PDA

View Full Version : Hillary on Iran...



sack316
04-23-2008, 11:11 PM
well, someone had to start it, and I'm REALLY curious as to the thoughts on this one:

in an ABC news interview hillary was asked "what she would do if the Islamic republic were to attack US ally Israel?"

To which she replied, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran." "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Hmm, sounding a bit like what I was saying before and was in a sense scoffed at. The only difference being that in the statements it seemed to have eluded nuclear warfare... yet another topic the left on this board has been very vocal on in recent Japan discussions.

My two problems with her line of thinking on this one: First, she lays it out as being reactive rather that proactive. Saying in a roundabout way "you blow Israel off the planet, then we blow you off the planet". By that time it's too late... destructive attacks that could take months to carry out at one time could take only minutes in today's world.

My second problem, is (I think) she's laying a foundation for a "cold war" style of dealing with Iran. These are a different people than Russia, with extremely different mindsets. Threats and warnings would likely mean nothing to them anyway!

Those things aside, I really wanna hear what the left has to say regarding these answers. Basically if Israel is messed with, we're in there somehow... and Iran's intentions with Israel are abundantly clear... therefore my statement in other threads about the "inevitable" don't seem so far off base under a Clinton Administration either. And also, is the "diplomacy" we would all like to see counted when such diplomacy is saying "we will obliterate them"? Or will opinions change now that Hillary has said something expected out of McCain's mouth? Or will it just get spun in a way that makes it sound OK for a democrat to do but not for a republican?

Sack

p.s. please don't include any arguments about the reactive vs. proctive thing. I know someone's gonna say that we wait and THEN do... but all I've heard about for nearly 7 years now is how Al Queda should have been handled before hand and 9-11 wouldn't have happened. The left bashed Bush for not being proactive that time, so an argument AGAINST being proactive in the face of common knowledge this time won't hold any merit with me in this instance. And go...

pooltchr
04-24-2008, 04:18 AM
It couldn't possibly happen. Gayle says a woman president would find another way of dealing with those kinds of issues. War is BAD!

Seriously, I don't think any president would have any choice if any country attacked one of our allies. It would have to be a quick, decisive, and fatal response to prevent it from escelating into a world wide disaster. It wouldn't be pretty at all, but absolutely necessary.
Steve

sack316
04-24-2008, 04:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It couldn't possibly happen. Gayle says a woman president would find another way of dealing with those kinds of issues. War is BAD!

Seriously, I don't think any president would have any choice if any country attacked one of our allies. It would have to be a quick, decisive, and fatal response to prevent it from escelating into a world wide disaster. It wouldn't be pretty at all, but absolutely necessary.
Steve </div></div>

Indeed, it would have to happen if someone attacked one of our allies. And actually I even think the left here would (could, might)possibly agree with that. But in this specific case, we know Iran's capabilities and danger, and have a pretty darn good idea on their intentions for Israel. Waiting until an attack happens would be roughly the equivalent of waiting for another Holocaust before taking decisive action.

At any rate, I almost hate I have to go to work this morning, as the "it couldn't possibly happen" part is what I'm waiting to see. And now we know that it is not only possible, I'd dare almost say probable (as I've said time and time again)... and beyond that possibly even waged with a finger on the button too!

Oh, and FWIW I liked what Hillary said except for it being more of a reactive response (for reasons already stated). But I do respect her giving a realistic answer to a tough question, rather than taking the easy way and saying something like "we'll have to see and assess our possibilities if that situation were to arise". She stepped out on a limb and gave a tough and possibly unpopular answer at a time where it could be very risky to her campaign interests--- and I like that. But I really wanna know the feelings of her supporters when she says something that's the polar opposite of what those supporters seemingly expect of her...

Sack

Sack

Qtec
04-24-2008, 05:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It couldn't possibly happen. Gayle says a woman president would find another way of dealing with those kinds of issues. War is BAD!

Seriously, I don't think any president would have any choice if any country attacked one of our allies. It would have to be a quick, decisive, and fatal response to prevent it from escelating into a world wide disaster. It wouldn't be pretty at all, but absolutely necessary.
Steve </div></div>

What has Israel ever done for the USA?

All they do is take the American taxpayers cash [ hand outs ]and then pay them back by on spying them.

