those flyover states that really don't count in her book. Her wrath makes it even more important to vote for someone who will not drag us down the road to vindictive politics and witch hunting for the next 8 years. I don't think even most Democrats want that type of environment in the While House again. Let them send Bill out to race bait Obama, let them hug and kiss the next day.

Do I want 4 more years of Bush? No. But I sure don't want 4 years of Bill defending Hillary and her policing him. I think even many of the people, outside Washington and Hollywood are tired of the Clinton machine. I never thought I'd agree with Ted Kennedy but he and many others are voicing exactly what I am saying now.

There are many good women who could run for President, Hillary is not one of them. JMO.

bamadog
02-04-2008, 10:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Apparently there has been no misuse, Ed. No Democrat is in jail, to use your logic.

The Democrats cut earmarks by 40 % compared to the spending under the Republican control. The reality is that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that YOUR PARTY,s the REPIGLICANS, ARE THE BIG SPENDERS, and YOUR PRESIDENT, NEVER VETOED A SINGLE SPENDING BILL WHEN REPIGLICANS WERE THE ONES DOING THE SPENDING&gt;

I know how you abhor facts, but those are the facts.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Hillary wrote 261 earmarks/pork, totaling over $2Billion, into spending bills in her 7 years as a Senator. The majority of these benefitted those who contributed to her. McCain wrote ZERO earmarks in 25 years. These are the facts.
Who's the pig?

eg8r
02-04-2008, 11:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
LOL, I think when a righty points it out, it's pretty hypocritical <hr /></blockquote> It is only hypocritical if the righty is defending the spending by W, but that is not happening here. The righties on this board have all said W is a big spender so it is not hypocritical to also say the lefty are big spenders. As has been pointed out Hillary has included 2 billion dollars in earmarks over her 7 years in office. That is big spending and no matter how many righties spend big.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is, that Democrats cut earmarks, by 40 %, period. <hr /></blockquote> The fact is they approved 60% more which add up to how many billions? The ony time I will ever give any politician credit for cutting anything is when they cut future spending and current at the same time. Just cutting future expenditures means nothing if they are busy the other 60% of the time approving them.

[ QUOTE ]
My favor? What is my favor? <hr /></blockquote> Don't act ignorant.

eg8r

Deeman3
02-04-2008, 11:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>

Hillary wrote 261 earmarks/pork, totaling over $2Billion, into spending bills in her 7 years as a Senator. The majority of these benefitted those who contributed to her. McCain wrote ZERO earmarks in 25 years. These are the facts.
Who's the pig? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Wow, it would seem that someone would condemn this unless they accepted that some people can live by different rules if they are otherwise politically correct. Wonder if this will come up in the General Election? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

pooltchr
02-04-2008, 06:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>


<font color="red">LOL, I think when a righty points it out, it's pretty hypocritical, given you are still supporting the Party which has run up the most debt in history, and out spent every majority in history. <hr /></blockquote>

Let me try to explain so even you can understand. Ed, Dee and myself have made it a point to voice our disagreement with the spending habits of all the Washington big spenders, regardless of party affiliation. That isn't hipocritical. That is consistantly maintaining the same set of values. When you allow your party a free pass on spending with the excuse that someone else is worse...that is hipocritical.

I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I feel an obligation to try and help you become at least somewhat enlightened.

Steve

Deeman3
02-05-2008, 08:04 AM
The sound of silence....

Gayle in MD
02-05-2008, 01:29 PM
She will do the mindless rants and up the name calling no matter what you do. Hillary is threatened, although only mildly by a minority candidate and she is getting sweatey that the 70% she claims hates Bush may not be so warm to her choice for POTUS.

<font color="red">LOL, not really, Deeman, I'm too warm and fuzzy about the fact that no Repiglican will be crashing into the White House this time. That's good enough for me. </font color>

She will end up in a rubber room beating a Bush doll with her bare hands in the end. <font color="red">I've already proven myself to be a stright thinking person. I never voted for George Bush. </font color>

If upping the volume and hate speech will really bring people to her cause, I guess its worth her time. <font color="red">My cause is my country, and our troops. All things involved in those issues are well worth my time. </font color> No matter how we ever try to debate with logical discussion, she will brand any of us who do not agree as women haters, homophobes and the like. <font color="red">Only when you prove yourselves to fit the description through your own homophobic, msiogynistic statements. </font color> While its gutter politics, its all she's got. <font color="red">What I have is years on this forum of being correct in my predictions, and reams of proof that you were wrong, and I was right. That's good enough for me. What do you have? </font color>

Its a long way until the election but we have our primary here today in one of those flyover states that really don't count in her book. Her wrath makes it even more important to vote for someone who will not drag us down the road to vindictive politics and witch hunting for the next 8 years. I don't think even most Democrats want that type of environment in the While House again. Let them send Bill out to race bait Obama, let them hug and kiss the next day.

Do I want 4 more years of Bush? No. But I sure don't want 4 years of Bill defending Hillary and her policing him. I think even many of the people, outside Washington and Hollywood are tired of the Clinton machine. I never thought I'd agree with Ted Kennedy but he and many others are voicing exactly what I am saying now.

