• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A very interesting rumor I heard today.. (1 Viewer)

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It seems to me it's the liberals who are trying to make her sexuality an issue just as Kerry and Edwards did with Cheney's daughter.
Click to expand...

Yeah whatever, if it were not for running on Gays, God, and Guns, Republicans would be lucky to hold the political power the green party holds. I mean come on. Do you honestly believe that a black, pro-affirmative action, lesbian would have any hope at all of winning the Republican nomination for President?

As I stated earlier, she would have no better of a chance at winning the Republican nomination than a pro-life / anti-union Democrat would have at winning the Democratic Nomination.
 
Navy Pride said:
hips, Condy Rice would be your worse nightmare my friend.........
Click to expand...

Well, Hipster just loves the mochachino....

Condi as commissioner of the NFL? As long as she doesn't take the 2006 Lombardi trophy away from our beloved Steelers I could live with it. Or did you mean as President? ;)

It would be interesting if both Hillary and Condi were the nominees. It would force America to deal with it's sexism.

My guess is that a third party would actually stand a chance if those two were the nominees in 08.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No that's a question of honesty, he was cheating on his wife so who is to say that he wouldn't cheat on America? The President is supposed to be someone with the upmost integrity. And the evidence that he would lie in front of a Senate Congressional Hearing is proof that he is not a man of fine moral fiber.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe that you could write that with a straight face. George Washington had affairs. Thomas Jefferson had affairs. It is rumored that Lincoln had a homosexual affair (especially being that he wrote what most would consider love letters to a male friend). FDR had a mistress. Eisenhower had a mistress. Kennedy had a mistress. Johnson had no telling how many affairs. Truth be known, probably half the presidents have had affairs, and probably 3/4s of the good ones did.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I find it hard to believe that you could write that with a straight face. George Washington had affairs. Thomas Jefferson had affairs. It is rumored that Lincoln had a homosexual affair (especially being that he wrote what most would consider love letters to a male friend). FDR had a mistress. Eisenhower had a mistress. Kennedy had a mistress. Johnson had no telling how many affairs. Truth be known, probably half the presidents have had affairs, and probably 3/4s of the good ones did.
Click to expand...

Ya but did they lie about it in front of Congress? Did they get bloweries in the Oval office while on the phone making battle plans in Kosovo?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya but did they lie about it in front of Congress? Did they get bloweries in the Oval office while on the phone making battle plans in Kosovo?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I mean judging by how well Kosovo went, maybe it would do the country and our troops some good of Bush got a few hummers while on conference calls dealing with Iraq. Hell it might just be what we as a nation need to get this turned around.

I would think that the stronger point to make is that prior to the Republicans in the 90s, both parties seem to have the class to not depose a sitting president and question them about their affairs. Most of the American people saw it much the same way. In fact, most of the world did. In the height of the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton still had over 60% approval ratings. The whole ordeal only made the Republicans at the time the laughing stock of the world.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yeah whatever, if it were not for running on Gays, God, and Guns, Republicans would be lucky to hold the political power the green party holds. I mean come on. Do you honestly believe that a black, pro-affirmative action, lesbian would have any hope at all of winning the Republican nomination for President?

As I stated earlier, she would have no better of a chance at winning the Republican nomination than a pro-life / anti-union Democrat would have at winning the Democratic Nomination.
Click to expand...

I have yet to meet a person who would cast their vote soully on gay marriage. The real reason why people don't vote Democrat is because Deomcrats are pro-socialism and anti-troops. I mean do you really think people want to vote for a party whose presidential canidate said that our troops are akin to terrorists and a party which is running on an economic platform of higher taxes?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't know, I mean judging by how well Kosovo went, maybe it would do the country and our troops some good of Bush got a few hummers while on conference calls dealing with Iraq. Hell it might just be what we as a nation need to get this turned around.

I would think that the stronger point to make is that prior to the Republicans in the 90s, both parties seem to have the class to not depose a sitting president and question them about their affairs. Most of the American people saw it much the same way. In fact, most of the world did. In the height of the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton still had over 60% approval ratings. The whole ordeal only made the Republicans at the time the laughing stock of the world.
Click to expand...

