Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

If Hillary Got The Dem Nomination, Would You Vote For Her

Elections Pre-2008 Primaries Hillary Clinton

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

Poll: Would You Vote For Hillary Clinton For President (40 member(s) have cast votes)

Apparently There Is Speculation That Hillary Clinton Could Be The Dem Nominee

  1. I'm A Dem And I'd Vote For Her (6 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  2. I'm A Dem and I Don't Know If I'd Vote For Her (6 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  3. I'm A Dem and Wouldn't Vote For Her (3 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  4. I'm An Independent And I'd Vote For Her (4 votes [10.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.26%

  5. I'm An Independent But I'm Undecided About Voting For Her (5 votes [12.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.82%

  6. I'm An Independent And Wouldn't Vote For Her (9 votes [23.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.08%

  7. I'm A Republican And I'd Vote For Her (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. I'm A Republican And I'm Undecided If I'd Vote For Her (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. I'm A Republican And I Wouldn't Vote For Her (4 votes [10.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.26%

  10. It Depends On Who The GOP Nominee Is (2 votes [5.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.13%

If You vote NO, why not?- OR if voted Yes pleases mark #9

  1. I Don't Like Her, She's Too Pushy (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. I Beleive Her Opinions Change With The Political Wind (8 votes [20.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.51%

  3. I Don't Like Her Policies (3 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  4. She's Bill Clinton's Wife (2 votes [5.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.13%

  5. Too Conservative (1 votes [2.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.56%

  6. Too Liberal (4 votes [10.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.26%

  7. She's Unelectable Because She Polarises People Along Party Lines. (4 votes [10.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.26%

  8. She's A Woman (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. I voted for her in the first half- so no entry here (17 votes [43.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.59%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#81 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 11:19 PM

View PostCall Me Robin, on May 11 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

Hillary is a senator with no noticeable achievements in that role--at least not thus far.  If we're going to have a female candidate, I'd prefer a governor like Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) or Janet Napolitano (Arizona).  Both are very popular and both made Time magazine's list of America's best governors.  Sebelius has managed the incredible feat of being a Democratic woman governor in a bright-red state--with a huge approval rating, no less.


I agree that Hilary wouldn't be my first pick either- Diane Feinstein would be. She's moderate enough to make everybody happy.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#82 veganmom

veganmom
  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 09:14 AM

View PostRhea, on May 12 2006, 04:19 AM, said:

View PostCall Me Robin, on May 11 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

Hillary is a senator with no noticeable achievements in that role--at least not thus far.  If we're going to have a female candidate, I'd prefer a governor like Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) or Janet Napolitano (Arizona).  Both are very popular and both made Time magazine's list of America's best governors.  Sebelius has managed the incredible feat of being a Democratic woman governor in a bright-red state--with a huge approval rating, no less.


I agree that Hilary wouldn't be my first pick either- Diane Feinstein would be. She's moderate enough to make everybody happy.

OK, who else is now daydreaming of an all-female ticket?!?!?!?!


WOW. THAT would be something to see.

#83 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:08 AM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on May 11 2006, 11:12 PM, said:

View PostLin731, on May 11 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Yet the Dem party keeps throwing Senaters or Liberal Govs up for the nomination. With this country as messed up as it is, I'd be trying to hedge my bet. I'd look for a smart, personable, centrist Gov who has some charisma and presense.
My bet is still on George Pataki from New York.

:eek4:  Hard to imagine he even gets the nomination, though obviously, he's given all the outward signs that he's running (trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, etc).  I think if he was running for another term in Albany, he'd lose to Spitzer, and I think he knows it: that's why he's trying to make the jump to National Office now.  

Quote

If the Neocons keep sliding like they aren’t going to be able to bully their way through the primary process like the past couple of elections.

Well, yeah, but I'd remove the "if."  There's no recovering from this.  The movement is bankrupt, its main proponents are being hounded from office (have you seen the latest Santorum poll?) and/or indicted (the press is camped-out outside of Fitzgerald's office today waiting for word that Rove is being indicted, which will apparently be coming any day now).  