<font color="red">It doesn't look like Hillary will get the nomination. That's too bad, since she would be the best one for the job. However, I will vote for her in the primary, and hope that the Clinton haters will someday understand that their radical hatred for the Clinton's is all about who they are, not about who the Clinton's are. </font color>

There are many good women who could run for President, Hillary is not one of them. JMO.

<font color="red">Regardless, I am happy knowing that no Repiglican will be elected to the presidency this time. That's good enough for me.

Gayle in Md. </font color>

Gayle in MD
02-05-2008, 01:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Let me try to explain so even you can understand. Ed, Dee and myself have made it a point to voice our disagreement with the spending habits of all the Washington big spenders, <font color="red">Yes you did, didn't you, but you voted for the big spenders, hence, I am not the one who needs enlightenment, you are. </font color> regardless of party affiliation. <font color="red"> Ha ha ha...pretty funny, I'd be happy if you would complain at the voting booth, that might count for something. But you'll all go right back in there and vote Repiglican, even though it is the party of spending, borrowing, killing, lying, and stealing. I'm not the one who needs to be enlightened. </font color> That isn't hipocritical. That is consistantly maintaining the same set of values. When you allow your party a free pass on spending with the excuse that someone else is worse...that is hipocritical. <font color="red">Uh, that's hypocritical, not hipocritical, and btw, I approve of spending money for Veterans, for armor, for helmets, for the families of our brave troops, for hungry and sick children, and for the first minimum wage increase in over a decade. The issue isn't spending, the issue is what our money should be spent on, and I do not approve of spending money to kill people on the other side of the world, who never attacked us here in America. </font color>

I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I feel an obligation to try and help you become at least somewhat enlightened.

<font color="red">Enlightenment means not voting for liars, cheats, criminals, and fascists. Enlightenment means acknowledging what has been proven. Enlightenment means having enough sense to understand that cutting taxes, during war time, and borrowing money from communist countries, and awarding corporations for sending our jobs ouside our country, and subsidizing big oil, as they are enjoying the greatest profits in history, and failing to provide for our veterans, and enacting the first amnesty program, which led to over thirty million illegal aliens to date, (estimates at atleast twelve, but most say thirty) is not a party that partiotic Americans vote into office. Enlightenment, is an advantage, of which you are in dire need. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool." <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
02-05-2008, 01:55 PM
Hmmmmmmm,
he's trying to enlighten you...and you iz trying to edjukate him.....
what we have here iz a failure to communicate!!!

Deeman3
02-05-2008, 02:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>. <font color="red">What I have is years on this forum of being correct in my predictions, and reams of proof that you were wrong, and I was right. That's good enough for me. What do you have? </font color>

<font color="blue"> I have your concrete predictions for both the 2000 and 2004 elections, reams of left wing blogs passed off as news accounts, your absolute refusal to see anything left as not good and all things from the right as evil, plus your tired bomb throwing of homophobe and woman hater dispite absolutely no evidence of that from me. </font color>

<font color="red">It doesn't look like Hillary will get the nomination. That's too bad, since she would be the best one for the job. However, I will vote for her in the primary, and hope that the Clinton haters will someday understand that their radical hatred for the Clinton's is all about who they are, not about who the Clinton's are. </font color> <font color="blue"> This is funny. Do you really believe that it is only republicans that are suspicious of her? She has stepped on less right winger's toes than anyone. Her problem is coming frmo her own party, until the general elections. By the way, I voted for Hillary today as I promised Wolfdancer I would two years ago. With me and Ann Coulter, how can she lose?</font color>

There are many good women who could run for President, Hillary is not one of them. JMO.

<font color="red">Regardless, I am happy knowing that no Repiglican will be elected to the presidency this time. That's good enough for me. <font color="blue"> Like I said, your record has not been too good so far. While you may be right, you and the others are trying your best to blow this opportunity. I wish you all the luck. </font color>

</font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
02-05-2008, 02:15 PM
I have come to realize that communication with the radical right wing neocons, is not possible. Fortunately, it also isn't necessary, since they are now less than thirty percent of the Repiglican party, and their party is in shambles.