Q

hondo
04-24-2008, 06:59 AM
If a Republican had said what Hilary said, they would be lauded for being tough.
When Hilary says it, she's being condemned as being reactionary.
The spins continue.

Deeman3
04-24-2008, 07:21 AM
Hondo,

I am not condeming her for it. I applauded her.

eg8r
04-24-2008, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It couldn't possibly happen. Gayle says a woman president would find another way of dealing with those kinds of issues. War is BAD!</div></div> I hear if hillary is elected then jane fonda will free up some time to be the VP.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 10:12 AM
I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my statements.

I have said all along, and I will continue to say, that any president that lies this country into a war, calling it pre-emptive, when it is really not even likely that we are about to be attacked, is a lousy president.

I do not think we would have a choice about what to do if Iran bombed Isreal, and I also don't think that we will be in that situation if Hillary is President, assumming she gets in there in time to divert Iran from taking such action. But the difference in my opinion, and other here, is that I don't think Iran will bomb Isreal anyway. Unlike those who believed Saddam, when other experts said even if he had them, he wouldn't use them, I think Iran doesn't have nukes, and wouldn't use them if they did. When are we going to get smart enough to realize that those Arab countries do a lot of bluffing, while al Qaeda, bin Laden, doesn't bluff.

Iran isn't the issue. bin Laden, and al Qaeda is the threat to us, and if Hillary bombs any country, we'll know exactly why, and it won't be on a bluff, and it won't be on lies.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 10:14 AM
Tap Tap Tap...

wolfdancer
04-24-2008, 10:29 AM
Seems like you didn't leave any room for discussion, so why would anybody bother trying to reply?
This "left" crap is just that...f****g crap. You think you are morally, intellectually superior, have all the answers.... just because you vote Republican?

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 01:08 PM
Well that is just great news! She'd be a huge improvment over Cheney, that's for sure, plus, she isn't ugly!

wolfdancer
04-24-2008, 01:22 PM
"I have said all along, and I will continue to say, that any president that lies this country into a war, calling it pre-emptive, when it is really not even likely that we are about to be attacked, is a lousy president."
I'd have to respectfully disagree...
I think war criminal is more apropos

eg8r
04-24-2008, 03:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well that is just great news! She'd be a huge improvment over Cheney, that's for sure, plus, she isn't ugly! </div></div>What exactly has Cheney done besides get out of W's way? It will not be that hard to do better than Cheney. I wish W had a VP that invented the internet, that would have been cool.

eg8r

sack316
04-24-2008, 06:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems like you didn't leave any room for discussion, so why would anybody bother trying to reply?
This "left" crap is just that...f****g crap. You think you are morally, intellectually superior, have all the answers.... just because you vote Republican?

</div></div>

Plenty of replies, apparently there was enough room for discussion of something. The discussions on the Iran matter have happened plenty in other threads anyway, this was more of a question to those who have stood on one ground all this time, and their reaction to a statement that myself (and many others for that matter) found to be completely off line with where certain people stand/think. An example of this would be comments on how going to war with Iran at any point would be foolish, and would never happen under Hillary/Obama... and then a statement such as this comes along. The how (if at all) one's opinion changes would be more the point of this thread, not a discussion on the morality of any such actions.

And no I obviously don't think I'm morally or intellectually superior or have all the answers because of what side I sit. In fact, you probably find more "I could be wrong but..." or " I may have misunderstood..." type statements in my posts than anyone else's here. I've also been pretty open minded in at least trying to understand why people that think differently than I do think differently. I don't what what crawled up your britches today to make you take a shot at me like that... this "f*ing left/right crap" isn't partisan because ol' Sacky boy made it that way. I don't have all the answers, I simply have my opinions and questions. The same as anyone else does, and sometimes they differ. You, my friend, gave a response that surprised me... the type of response I would figure from someone who is "stuck" without any real answer or thought on the matter, so it's just easier to shoot the messenger than it is to disect and agree or disagree with the message. You disagree with anything I said, that's fine and I'm happy to hear why. That, afterall, is the point of discussion. Gayle and I don't agree on much, but we question and challenge each other... and respect each other for it.

I half expect your next reply to be "yo' momma" or something like that.

Sack

Sid_Vicious
04-24-2008, 07:06 PM
"If a Republican had said what Hilary said, they would be lauded for being tough."