The traditional Republicans won't have to *take* their party back: it's defaulting to them.  Then again, "traditional Republican" does not necessarily = moderate.  McCain, who I think will almost certainly have the nomination, is *not* a moderate.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#84 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 01:33 PM

View Post_ph, on May 9 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

View PostDelvo, on May 9 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

I'm sure I disagree with her on most issues,
For example?

View Post_ph, on May 9 2006, 11:20 PM, said:

I'd like to hear exactly what policies of hers you don't like, because I follow her pretty closely, and she seems to have systematically staked out common sense, middle-of-the-road positions on almost every issue imaginable.  

The approach is identical to her husband's "third way" ethos
Well, right there you have a start to the answer to the question. I’ve never been impressed with middle-of-the-road thinking.  It’s a great paradigm for avoiding the right answer by avoiding really giving any answer at all, without the benefit of truly managing to avoid the wrong one either. Worse yet is when liberals call themselves moderate or centrist while still actually pushing for liberalism.


View Post_ph, on May 9 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

She's for balancing the budget, saving social security and medicare, universal healthcare, keeping abortion "safe, legal and rare," et al ad nauseum.
They ALL say they’re for “balancing the budget”. But what actual policies are there behind the catchphrase? Where is she willing to cut expenses, or even quit increasing them? Universal healthcare certainly goes directly against it.

And I’m not for “saving” Soial Security. It’s a bad idea, and bad ideas should be tossed, not “saved”.

And anyone who claims to want to make abortions legal and rare is just lying; we all KNOW that when they’re legal, they have not been and will not be rare, so you can really only advocate one or the other. Whichever one she picks, she needs to just admit what her position really is, not try to fool both sides into thinking she’s on theirs and pretend it’s some lofty “third way”.

View PostDev F, on May 9 2006, 03:10 PM, said:

The red flag for me is her support of phoney-baloney "Please think of the children!" causes like the increased regulation of violent video games. Why don't you worry about addressing the real problems in society, okay, instead of stomping on our civil rights to make soccer moms feel better about not parenting their children?

View PostSpidey, on May 9 2006, 03:15 PM, said:

she's anti-2nd Amendment, and that chaps my hide.
Ditto and ditto.

View Post_ph, on May 10 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

There was unanimous support for Afghanistan before and it remained unanimous up to the time it became clear Bush was diverting billions of dollars and thousands of troops...
Dangit, liberals & Democrats, every time I’m on the verge of finally deciding to toss my chips in with you all the way, you go and pull a stunt like this to drive me away again. You KNOW all the screaming and yelling the left was doing about how horrible it was to even think of military action in Afghanistan just as well as we do; we were there, you were there, you and/or your political allies were the ones DOING it, and you aren’t going to fool us! Elsewhere at Ex Isle recently (I think in this thread but I’m not sure) I also saw someone still trotting out the same old tired lie about the “Mission Accomplished” speech, when you all KNOW that it wasn’t referring to what you keep claiming it was referring to! There’s plenty of real stuff to go after Bush for now; you don’t need to keep clinging to (and horribly discrediting yourselves with) these silly lies, especially on such irrelevant subjects!

View Post_ph, on May 11 2006, 11:47 AM, said:

So as of now we have 20 either for or open to voting for Hillary and 13 against or leaning toward no.  And she hasn't even started trying to sell herself to the American People.  

I'm OK with these numbers.  Lin, are they not better than what you expected?
It’s a tiny sample size on a liberal website. It means nothing.

View Post_ph, on May 11 2006, 11:47 AM, said:

Certainly, this result does nothing to shake my conviction that she will at least be the nominee of her party.  I also think she can win.
The Democrats’ best strategy for victory would be to run someone the opposition  and the general public aren’t so familiar with. Previously Republican voters will find it easier to switch sides if they’re given a campaign that’s about the present than one that dredges up a common enemy from their past.

#85 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:02 PM

View PostDelvo, on May 12 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

View Post_ph, on May 10 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

There was unanimous support for Afghanistan before and it remained unanimous up to the time it became clear Bush was diverting billions of dollars and thousands of troops...
Dangit, liberals & Democrats, every time I’m on the verge of finally deciding to toss my chips in with you all the way, you go and pull a stunt like this to drive me away again. You KNOW all the screaming and yelling the left was doing about how horrible it was to even think of military action in Afghanistan just as well as we do; we were there, you were there, you and/or your political allies were the ones DOING it, and you aren’t going to fool us!