They can't vote for McCain, he's too liberal. They can't vote for Romney, he's a Morman, Huckabee, /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif guess that's all they have left, Gomer Pyle, LMAO...wouldn't surpirse me if they don't vote him into office, after all, he has proven he knows how to destroy all the evidence before he leaves ofice, that should make him a hero to the Nutty right. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
02-05-2008, 02:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have your concrete predictions for both the 2000 and 2004 elections, <font color="red">I didn't make a prediction for 2,000, that was before I realized how many crazy people lived in this country, and in 2004, I got the undeniable proof. </font color> reams of left wing blogs passed off as news accounts, <font color="red">Unlike you, I document most of what I write here, with links to government sights. You, OTOH, deny everything that has been proven. </font color> your absolute refusal to see anything left as not good <font color="red">again, it's a matter of degree. Nothing is completely good, but some things are completely evil, like Repiglicans, for example. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif </font color> and all things from the right as evil, <font color="red">True, all things from the right do prove to be evil, not much I can do about that, other than continue to point it out, I do my best. </font color> plus your tired bomb throwing of homophobe and woman hater dispite absolutely no evidence of that from me. <font color="red">The three top Women's organizations in this country would disagree with that. That statement you made that Hillary had been riding on Bill's coat tails, has already been exposed as misogynistic, after Mathews said it on the air, and was forced to apologize. I rest my case. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
This is funny. Do you really believe that it is only republicans that are suspicious of her? <font color="red">Mostly, yes. </font color> She has stepped on less right winger's toes than anyone. <font color="red">I don't think she has stepped on anyone's toes. What proof do you have of that? </font color> Her problem is coming frmo her own party, <font color="red">I don't think she has a problem. She is a United States Senator, and she will continue to be so if she loses the nomination, in which case, she will be supportive of Obama, and he will be glad for her support. </font color> until the general elections. By the way, I voted for Hillary today as I promised Wolfdancer I would two years ago. <font color="red"> Yeah, right. </font color> With me and Ann Coulter, how can she lose? <font color="red">She might not lose. It isn't over yet, however, Obama seems to be gaining on her rather quickly, although most Democrats feel torn between two very good candidates, unlike the way you describe things, and also unlike your party, which is devastated over their poor options. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, your record has not been too good so far. While you may be right, you and the others are trying your best to blow this opportunity. I wish you all the luck.
<font color="red">Again, I only predicted the 2004 election, and now we all know that Ohio was rigged, hence the book from the man who went to jail for rigging it, and his new book, "How To Rig An Election" therefore, I suppose, I may very well have been right after all. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">If you are speaking about my record, predictions on elections, you've already misconstrued that, since I made no predictions in 2,000. However, my predictions on George Bush have been r8ight on the money. And, I'd put my predictions against yours, any day. And btw, you're the one who needs some luck. The Repiglicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling off another illegal election. We're watching, now.

Gayle in Md. </font color>

Deeman3
02-05-2008, 02:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Hmmmmmmm,
he's trying to enlighten you...and you iz trying to edjukate him.....
what we have here iz a failure to communicate!!! <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Completely.

Deeman3
02-05-2008, 02:57 PM
My mistake. I thought you had supported and predicted a victory by Al Gore in 2000, as well as Kerry in 2004.

Making a statement that Hillary has rode the coatails of Bill is not a knock against women. It is the truth unless you are delusional enough to believe she would have won NY if she has ran as an unknown lawyer. Just because I don't like her, does not make me or anyone else hate women. I would support Condi Rice, Kay Hutcheson or many other women for top office. If labeling anyone who won't vote for a particular women as haters of woomen, you have a great but dishonest strategy, nothing new.

Your pretense that all the anti-Hillary stuff is from the right wing is just dishonesty, no matter how you package it. Similar to your assertion that Bill Clinton's remarks were somehow from the right wing when black leaders, certainly not from the right as well as the Kennedys, also not of the right, were first and foremost to critise them.

"Nothing is completely good but some things are completely evil, like Repiglicans." You are indeed sick and hateful as can be.

I have not read the book you referenced, "How to rig an election" but if one was written, he should be jailed if it told of him breaking the law.

If you ever feel you can have a discussion without calling people names, I'll be happy to disuss anything with you but still feel you are sick and hateful with no ability to rationally discuss things without the hate speech.

eg8r
02-05-2008, 08:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't look like Hillary will get the nomination. That's too bad, since she would be the best one for the job. <hr /></blockquote> Hillary isn't even a good spokesperson for women let alone being the right person to lead our country. She was an OK corporate facist pig defender though.

eg8r

eg8r
02-05-2008, 08:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't surpirse me <hr /></blockquote> Hmmm, you can spell hypocrisy (and that is not a surprise given how many times you have acted in that manner) but you trip up on surprise?

eg8r

DickLeonard
02-06-2008, 08:29 AM
Deeman Hilliary was paid to write earmarks as a Senator from New York. Her Job is to try to level over taxation of New York any way she can. For every dollar NY sends to Washington we get 60 cents back. Texas gets 2.40 Calif 3.oo+. Since the inception of taxing NY has beared the brunt of the taxes. You know Wall Street is where the money is.

If I was from McCains home state I would be looking to Impeach him instead of applauding him. Unless they are in the 2.00+ for every dollar sent bracket he hasn't had their best interest a heart. ####

I'am waiting for LWW to post the chart listing the Tax paid vs the tax received.

LWW
02-06-2008, 08:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Deeman Hilliary was paid to write earmarks as a Senator from New York. Her Job is to try to level over taxation of New York any way she can. For every dollar NY sends to Washington we get 60 cents back. Texas gets 2.40 Calif 3.oo+. Since the inception of taxing NY has beared the brunt of the taxes. You know Wall Street is where the money is.

If I was from McCains home state I would be looking to Impeach him instead of applauding him. Unless they are in the 2.00+ for every dollar sent bracket he hasn't had their best interest a heart. ####

I'am waiting for LWW to post the chart listing the Tax paid vs the tax received. <hr /></blockquote>
So, by your words you admit that Hillary is the candidate of the wealthy.

I agree.