Amen! Remember the chimp expressively calling out the "axis' of evil" countries?" Having said that, I surely don't want the brain-less fool to push any buttons before he leave to prove his b@lls!!!sid

I include discussion over the statement Hillary said though,,,no matter the residing president we might ever have, that PROMISE has to be stare-ing Iran in their face, Democrat, Republican or Independent. Hillary simply had the strength to say it outload, at a time that it might even hurt her the worst. That's more than most politicians will ever even begin to do in this part of the game. Cold war, warm war, hot war, Bush has already put us into the "rock and a hard place", 911 included. What an AH. sv

LWW
04-24-2008, 07:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I have said all along, and I will continue to say, that any president that lies this country into a war, calling it pre-emptive, when it is really not even likely that we are about to be attacked, is a lousy president."
I'd have to respectfully disagree...
I think war criminal is more apropos </div></div>
Wolfie, admit it, if Hillary or Obama is elected and they decide to nuke NYC you will carry their water for them on the issue.

LWW

wolfdancer
04-24-2008, 09:33 PM
"yo' momma" is not something I would say;(despite the fact that I vote Democratic) that's just a trite insult that offers nothing to prove one's point, or attack the other sides stance....But "the left", now that seems to be the stock answer to put down any ideas that challenge the so called Christian conservatives...AND doesn't that label make the "Morlocks" morally, etc., superior over the "Eloi"
unlike some, and especially ED (I'm leaving the moronic lww out of the discussion)....I don't label an entire group of people as evil or stupid, just because they don't agree with my politics.
I'm fed up with this "leftist" crap anyway....
WTF good would my answers or thoughts matter to the subject? Hillary is "wrong" no matter what position she takes on the subject of Iran.... according to the right wing "pundits" here.

you can only have meaningful discussion when each side respects the other side....I don't see that here with the derogatory remarks that are used to dismiss anything written by the "LEFT"

sack316
04-24-2008, 11:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm fed up with this "leftist" crap anyway....
WTF good would my answers or thoughts matter to the subject? Hillary is "wrong" no matter what position she takes on the subject of Iran.... according to the right wing "pundits" here.

you can only have meaningful discussion when each side respects the other side....I don't see that here with the derogatory remarks that are used to dismiss anything written by the "LEFT"
</div></div>

A much better post there wolfie, actually had some thought and substance behind it unlike the first one which was an obvious "i'm just fed up and gonna lash out" post.

As to the passage of it that I quoted, all I can say is that the knife indeed does cut both ways. Would you not agree that the attitude taken on a "righty vs. lefty" topic is not the exact same when reversed on this board? of course there are some exceptions on either side, but for the most part does the "left" (sorry to use the term, just don't know what you'd prefer me to call the bizzaro world version of Sack or Deeman), but does "that side" not seem to always make brazingly harsh posts about republicans? And why no response to "lefties" referring to others as righties? Or even lefties calling themselves "left"? If the ABC interview had been with McCain instead of Hillary, would you or Gayle or whoever have NOT come and posted some war mongering thread about the man? Don't you see that you quite often do the exact same thing you are pointing out as wrong that you are frustrated with?

I would also please ask you point out anytime my side of the discussion on here has not been respectful, anytime I have referred to any specific person (much less an entire group) as being stupid, and especially anytime I have made a derogatory remark towards anyone... and I will gladly apologize where it is warranted.

Sack

p.s. I only said the expecting "yo' momma" part because your original post I was responding to seemed exactly as you described it. You said "You think you are morally, intellectually superior, have all the answers.... just because you vote Republican?" which falls directly in line with your reasoning of "that's just a trite insult that offers nothing to prove one's point, or attack the other sides stance". Not to mention contradicting yourself on the whole "sick of "left" speech (i.e. is there any difference in referring to a group as "republicans" or the "right"? hello pot, this is kettle) Perhaps I took it wrong, but at present time I see it as not much more than a slightly more intelligent "yo' mama" burn... a trite insult that assumes much about me with little merit given to what you actually do know about me-- offering nothing to prove your point, only serving to attack me. But again, I could have taken it wrong.

LWW
04-25-2008, 05:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you can only have meaningful discussion when each side respects the other side....</div></div>
Good advice.

I would love it if you would start taking it.