First of all, I'll thank you not to tell me what I know, Delvo.  Second, if you have proof that "liberals & Democrats" didn't support military action in Afghanistan, I challenge you to post it, or retract this absurd claim.  

Quote

Elsewhere at Ex Isle recently (I think in this thread but I’m not sure) I also saw someone still trotting out the same old tired lie about the “Mission Accomplished” speech, when you all KNOW that it wasn’t referring to what you keep claiming it was referring to!

Again, a ridiculous claim.  They were shooting a commercial for the Campaign to Re-Elect, and the conceit was, "we won in Iraq."  It's as simple as that.  I can't imagine the breathtaking level of naivete required to believe that this was done for any other reason.  

Quote

There’s plenty of real stuff to go after Bush for now

I'd like to hear your take on what those things might be.

Edited by _ph, 12 May 2006 - 02:03 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#86 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 02:12 PM

I would not vote for the other half of the Clinton for President crew. They are a team and she worked side by side with her husband. So the spin doctoring that marked her husband's administartion.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#87 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 05:27 PM

I'm not a Hillary fan.

I wanted to respond to this, though:

Quote

Delvo: Dangit, liberals & Democrats, every time I’m on the verge of finally deciding to toss my chips in with you all the way, you go and pull a stunt like this to drive me away again. You KNOW all the screaming and yelling the left was doing about how horrible it was to even think of military action in Afghanistan just as well as we do; we were there, you were there, you and/or your political allies were the ones DOING it, and you aren’t going to fool us!

Your memory is faulty, Delvo.

Support for our action against Afghanistan ran at 93% on the day we started the campaign. 5% disapproved. 3% had no opinion.

In those days, immediately after the attacks on 9/11, the country was as united as it's ever been. Bush and Daschle hugged after Bush's address to the nation on September 21. Do you recall that?

I supported the Afghan War and so did everyone I know. And I can't think of one Democratic leader who opposed it.

I know Karl Rove claimed that "liberals" and Democrats were opposed to the Afghan War, but he simply lied.

Link to poll:

http://www.washingto.../data100801.htm
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#88 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:30 PM

View PostSpectacles, on May 12 2006, 03:27 PM, said:

I'm not a Hillary fan.

I wanted to respond to this, though:

Quote

Delvo: Dangit, liberals & Democrats, every time I’m on the verge of finally deciding to toss my chips in with you all the way, you go and pull a stunt like this to drive me away again. You KNOW all the screaming and yelling the left was doing about how horrible it was to even think of military action in Afghanistan just as well as we do; we were there, you were there, you and/or your political allies were the ones DOING it, and you aren’t going to fool us!

Your memory is faulty, Delvo.

Support for our action against Afghanistan ran at 93% on the day we started the campaign. 5% disapproved. 3% had no opinion.

In those days, immediately after the attacks on 9/11, the country was as united as it's ever been. Bush and Daschle hugged after Bush's address to the nation on September 21. Do you recall that?

I supported the Afghan War and so did everyone I know. And I can't think of one Democratic leader who opposed it.

I know Karl Rove claimed that "liberals" and Democrats were opposed to the Afghan War, but he simply lied.

Link to poll:

http://www.washingto.../data100801.htm


What Specs said. All of it.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#89 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 09:28 AM

:thumbs-up:  to SPecs for the facts, ma'am, just the facts.
Posted Image

#90 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 01:46 PM

That poll was a poll of us "commoners", not the politicians and pundits who make the speeches and have the conversations & arguments that get on the news, the talk shows, and the newspaper/magazine columns.

And even given that, 93% still isn't unanimous.

Edited by Delvo, 13 May 2006 - 01:46 PM.


#91 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 02:56 PM

View PostDelvo, on May 13 2006, 02:46 PM, said:

That poll was a poll of us "commoners", not the politicians and pundits who make the speeches and have the conversations & arguments that get on the news, the talk shows, and the newspaper/magazine columns.