Glad to see you are coming around to the truth.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 09:26 AM
My mistake. I thought you had supported and predicted a victory by Al Gore in 2000, as well as Kerry in 2004. <font color="red">One of many. </font color>

Making a statement that Hillary has rode the coatails of Bill is not a knock against women. <font color="red">Wrong, the top three women's organizations in this country say it is a misogynistic statement, hence, MSNBC made Chris Mathews apologize for making the same statement. Of course, you'll never own up to the psychological implications of what you say, and why, but then, you still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do, in spite of the fact that the Iraqi government is corrupt, and they spend the missing billions we send the for their police force, to pay insurgents to kill our troops. But then, you don't care enough about our troops to watch the Senate Investigations, do you? </font color> It is the truth unless you are delusional enough to believe she would have won NY if she has ran as an unknown lawyer. <font color="red">Typical twisted thinking of person motivated by hatred. Did Bill Clinton take Hillary's law exam? Did Bill Clinton make her valedictorian of her class. Did Bill Clinton insure her entrance into Law School, at a time when less then one half of one percent of law students were taken in if they were women? Did he work for disadvantaged kids after he graduated from Law School, instead of going for the big bucks? Did he show up in the Senate in her behalf these last seven years. You NEED to think bill made Hillary, to the contrary, Hillary Clinton made Bill, and he would never have gotten as far as he did without her behind him. </font color> Just because I don't like her, does not make me or anyone else hate women. <font color="red">Indifference is the appropriate emotion behind dislike. Attacking a woman's accomplishments, and denying them altogether, is the work of a misogynist. </font color> I would support Condi Rice, Kay Hutcheson or many other women for top office. <font color="red">Oh, I see. As long as they support the slaughter of American troops, on behalf of a corrupt government that is jerking off our country, and who then hide the evidence of our corrupt administration, you support them. I understand. </font color> If labeling anyone who won't vote for a particular women as haters of woomen, you have a great but dishonest strategy, nothing new.

<font color="red">I don't give a goo damn who you vote for. But, as a woman, and as an American, I will fight you here on every misogynistic statement you continue to make, and on behalf of our troops, I will fight all who stand for a war for profit, which is killing and maiming our troops, on behalf of a corrupt, government, in an illegal immoral war, based on lies, and prosecuted by a corrupt American Administration, on behalf of their own corporate fascist friends, and against the best interests of our country. Hence, I fight Repiglicans who defend such actions. </font color>

Your pretense that all the anti-Hillary stuff is from the right wing is just dishonesty, no matter how you package it. <font color="red">I have never stated that, that it was only from the right, for there are misogynists from all walks of life, hence, it hasn't been very long since women won the right to vote at all. In fact, I have watched male commentators from the left bash Hillary non stop, Repiglicans do not have the franchise on misogyny. </font color> Similar to your assertion that Bill Clinton's remarks were somehow from the right wing when black leaders, certainly not from the right as well as the Kennedys, also not of the right, were first and foremost to critise them.

Jessie Jackson did not find them racist, nor do I. I sat and listened to all the commentators refer to the black vote just last night, but if Bill Clinton does the same thing, its' a racist statement? I don't think so. I think the men on both the right and the left, are very jealous of Bill Clinton, and particularly those who happen to be dorky, fat or ugly, like the dorky Hannities, Limpballs, Scarboroughs, etc., and can't get laid on a good day, by a young beautiful and willing twenty-two year old. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

"Nothing is completely good but some things are completely evil, like Repiglicans." You are indeed sick and hateful as can be.

<font color="red"> I am indeed sick and tired of watching our troops die and be maimed, because of the Republican Administration, and its Republican supporters. </font color>

I have not read the book you referenced, "How to rig an election" but if one was written, he should be jailed if it told of him breaking the law. <font color="red">He was jailed, and now, like a typical Republican, he's making money off the election he threw. </font color>

If you ever feel you can have a discussion without calling people names, I'll be happy to disuss anything with you but still feel you are sick and hateful with no ability to rationally discuss things without the hate speech.

<font color="red">After the misogynistic, hateful statements you made over and over on this forum, about Hillary Clinton, too many to count, actually, you're the last person in this world who should be calling anyone else out for hate speak, believe me. It is a matter of degree, and you can deny it forever, which I'm sure you will, but as a woman, I think I recognize misogeny when I hear it, as did the three top women's organizations in this country when Chris Mathews made the same exact statement as the on you made, here, about Hillary Clinton.</font color>

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 09:32 AM
Dick,
The Hallmark of the right is that they are penny wise, and pound foolish. Compare the billions LOST in Iraq, for no good purpose to benefit America, to the actual representation of earmarks in our budget, and it is obvious how ridiculous they truly are. They accuse Democrats of everything under the sun, but look the other way while Bush spends billions, and runs up trillions in debt, paying Iraqis to kill our troops.

Just like them, isn't it?

Earmarks are down forty percent since Democrats took over.

Funny, how they never brought up earmarks when the Republicans were out spending every House in history, don't you think?


Love,

Gayle

eg8r
02-06-2008, 09:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
They accuse Democrats of everything under the sun, but look the other way while Bush spends billions <hr /></blockquote> Gayle I have been trying real hard to not go back to my old ways, but if you refuse to stop lying what choice do I have. You have been reminded now on a couple posts that we have never looked the other way while Bush spendt billions. We have said countless times that we are against it.

When will your lying stop?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 10:48 AM
Please provide me with the posts, where you. or any other rightie here, complained about earmarks, while the Republicans were in majority.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
02-06-2008, 11:53 AM
Gayle,

At the risk of thinking you were rational, I told you that you are labeling everyone who does not agree with you by ugly names. You certainly can't see that through the fog.