LWW

wolfdancer
04-25-2008, 09:34 AM
I only use the group labels of "right" and the "Republicans" in response to the put down "left" usage. I've written before that I have respect for both parties, but vote Democratic, as my parents and friends did...they and I feel that party best represents the interests of the avg American. I think the Republican party leadership now has fallen into the wrong hands
Ed is the chief offender here for assigning derogatory connotations
with his left label. I see nothing but pure hatred for the "other side" in his posts....
AND I'm still fed up with the leftist crap....so you can grade this post the same as my original one......

LWW
04-25-2008, 02:49 PM
I didn't think you would.

LWW

Gayle in MD
04-29-2008, 07:03 AM
Exactly!

Gayle in MD
04-29-2008, 07:10 AM
For one thing, he instructed his top aide on outing a covert CIA Agent.

He held secret meetings with the Oil cartel, and set his own office on fire to cover up the evidence.

He also shot his friend while hunting, drunk, while he was out of town with his mistress.

But IMO, his greatest offense has been forcing the American people to have to look at his FUGLY FACE for eight years, and having the gaule to answer "So what?" when reminded that 75% of Americans are against his policies.

"If we want oil, we gotta go where the oil is." Cheney, to Halliburton, shortly before he became Bush's running mate. I call that a hidden agenda. He's a sneak, just like Bush!

"No nation building!"

Two liars!

Deeman3
04-29-2008, 07:22 AM
Now, as a payback, you will force us to look at Hillary's ugly face for 4 years? Not fair. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

By the way, is it not strange that it was not the KKK, McCain or even Hillary that brought Obama down but his own pastor? I was ready to give Hillary credit for it and, minus any connection between her and Wright, his own pastor seems to be intentionally dumping him in the ocean.

While months of easy press and false empty words could not expose him, his own pastor will be his undoing to the same masses of uneducated and low wage white workers he had to win to beat Hillary. How could Hillary and McCain be so fortunate? They had to do very little but cheer on the sidelines for the downfall of the most media protected candidate of all time.

Aint life strange?

He is toast....

sack316
04-29-2008, 10:07 AM
I never wanna hear a supporter of anyone that uses James Carville as a political consultant complain about staring at anyone else's "fugly face"... EVER!

Sack

hondo
04-30-2008, 12:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, as a payback, you will force us to look at Hillary's ugly face for 4 years? Not fair. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

By the way, is it not strange that it was not the KKK, McCain or even Hillary that brought Obama down but his own pastor? I was ready to give Hillary credit for it and, minus any connection between her and Wright, his own pastor seems to be intentionally dumping him in the ocean.

While months of easy press and false empty words could not expose him, his own pastor will be his undoing to the same masses of uneducated and low wage white workers he had to win to beat Hillary. How could Hillary and McCain be so fortunate? They had to do very little but cheer on the sidelines for the downfall of the most media protected candidate of all time.

Aint life strange?

He is toast.... </div></div>

I don't think Mrs. Clinton is ugly.

Deeman3
04-30-2008, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo[/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I don't think Mrs. Clinton is ugly. </div></div>

Of course you don't! However, when standind next to James Carvil, I would have to agree. She doesn't look as bad. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
04-30-2008, 04:02 PM
".....the same masses of uneducated and low wage white workers"
You must be referring to the Proles:
"They were given little education, worked at jobs in which tough physical labor was the norm, lived in poverty, had plenty of children, and usually died by the age of sixty."
It's an unfortunate constitutional oversight that allowed this group the right to vote....

sack316
04-30-2008, 10:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div></div>

I don't think Mrs. Clinton is ugly. [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Of course you don't! However, when standind next to James Carvil, I would have to agree. She doesn't look as bad. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

wait wait wait, who's a she? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sorry, I'm just not strong enough to resist that one

Sack

eb_in_nc
05-01-2008, 07:45 AM
Let's put it this way, if Hillary were out walking her dog, a passer-by might be wondering who was walking whom?