And even given that, 93% still isn't unanimous.

Senate Joint Resolution 23 was passed by a vote of 98-0 on September 14, 2001

House Joint Resolution 67, counterpart to the Senate's action, also passed without objection, 420-1.  

Which is, of course, absolutely fatal to any assertion that the Democratic Party was against the invasion of Afghanistan, such as:

delvo said:

You KNOW all the screaming and yelling the left was doing about how horrible it was to even think of military action in Afghanistan just as well as we do; we were there, you were there, you and/or your political allies were the ones DOING it, and you aren’t going to fool us!

Um... Care to rephrase that, Delvo?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#92 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 03:32 PM

Care to pay attention to what I actually wrote instead of pretending I said something else you wish I'd said because it's what you want to respond to?

Care to try making a point without the snideness and faux-gloating?

#93 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 03:44 PM

delvo said:

You KNOW all the screaming and yelling the left was doing about how horrible it was to even think of military action in Afghanistan just as well as we do; we were there, you were there, you and/or your political allies were the ones DOING it, and you aren’t going to fool us!

These are your words, right?  Your account wasn't hacked?  

I asked you to provide proof, you failed to do so.  Then you responded to the poll Spectacles posted with

delvo said:

that poll was a poll of us "commoners", not the politicians and pundits who make the speeches and have the conversations & arguments that get on the news, the talk shows, and the newspaper/magazine columns.

In response to this, I posted proof that the Democratic Party unanimously supported the invasion of Afghanistan.  So we *were* "paying attention to what [you] actually wrote."  

If you meant somehting else, then you should've WRITTEN something else.  I invite you to clarify, if you wish.

I would also ask you to provide examples of the Democratic polticians you claim argued against the invasion of Afghanistan.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#94 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 04:52 PM

A vote in Congress, just like a poll of the general populace, has nothing to do with how much the Congress members, and various other politicians and pundits who aren't even in Congress, protest against something in speeches and media interviews/debates and picket-sign protest gatherings... which I'm not going to bother going searching for because I know the internet doesn't contain all information in the world and even that which it does contain can be too hard to find, especially when I can already predict the reaction as soon as I found some examples anyway: "That's just a few isolated incidents, so they don't matter".

Your apparent case is the much harder one to prove, that no such speeches, interviews, or columns ever happened at all, or they were so rare as to be practically the same as zero, which is why I'm not going to try demanding that you do it; that would be an unreasonable, pushy, and specious demand.

In a way, that's the problem for your side, though: by repeatedly bringing this claim up spontaneously yourselves, y'all keep voluntarily and unnecessarily putting yourselves in the position of contradicting your opponents' experience with a claim that, because it's a logical negative, could never really be proven even if true... which might be worth it if it were over an important point, but it's only self-destructive when it's over trifles that don't matter like this.

Edited by Delvo, 13 May 2006 - 11:11 PM.


#95 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 07:31 PM

Quote

Your apparent case is the much harder one to prove, that no such speeches, interviews, or columns ever happened at all, or they were so rare as to be practically the same as zero, which is why I'm not going to try demanding that you do it; that would be an unreasonable, pushy, and specious demand.


Delvo, you were mistaken on your claims (per the votes in the House and Senate). You've provided no links, no proof to refute ph_ or anyones elses assertions that your POV was mistaken but you're willing to let him off the hook on proving a negative???  :crazy:  Wow, that's generous of you. You made the claim of "Yelling and screaming by the left" so the only person here needing to provide proof for their assertion is you. Ph_ provided his evidence, you haven't.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#96 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 07:37 PM

View PostLin731, on May 13 2006, 08:31 PM, said:

(per the votes in the House and Senate)
...which, as I just said, are irrelevant, because that addresses some other subject, not the one I spoke on. As I'm sure you or _ph would add just to be friendly, try to keep up.

View PostLin731, on May 13 2006, 08:31 PM, said:

Ph_ provided his evidence...
...of a claim that didn't contradict mine at all in any way.