If you stated that you wanted the borders protected, then I called you a zenophobe or a racist, it would be the exact same thing. You very well might be a racist for not wanting illegals to invade this country but you might just as well want our border laws enforced. Rational people can tell the difference, you can not.

You are willing to do this because you are for Hillary, no matter what. You have said Obamas not the guy. I don't agree. I have not seen anyone else who has the leadership qualities to get everyone together, Hillary, Bill, Mc Cain nor Romney. Now, will I vote for him? No, not because he is black, not because he has Arab blood and not even because he's a Democrat. He is too liberal for me. I still have that right without someone calling me racist. Should I call you a racist for not supporting Obama? No!

I know perfectly well this argument will not change your view and also that this it the same tired inability to see the truth that you always charge your enemys with. I think you have slide even further down with this new, dishonest tact and are replacing supposed intellectualy disshonestly on your opponent's side with your own.

Hillary worked for children, she worked for selected women in her practice, she worked for Walmart. None of that, without Bill's fame would have made her any different from hunderds of other hard working women in this country, many of whom did much more.

If you really wanted discussion you could have asked us, "What do you like, dislike about Ms. Clinton?" That is debate, not some name calling defense supported by claims of support from three women's organizations for an incident that eminated from your very own liberal media...

eg8r
02-06-2008, 12:11 PM
It is my job to go find posts that I have already made against the spending of this administration? No ma'am, I don't need to prove myself to you. If you want to ignore people's posts, then you should not be surprised when people call you out on a lie.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 12:16 PM
Accusing a woman of well known outstanding accomplishments, of riding some man's coattails into office, when the man you point out has stated that she has always been his most valued advisor, and is to this day, and when the woman played an obvious role in every accomplishment he achieved, is misogynistic. You can deny it all you want, but the phrase you used, is exactly what the three top women's organizations in this country call misogynistic.

Change it around anyway you like. It is what it is.

Further, the fact that you never accused George Bush I or two, of riding their father's coat tails into office, or any other man who used familial connections to propell themselves into political office, provides me with more to indicate that your statements regarding Hillary Clinton, are even more suspect.

Hillary Clinton has worked her *** off to get where she is today. She didn't do it by any means other than hard work, and organizational skills. She has had to face non stop embarrassing questions regarding her husband's misbehavior, which she had nothing to do with, even in a National Debate. Questions which acquaintances wouldn't think of bringing up at a neighborhood cocktail party. She has been bashed by both the left and the right press, and IMO, misogeny is the reason.

Your statement was identical to the statement Chris Mathews made. Deny it all you wish, it was accepted as misogynistic and unfair by the president of MSNBC, and the top three women's organizagtions in this country.

[ QUOTE ]

If you really wanted discussion you could have asked us, "What do you like, dislike about Ms. Clinton?" That is debate, not some name calling defense supported by claims of support from three women's organizations for an incident that eminated from your very own liberal media...


<hr /></blockquote>

MSNBC does not strike me as liberal media at all. Chris Mathews, was a democratic, however, since he became wealthy, he seems to like the Bush tax structure much more than he likes the democratic party. If there is a liberal media, I'd like to find out where the hell it is, since it seems to be missing from all political debate as far as I can tell.

I'm not accustomed to asking people who write only in sarcastic style, for their opinions when I am aware that they admire women like Laura Bush, who do nothing but eat, travel, smile and nod, while bashing accomplished women like Hillary Clinton, who has been a virtual work horse since she emerged in the public eye.

Call it what you like, the cause is obvious to me. Had you stated that you didn't think she would be a good president, or that you didn't like her, or trust her, that would be different. Calling a woman with her accomplishments, and work ethic, an opportunist, for doing what all male politicians do, is exactly what you did, and I'm quite sure that my take on your words is accurate. Take you pick, it's either pure hatred, or misogeny, and there really isn't much difference, not that I expect you to admit to either.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-06-2008, 12:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Accusing a woman of well known outstanding accomplishments, of riding some man's coattails into office, when the man you point out has stated that she has always been his most valued advisor <hr /></blockquote> This is the same man that gave his wedding vows pledging to honor and cherish his wife, correct? Anyone that believes anything that comes out of either Clinton's mouth about the relationship the two of them have is an absolute undeniable idiot.

eg8r &lt;~~I am trying not to fall into Gayle's trap of name calling but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 12:44 PM
Forgive me if I don't put a lot of credibility into any of your opinions Ed. While I'd love to have you over for dinner, and shoot some pool, and prefer your friendship, to your insults, in my world, you have not shown yourself to be dedicated to finding the facts of the issues, and instead, you often deny what has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

See if you can take off your Military Industrial Complex Hat, long enough to read this editorial.

The Legacy of Bush II



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Curb your enthusiasm. Even if your favored candidate did well on Super Tuesday, ask yourself if he or she will seriously challenge the bloated military budget that President Bush has proposed for 2009. If not, military spending will rise to a level exceeding any other year since the end of World War II, and there will be precious little left over to improve education and medical research, fight poverty, protect the environment or do anything else a decent person might care about. You cannot spend well over $700 billion on "national security," running what the White House predicts will be more than $400 billion in annual deficits for the next two years, and yet find the money to improve the quality of life on the home front.