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 07:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">".....the same masses of uneducated and low wage white workers"
You must be referring to the Proles:
"They were given little education, worked at jobs in which tough physical labor was the norm, lived in poverty, had plenty of children, and usually died by the age of sixty."
It's an unfortunate constitutional oversight that allowed this group the right to vote.... </div></div>

No, I think it is the spirit of America that all can vote to make change where they feel it is needed. I've never asked that one ecconomic group be not allowed to vote if they are American citizens. I think many who are on that lower rung of the ladder, through hard work and making the system work for them, over the years, become successful through their efforts and that possibility and actuality is the only reason elections are close. If you think about it, if only people directly benefiting from the system we have now voted Republican, the Democrats would win about 80/20. However, many of the ones who will share in the American success in a few years see that a system that redistributes much of the wealth will then impede their getting to the top.

The real beauty of this country is that there are still many 20, 30 and 40 year olds who are now stuggling that will be very well off in a few years. Of course, there are ones who will sit around and wait for it to be handed to them and, to be fair, those who just will not have great opportunity. Of course, look at how those same unfortuante people are treated in most other countries.

wolfdancer
05-01-2008, 08:46 AM
I never miss an opportunity to tie in... "1980"
And I'm still "waiting".....
have a good day!!!

Gayle in MD
05-06-2008, 08:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed is the chief offender here for assigning derogatory connotations
</div></div>

Absolutely! And, he is never willing to provide any evidence for his outlandish statements! I have Ed back on total ignore, until he starts attending his "Mens' Meetings" again, lol. Poor Ed, he can't help it if Rush is his only source for anything and everything. A steady diet of nothing but right wing pundits is so obvious in his posts. If he read a book, once and a while, it wouldn't be so bad, but then, as he has written many times, books are irrelevant, because people make money on them! What a crock!

Some of us here, do atleast attempt, to state what we believe with respect for the other persons point of view. Ed, and Steve, seem unable to communicate that way. They seem to begin every post with the intent to insult the person they are writing to, as their main goal. I think it would be just great if we all made an effort to be more pleasant to one another. I can write angry posts about Republican policies, and how damaging they are to the country, without hating all Republicans.

We all do want what is best for our country, and we need to make an effort to remind one another of that, more often.

Debating is really so much more fun without insults. Assisting one another by providing information which some of us may have missed, is a good goal, and one that can allow everyone of us to share information which can enrich all our arsenals for decision making.

That having been said, I can only add, Hillary is the best of all the candidates! LOL... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
05-06-2008, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real beauty of this country is that there are still many 20, 30 and 40 year olds who are now stuggling that will be very well off in a few years. </div></div>

I sure hope you are right about that, friend, but given our present circumstances, and in my view, we've lost eight years of valuable time for adddressing the pressing issues of our times, I wonder how many of those you refer to will be doing as well as we were able, at their same ages.

I came from a well-to-do family, but, thankfully, my Dad believed in assistance, but not spoiling. He provided me with a sum of money to begin my adult life, when I married, but with the understanding that barring any tragic circumstances, he expected me to make my way, do the right thing, work hard, and build on that much appreciated, advantage. I never thought of depending on the Government for anything, and certainly, we made our own way in life, and fortunetely, we managed to navigate pretty well as business owners.

I wonder, other than that wealthy top ten percent, who own ninety percent of the wealth, how many middle class families these days will be able to provide their children with college, or a financial start, like my Dad gave to me. I had bonds to cash, and money invested for me, some of it my own earned money from working, and also years of birthday money from relatives, and such, all invested by my father, for my future life. Will the young adults today, have parents who can do the same for them?

I took my first job when I was twelve. It wasn't a job, to me, truly, because I was teaching dancing for the studio where I took lessons, but they paid me, basically, for doing something I loved doing. Having that money to spend, even though Dad made me put a third of it in my bank account, made me very hungry for money of my own. I always worked, doing things I liked to do, but I was never expected to do so.

These days it is hard to find kids who are interested in mowing the lawn for extra money, yet I know that many of their parents are struggling financially, according to statistics. I don't get it. We girls, in my old neighborhood, were all competing for baby sitting jobs, all through Jr. High School, and High School. The boys all had jobs, doing lawn care, or working for businesses in our town, cleaning store windows, working at the local drug store, washing cars for neighbors, working part time construction jobs, and in High School, loads of us worked on the Hill, myself included, for the Republican committee, lol, believe it or not! I almost never hear about kids working these days.