#97 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 09:53 PM

View PostDelvo, on May 13 2006, 02:52 PM, said:

A vote in Congress, just like a poll of the general populace, has nothing to do with how much the Congress members, and various other politicians and pundits who aren't even in Congress, protest against something in speeches and media interviews/debates and picket-sign protest gatherings... which I'm not going to bother going searching for because I know the internet doesn't contain all information in the world and even that which is does contain can be too hard to find, especially when I can already predict the reaction as soon as I found some examples anyway: "That's just a few isolated incidents, so they don't matter".

Your apparent case is the much harder one to prove, that no such speeches, interviews, or columns ever happened at all, or they were so rare as to be practically the same as zero, which is why I'm not going to try demanding that you do it; that would be an unreasonable, pushy, and specious demand.

In a way, that's the problem for your side, though: by repeatedly bringing this claim up spontaneously yourselves, y'all keep voluntarily and unnecessarily putting yourselves in the position of contradicting your opponents' experience with a claim that, because it's a logical negative, could never really be proven even if true... which might be worth it if it were over an important point, but it's only self-destructive when it's over trifles that don't matter like this.

I don't know where you live, but as far as I know most if not all of the country supported our invading Afghanistan because we were fighting back against an enemy who had attacked us and a country who harbored that enemy. Never were American flags more in evidence than when we invaded Afghanistan. Where Bush lost the country was when he stopped trying to caputre the man who caused 9/11 and invaded Iraq.

And since support for invading Afghanistan was unanimous, both in Congress and among the American people, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by claiming it doesn't matter how Congress voted.

So far, I haven't seen you produce any evidence that the invasion of Afghanistan was opposed by anybody.

So what's your point exactly?

Edited by Rhea, 13 May 2006 - 09:56 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#98 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 09:56 PM

Okay Every One this is just a reminder to keep it civil and NON PERSONAL.

Thank you for your cooperation.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#99 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 14 May 2006 - 01:10 AM

View PostDelvo, on May 13 2006, 05:52 PM, said:

A vote in Congress, just like a poll of the general populace, has nothing to do with how much the Congress members, and various other politicians and pundits who aren't even in Congress, protest against something in speeches and media interviews/debates and picket-sign protest gatherings...

Let's go to the videotape.  

delvo said:

Dangit, liberals & Democrats, every time I’m on the verge of finally deciding to toss my chips in with you all the way, you go and pull a stunt like this to drive me away again.  You KNOW all the screaming and yelling the left was doing about how horrible it was to even think of military action in Afghanistan just as well as we do; we were there, you were there, you and/or your political allies were the ones DOING it, and you aren’t going to fool us!

In response, Spectacles posts a poll indicating that 93% of the country was behind that invasion, which obviously includes the vast majority of those self-same "iberals & Democrats."

The response?  

delvo said:

That poll was a poll of us "commoners", not the politicians

Whereupon I post the roll call indicating that the Senate voted *unanimously*, and the House, 420-1, to authorize the self-same invasion, which you then--bewilderingly--claim "didn't contradict [you] in any way."  

On the contrary, what we posted directly contradicts your claims, leaving you in the unenviable position of having to argue that just because someone voted for something doesn't mean they weren't simultaneously "protesting against" that self-same thing "in speeches and media interviews/debates."  

You then--rather conveniently--decline to provide proof of any such speech, interview or debate.  

Here endeth the summation.  

P.S., you never bothered to clarify this statement, nor do I expect you to, but I thought I'd take another shot at getting you to elaborate:

Quote

There’s plenty of real stuff to go after Bush for now; you don’t need to keep clinging to (and horribly discrediting yourselves with) these silly lies, especially on such irrelevant subjects!

What "stuff" would that be, then?  You're obviously much more conservative than I am, so I would be interested in your perspective on these matters.