The conventional wisdom espoused by the mass media is that Bush's budget is a lame-duck DOA contrivance, but that assumption is wrong. The 9/11 attacks have been shamefully exploited by the military-industrial complex with bipartisan support to ramp up military expenditures beyond Cold War levels. This irrational spending spree, which accounts for more than half of all federal discretionary spending, is not likely to end with Bush's departure. Which one of the likely winners from either party would lead the battle to cut the military budget, and where would the winner find support in Congress? Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have treated the military budget as sacrosanct with their Senate votes and their campaign rhetoric. Clinton is particularly clear on the record as favoring spending more, not less, on the military.

John McCain, who previously distinguished himself as a deficit hawk and was almost in a class by himself in taking on the rapacious defense contractors, has thrown in the towel with his inane support for staying in Iraq till "victory," even if it should take a century. It is simply illogical to call for fiscal restraint while committing to an open-ended war in Iraq that has already cost upward of $700 billion. Bush's request for $515.4 billion for the Defense Department doesn't even include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which accounted for nearly $200 billion over the last budget year and which will cost at least $140 billion in 2009. Add to those numbers $17.1 billion for the Department of Energy's weapons program and over $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and other national security initiatives spread throughout the federal government, and you'll see that my $700-billion figure underestimates the hemorrhaging.

McCain knows, and has frequently stated as a Senate watchdog, that much of the military spending is wastefully superfluous for combating terrorists who lack any but the most rudimentary weapons. Bush totally betrayed his campaign 2000 promise to reshape the post-Cold War U.S. military when he seized upon the 9/11 attack as an opportunity to reverse the "peace dividend" that his father had begun to return to taxpayers. Instead, Bush II ushered in the most profligate underwriting of weapons systems that are grotesquely irrelevant for combating terrorism.

The U.S. already spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military, without a sophisticated enemy in sight. The Bush budget cuts not a single weapons system, including the most expensive ones, those designed to combat a Soviet military that no longer exists. Those sophisticated weapons have nothing to do with combating terrorism and everything to do with jobs and profits that motivate both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It is not known whether Osama bin Laden even possesses a rowboat in his naval arsenal, but that won't stop Joe Lieberman from pushing, as is his habit, for an increase in the defense budget to double the funding for the $3.4-billion submarines built in his home state of Connecticut. Nor does the collapse of the old Soviet Union--and with it the need for enormously expensive stealth aircraft to evade radar systems the Soviets never built--dissuade congressional supporters of those planes from pushing for more, not less, than Bush is requesting. Nor does wasting an additional $8.9 billion on ICBM missile defense have anything to do with stopping terrorists from smuggling a suitcase nuke into this country.

The centerpiece of the Bush legacy is a "war on terror" based on a vast disconnect between military expenditures and actual national security requirements that the presidential candidates all fully understand. The question is whether the voters and media will force them to face that contradiction or whether we're in for more of the same--no matter how much the candidates go on about change.



<font color="red">Notice there are no figures in Bush's budget for how much money will be spent on the weapons that will be lost, or given away to our enemies. Why do Republicans do this all the time, from Reagan, to Bush senior. And why do Republicans admire Reagan, who broke the law, lied about it, and then turned his statements around when he knew he was caught? Why do Republicans think Reagonomics was good, when only the rich did well under his plan, and he never did shrink the government, he grew it, and he cut taxes, but had to raise them because his expectations put us into a recession?

Wh6y do Republicans fail to admit to any of this, and deny that our economy grew under Clinton, while our deficits fell, and more people came off the welfare rolls than ever before in history.

What is it about Republicans, and denial? How come you never talk about Bush Sr.'s mistress? Or Newt Gingrish's mistress? Or Eisenhower's mistress? What makes you think it's any of our business what happenes between a husband, and his wife? I would never be so presumptuous. It's none of my business, or yours, but poor old Hillary Clinton has to withstand being asked about it left and right, years after the event, and in a public forum debate on National Television. Why don't you get angry about George Bush, lying about his DUI, lying us into a war, lying about WMD's, lying about Mushroom clouds, lying about Saddam, "Recently" tried to get Uranium from Africa? You only complain about Clinton's lie, that 97% of Americans said they didn't care about, but YOU still make it your main issue. WAZZUP with that? Partisanship? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

Deeman3
02-06-2008, 01:10 PM
I beleive you are the one bring up Mr. Clinton's indiscretion, not me.

Yes, GWB road his father's costs tails, I never said he did not.

If you don't think MSNBC is left, they are now supporting Obama openly even in news accounts and riding Hillary like a rented mule. Even she is not left enough for them. Her coverage is so bad on that network she should sue them. To think they are not left is crazy.

By the way, MSNBC's president and the top three women's organizations are not judges of anything excpet for their partisan view. They are your police, not ours.

Why bring Laura Bush into this. Is she now running for office. Naw, she is first lady. Not a very practical resume builder for wating to be president, I agree.

You really don't believe that Sen. Clinton is an opportunist? That she voted for war funding as a matter of her feelings, not for political sake, something some men do as well. That her ties to military industrial complex contributors will really allow her to withdraw from Iraq? Wouldn't Obama better fit your beliefs? If he was a woman, would he then be qualified?