I don't know how we will see a generation in the future that will match the advantages enjoyed by upper middle class, and many middle class, and even lower middle class kids that grew up in the forties, fifties and early sixties, given the situation we now have in the job market, with losses in manufacturing, blue collar jobs, losses of Mom and Pop local businesses, driven out by the big conglomerates, who hire loads of cheap labor, and with illegals often driving down low paying wages, not to mention the changes our country must face in the energy arena. The average blue collar worker, in actuality, can't afford to raise kids, live well, help to put them through college, and keep a roof over their heads, while paying these energy prices, and the resulting higher costs of everything else, including food, gas and utilities.

I worry about the world my grand daughter will face.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-06-2008, 09:57 AM
There is nothing ugly about Hillary Clinton. In fact, I, for one, think she looks amazingly well, for her age, and certainly does not carry the turtle neck that Laura Bush has hanging under her chin.

Hillary look great. She has outcampaigned both of the men in this campaign, and has looked healthier, more rested and more energetic than either of them. She has the quickest mind, and the greatest command of the range of pressing subjects, and has met questions, and debated with a vigor outdistancing both the other frontrunners.

I think Hillary Clinton has a pretty face, and looks great for her age. Unfortunately, some men apply masculine overtones to any women who is successful in her business life, or displays just as much intellect, and stamina in her endeavors, as any man could.

Cheney, and Rice, OTOH, are fit for the horror movies. Pure evil in their eyes, and the grimaces that reveal their true personalities, and the annoyance they feel, anytime they are exposed for being the liars they are, or held to account for their incompetence, or dishonesty, are very revealing, and classic facial language from a psychological POV.

Evil on parade, IMO.

sack316
05-06-2008, 10:28 AM
Gayle, actually you are right on the ugly/not ugly thing. I've taken my shots, and will likely take more again sometime (all in good fun) but in all actuality she is not a bad looking lady, and has come through months and months of long hours looking much less tired than I would.

I don't know how fair it would be to compare that quality with her opposition at this time though. I mean, Obama is a relatively young guy who has nowhere to go but down in that department. And McCain, well he only has two steps left: first is the Cheney look, then the dirt nap look. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

eg8r
05-06-2008, 12:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, actually you are right on the ugly/not ugly thing. I've taken my shots, and will likely take more again sometime (all in good fun) but in all actuality she is not a bad looking lady,...</div></div> Yeah she is a hottie (NOT!!). She looks much worse when the makeup is scraped off her face. This has nothing to do with being partisan or not since looks have nothing to do with how good a President an individual will be.

Here is Hillary's scary movie audition.
http://markgorman.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/scary-hillary-clinton.jpg

How about this one...looks like the effects of the botox is wearing off.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0711/hillary_clinton_1101.jpg

Here is one that shows hillary as old as McCain without all the help from the miracle makeup and botox. Man look at her wrinkly neck. YUCK. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
http://www.gocollegiate.com/editor/UserFiles/hillary%20clinton.jpg

One last one...Man why doesn't she botox that face more often?
http://floortwo.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/hillary-clinton-jacket.jpg

eg8r

sack316
05-06-2008, 12:31 PM
Touche eg8r, touche indeed my friend /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Deeman3
05-06-2008, 12:53 PM
Of course, we are not electing a beauty queen, but a president. Looks should have nothing to do with that choice.

sack316
05-06-2008, 12:55 PM
whateva deeman, that's not how it worked in high school /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

eg8r
05-06-2008, 01:53 PM
I definitely mentioned that in my post with all the nasty pics. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif The queen sheep just likes to have a say about everyone on the right so I thought I would remind her about hillary since her memory differs from reality.

eg8r

eb_in_nc
05-06-2008, 02:56 PM
Hillary in her younger years:
http://www2.snapfish.com/slideshow/AlbumID=227883653/PictureID=4987147087/a=130226479_130226479/t_=130226479

Gayle in MD
05-07-2008, 10:33 AM
Well, I'd say she looks marvelous, for a woman her age, in the middle of such am extremely tiring and drawn out process as campaigning, and while some very ugly people can search for unflattering pictures, out of pure nastiness, she looks very good whenever I see her on TV, and not as tired, mentally or physically, as either of the two men, neither of whom has been able to keep with with her on either front.

But then, none of this has anything to do with running the country, other than the fact that she is by far sharper, more capable, smarter, intellectually, and more well spoken than either of the others.

Gayle in Md.