Edited by _ph, 14 May 2006 - 01:25 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#100 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 14 May 2006 - 08:29 AM

View Post_ph, on May 14 2006, 02:10 AM, said:

Quote

There’s plenty of real stuff to go after Bush for now
What "stuff" would that be, then?  You're obviously much more conservative than I am, so I would be interested in your perspective on these matters.
Given how badly you just tried to distort what I said before (bizarre, since what I truly said is in plain view right here) about the noise being made in the media when you know perfectly well that the noise made in the media is not the same thing as Congressional votes and general public polls, and the fact that it even involves claiming that 7=0 in the general polls anyway, I find this claim unbelievable. It is more likely that you want to see me say something bad about Bush for some other reason, like that you assume I'm just a Bush-lover and my refusal to do so would prove it or doing so would cause me great consternation or be amusingly weak and lame to see. Or maybe you're looking for common ground or trying to be nice by giving me a chance to blend in better with my anti-Bush surroundings. But I'll play along...

First, there's the general issue you just mentioned and someone else in this thread did before, about conservatism. I am conservative, and Bush is not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, folks like Rush Limbaugh spent most of his first year in office (remember the terrorist attack hadn't happened yet) complaining about the fact that he was supposed to have been a real conservative unlike his father but, just like his father, had betrayed us all by governing as a liberal Democrat: bloating the budget faster than anyone else ever had; with a particular special case of it in education in which he told Ted Kennedy to write whatever bill he wanted and he'd sign it and ended up increasing that spending by about 20% (so we got 20% better results for the money, right?) without any changes in the real problems of HOW education (or any other Executive task) is done; pushing for amnesty for criminal immigrants; catering to unions' whims in cases when they'd only be detrimental to us like the steel tarrif hike; signing the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill; sending more "aid" money to African countries where more money coming in just makes things WORSE by supporting the people who create the problems; and making such a huge deal out of such a puny little tax snip that it was bound to only become an example of tax cuts supposedly not working and thus work against tax cuts and for tax hikes in any future debates. (And there were a handful of others I've forgotten since then.)

Let's see, what other issues have come up in this thread... Abortion? Since nothing's really changed or even possibly could change on that issue lately, it's not a real issue, but it is related to fertility treatments that create extra human zygotes that will only be killed and stem-cell research that creates human zygotes that will only be experimented upon, and it makes no legal sense to be apparently in favor of one or two of those things (since he didn't touch abortion or fertility treatments and there isn't already a Supreme Court ruling in the way in the latter case) but against the other, especially when the one you're against is the one that has a chance of actual helpful scientific progress coming from it. Social Security? I see the sound theory behind it, to give us more freedom of money management and allow private investments that give better returns, but actually making the change would have added lots of costly administration, opportunities for abuse, confusion for the average user of the system, and cracks for people to fall through... all while distracting from the real problem and thus making it harder to get people talking about it and working to solve it. (...the real problem being the increasing ratio of sinks to sources in the system, the increasing ratio of cost per sink to revenue per source, and the simple fact that even with privatization it's still, by definition, taking MY money away from me without my permission and telling me it's for my own good when I know perfectly well that having MY money taken away only HARMS me!)

Also, given the "money scandals", even though he doesn't seem to have taken or given any himself, he must have known, in which case not "blowing the whistle" himself and having the culprits investigated and possibly arrested by an Executive law enforcement agency makes him an accomplice. And on Iraq, although he didn't lie about WMDs and they were never the only reason for the invasion anyway, the management of the situation since then seems directionless, like he looked at several separate real, detailed plans of what to do next and tried to use pieces of each, averaging them out to zero, while cutting logistical corners, which makes the whole thing a bad idea even if it would have been a good idea if done well. Perhaps worst of all, these times are the perfect opportunity, because of the oil situation, to get serious about better energy production methods for the USA, at least bringing the issue up to the forefront of people's minds for debate or funding alternative energy research or something like that if not just plain diving right into something more direct like the construction of nuclear power plants that can use other plants' radioactive waste as fuel to generate 20 times as much energy as it did the first time around and make it not so radioactive anymore... but he's done nothing. And if that's not the worst one of all, then maybe it's his religiosity and how it seems to have encouraged (despite his not having made many major moves toward theocracy himself) a resurgence of a virtually theocratic movement in American politics in general, which not only is a bad thing all by itself but also tends to suck up political energy and distract people on religiously-created issues that aren't even real political issues.

That's all I can think of offhand.

Edited by Delvo, 14 May 2006 - 09:22 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Elections, Pre-2008 Primaries, Hillary Clinton

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users