Gayle in MD
02-06-2008, 02:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: Deeman3
Subject: Re: Democrats only

I beleive you are the one bring up Mr. Clinton's indiscretion, not me. <font color="red">Oh, Excuse me. </font color>

Yes, GWB road his father's costs tails, I never said he did not. <font color="red">You also never accused him of it, either, or used the belief to bash him, or suggest that he was not qualified for the position. I can only go by your own words. </font color>


<hr /></blockquote>



[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think MSNBC is left, they are now supporting Obama openly even in news accounts and riding Hillary like a rented mule. Even she is not left enough for them. Her coverage is so bad on that network she should sue them. To think they are not left is crazy.

<hr /></blockquote>
------------------------------------------------------------
Well lets, see now, they have Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman, gushing all over Mitt Romney, non stop, and his side kick, also a rightie, the daughter of Brezinski, (sp) and they're most frequent guests are Andrea Mitchell, another rithtie, and Pat Buchannon, a rightie, Bay Buchannon, (aka Sir Wincesus' hand puppet, without the scarf, and so far right she can't squat over a public toilet) they basically have ten righties for every democrat, non stop, for four hours every morning.

Then they, (MSNBC) have Chris Mathews, a rightie disguised as a leftie, who turned right after he bacame a millionaire, and Bush put his tax cuts for the rich into play, and who has bashed the Clintons non stop, and LOVES John McCain. yeh, he nusts for Obama, but he only gushes over McCain.

Then there is Tucker Calrson, a procliamed libertarian, who leans right so far his face looks lopsided, and also loves MC Cain, and hates the Clintons.


There is Brian Williams, also a rightie, (who turns the news against the Clintons, whenever he can) from NBC Network, who was the only Network journalist/reporter allowed to interview Bush at a time when he refused all other interviews.

Keith Oberman, seems to be an independant, who goes after all the lies, regardless of which side is telling them, and is firmly against Bush, for all the logical reasons, that logical people are against Bush. Not right, or left.

There is another guy, I seldom watch, a young guy, can't think of his name, but he seems to go both ways, also.

CNN throughout has bashed Hillary, by having all right wing guests, throughout this campaign, like that black chick, formerly a Republican aide for some Republican Senator, I think. Bill Bennet, an obvious rightie, Carl Bernstein, and Bob Woodward, frequently on there, both righties, admitted Republicans, and Bernstein has been on there for every campaign night, they do allow the Democratic Party spokesperson, also a black lady, on there occasionally, but not near as often as they have righties.

CNN has Lou Dobbs, which other than Oberman, is the only one who goes after both sides, equally, about lies and distortions, nightly, and is an Independant.

C-Span is headed by Steve Scully, another rightie, the one who removed Helen Thomas from her front row seat in the White House Press Room, after over sixty years of being the First Lady Of The White House Press Corps, she was moved back to the second row to make room for FOX NEWS, and Scully was the White House Press Room Director at the time, and is called down regularly by left callers who know he's a rightie, he even looks like a rightie, you know, like he couldn't dance, or snap his fingers in time with the music, if his life depended on it?

I don't find MSNBC to be at all left, and also, they would never have forced Mathews to apologize on the air, if those women's groups didn't have him dead to rights.

[ QUOTE ]
Why bring Laura Bush into this. Is she now running for office. Naw, she is first lady. Not a very practical resume builder for wating to be president, I agree.

<font color="red">If that is supposed to be a comparison of capability for running for the presidency, to Hillary, there is no comparison. While Laura is the smile/nod favorite of the right, and walks ten steps behind, if one were to catch up to her they would soon realize that nobody's home. IOW, she's dim witted, you'd have to be to be married to a drunken Georoge Bush, given how obnoxious his is sober. </font color>

You really don't believe that Sen. Clinton is an opportunist? <font color="red">No more so than any other Senator or Congressman, but you don't mind that, right? You think they'd get elected by not being opprotunists, PAHLEEEZE! </font color> That she voted for war funding as a matter of her feelings, not for political sake, something some men do as well. <font color="red">But if it's a man, Deeman doesn't mention it in a bashing? </font color> That her ties to military industrial complex contributors will really allow her to withdraw from Iraq? <font color="red">Actually, no, I don't think her layalties are with the Military Industrial Complex, I think Bush and Cheney own that already. How come you didn't notice? </font color> Wouldn't Obama better fit your beliefs? If he was a woman, would he then be qualified?

<font color="red">Why trade in an inexperienced egotistical, cocky White President, for an egotistical, Cocky Black President, who are both opprotunists, and full of themselves? And No, nothing qualitfies him, as far as I'm concerned. he's is not smart enough, IMO, and unable to think on his feet, which I think is very obvious when he is in a debate with Hilolary, which is why he backs off her many suggestions to debate with her often, between now, and the election. I will not vote for an person who I believe is not qualified for the Job, I will not vote, if it is between McCain, and Obama, and I believe that many others will not, which is why the Republicans secretly would prefer Obama, to Hillary, they can easily shoot down Obama. He's not really that bright. Hillary, on the other hand, has proven she can withstand their attacks, and still come up roses. That's why they hate her. </font color>
Aslo,...
I don't know why she voted for it, but no, I don't think the Clintons were tools of the Military Industrial Complex, and in fact, I think that was some of the basis for the dislike they suffered through, as did Kennedy. I think that all people with ambition are opportunists, having been involved in Marketing for over forty years, I can assure you that all ambitious people, are opportunists, but the point is, how come you never accused any male candidate of opportunism? Isn't Bush an opportunists? McCain, Guiliani, Romeny, aren't you, youself, an opportunists, we''re all opportunists, but only hillary is bashed for it, by you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in Md.


<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
02-06-2008, 03:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why trade in an inexperienced egotistical, cocky White President, for an egotistical, Cocky Black President, who are both opprotunists, and full of themselves? <hr /></blockquote> You should add, "or a Cocky Female President, who is probably the biggest opportunist of all time".

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2008, 03:29 PM
Only a female believes the BS that comes out of Clinton's mouth.

eg8r

Deeman3
02-06-2008, 04:15 PM
Then I guess we will have to let the electorate decide as we will, thankfully, never agree.

I still think you are selling Obama short. You seem to have harsh words for the only candidate that has agreed, completely, with your stand on Iraq and as for his not being able to think on his feet, I think he is the most gifted speaker I have heard since Martin Luther King. Too bad, for me, he's not more moderate.

hondo
02-06-2008, 09:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Only a female believes the BS that comes out of Clinton's mouth.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, women are really stupid, right, egg?

eg8r
02-06-2008, 10:02 PM
You are such a misogynist.

eg8r

LWW
02-07-2008, 05:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Please provide me with the posts, where you. or any other rightie here, complained about earmarks, while the Republicans were in majority.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
Sweetheart, if you would just stop with the B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH! rhetoric and comprehend what people write you would find many many many references.

LWW

hondo
02-07-2008, 06:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are such a misogynist.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Au contraire, my fine feathered friend, au contraire.

moblsv
02-07-2008, 08:01 AM
I voted Obama in the Primary because I think this country is in serious need of rebranding.

I find him to be too soft on the treasonous Republicans and believe that Hillary would probably be more effective in standing up to all the b.s., so I am behind her all the way should she get the nomination.

LWW
02-07-2008, 08:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> I voted Obama in the Primary because I think this country is in serious need of rebranding.

I find him to be too soft on the treasonous Republicans and believe that Hillary would probably be more effective in standing up to all the b.s., so I am behind her all the way should she get the nomination. <hr /></blockquote>
Care to share the treason with us?

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-07-2008, 09:14 AM
Obama doesn't give particulars. Eloquence that doesn't state specifics, doesn't amount to very much. Hillary explains what she will do in specifics, and how she will pay for it. She has stated, over and over, that she will begin to get our troops out of Iraq, within two months of occupying the White House. She has stated the specifics of her health care plan, and how she will pay for it. She has clearly stated her foreing policy objectives, and I approve wholeheartedly of her views. She has won every debate, IMO, and she is far more intelligent than Obama.

Republicans would much rather run against Obama. That's why they try to spread around the very opposite idea, but, since I am now convinced that the right has bought up every single cable news channel, and ntework channel, "News Speak" has pretty much taken over the minds of the weak.

Only live C-Span tells the real story, and although the investigations and specifics regarding this illegal occupation, and our economic crises, are truly only available for scrutiny when watching live testimoney, on C-Span, few Americans bother to turn it on when the various testimony is repeated in the evening hours.

Hillary is under constant attack, by the right, and left, because she is a woman, and because she is Bill Clinton's wife, and because the last thing Republicans want to have to do is put an idiot like John McCain, dumb enough to state that he is prepared to stay in this illegal occupation of Iraq for a hundred years, knowing full well that 75% of the American people are against this war, and admit that he doesn't know anything about economics, in the middle of a deepening recession. Add to that, that he is hated on Capital Hill because of his arrogance, and stubborn nature, and his frequent outbursts, which border on insanity, and I dare say, Republicans would much prefer to go up against Obama, than Clinton. It's just too bad that most people go for the fluf and rhetoric, rather than real substance.

Being a gifted speaker, does not provide one with critical thinking abilities. Ronald Reagan was a gifted speaker, and he sold arms to radical elements, and propped up radical dictators, that our people ended up dying for later.

I listen to details, and only Hillary has provided them. The Republicans will chew up Obama, and spit him out. That's why they have propagated this myth, that they are hoping to run against Hillary. She's the only candidate they can't win against. They've bashed her left and right, and she's still standing. Even the Kennedys' and Oprah, couldn't bring her down in California and Ma.

Hillary also would be much better at dealing with our present economic crises, IMO. It's going to take a genius to undo the mess George Bush has made, and Hillary is the only genius running for president. But most white American men, can't stand the thought of a woman running this country, and the right wing press, the only press there is in this country, IMO, parlayed a statement from Bill Clinton, the Jessie Jackson won two twice in South Carolina, into a racist issue, in order to remove the black support from Hillary. Yet, every news pundit refers to exactly the same statistical racial information, every night, on their own programs.

News Speak is alive and well in America. That's why my only source is live testimony, and books by award winning journalists, and former operatives, who blow the wistle on corruption and lies.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
02-07-2008, 09:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>News Speak is alive and well in America. That's why my only source is live testimony, and books by award winning journalists, and former operatives, who blow the wistle on the corruption and lies.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
Sweetheart, after all the same "typos" I see over and over when you think for yourself ... I have come to the conclusion you have never read the majority of the stuff that you claim to have read and instead just add cut and paste jobs.

Tell the truth ... you'll feel better.

LWW