How well Kosovo went? Are you kidding me? Their president elect got blown up in '05. Since Clinton tried to run the war from Washington our planes didn't go low enough and we hit alot of civilian targets not to mention hitting the same strategic targets about 20 times because he wouldn't send in the troops to verify target destruction. And on top of all that he never even got a Joint Resolution of Congress before deploying the military and our troops were in harms way for longer than 60 days all without Congressional approval. Oh and all that plus if a lower down officer hadn't violated a direct order from Wesley Clark we would have been at war with Russia. Wesley Clark ordered an appachee attack on a Russian military base which was harboring Serbian forces which had retreated.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I have yet to meet a person who would cast their vote soully on gay marriage. The real reason why people don't vote Democrat is because Deomcrats are pro-socialism and anti-troops. I mean do you really think people want to vote for a party whose presidential canidate said that our troops are akin to terrorists and a party which is running on an economic platform of higher taxes?
Click to expand...

Well being that Kerry outpolled Bush on every single Domestic issue, including a 13 point lead on taxes, I would think that you are mistaken. Other than with the most hard core Republicans, taxes are not a very big issue with most voters in national elections (local elections are different in this regard). I don’t know what part of the country you are in, but here in the South and in the Heartland, a lot of people went to the polls in 2004 because they wanted to make sure that "the queers don't end up ruining marriage". I saw more bumper stickers in 2004 against gay marriage than any other issue.

You got to figure, these elections are won on very small margins, in fact, in 2000 Gore actually got more of the popular vote. It has been a Republican strategy for quite some time that every election they find a good whipping post to wedge the southern and Midwestern voters away from the Democrats and of course, Democrats help them out by nominated crappy candidates.

Do you honestly think that elections are about real issues?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Well being that Kerry outpolled Bush on every single Domestic issue, including a 13 point lead on taxes, I would think that you are mistaken. Other than with the most hard core Republicans, taxes are not a very big issue with most voters in national elections (local elections are different in this regard). I don’t know what part of the country you are in, but here in the South and in the Heartland, a lot of people went to the polls in 2004 because they wanted to make sure that "the queers don't end up ruining marriage". I saw more bumper stickers in 2004 against gay marriage than any other issue.

You got to figure, these elections are won on very small margins, in fact, in 2000 Gore actually got more of the popular vote. It has been a Republican strategy for quite some time that every election they find a good whipping post to wedge the southern and Midwestern voters away from the Democrats and of course, Democrats help them out by nominated crappy candidates.

Do you honestly think that elections are about real issues?
Click to expand...

Well good for you like I said the people stupid enough to be bigoted against gays don't even vote in the first place, I saw more people with "these colors don't run," bumper stickers and infact I don't recall ever seeing an anti-gay marriage bumper sticker.
 
vauge said:
There are many many ladies that would not vote for a woman prez either.
It's not a sexual preference thing. It is not a race thing. It is a religeous thing..
Click to expand...

Ah yes, and would they be those "ladies" in enlightened places like Plano, Texas who've been brought up from an early age to think that their ambition ends at trapping their guy, standing by their man and baking apple pie? The fact that you don't refer to them as what they are, women, speaks reams. Condy is not the right person, not because she's a woman, not because she's got black heritage and not because she might be a lesbian, but because she's a dork. If there is a woman capable of doing the job, what a waste of her talents to exclude her? And especially for religion - proof if ever you needed it of the church's dangerous and damaging shackles on mankind.


vauge said:
I would like to hear your take on the US men fight Child support laws thread.
Click to expand...

Since you ask so nicely, I will look in and comment when I have time.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
At least with Hillary is actually married and we know because they have a kid, has been intimate with a man. Condi on the other hand to no ones knowledge has ever even so much as dated a guy. I for one could care less whether she was a lesbian or what. However, its certainly a factor amoung socially conservative voters.
Click to expand...

Gay people in here there are a lot of lesbians married and have children......It has to be the only explanation as to why she lets Bill **** on her and opens her mouth and just swallows it..........

I know your a great believer in polls....Have you seen the ones between Condy and Hillary? Condy destroys her.............

I might add because a man or woman is not married does not mean they are gay or lesbian........I have a friend who is a retired navy chief who is not married and he is one of the biggest woman chasers there is..........
 
hipsterdufus said:
Well, Hipster just loves the mochachino....

Condi as commissioner of the NFL? As long as she doesn't take the 2006 Lombardi trophy away from our beloved Steelers I could live with it. Or did you mean as President? ;)

It would be interesting if both Hillary and Condi were the nominees. It would force America to deal with it's sexism.

My guess is that a third party would actually stand a chance if those two were the nominees in 08.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was talking president of the U.S..Have you seen the polls between Hillary and Condy? Not good for the "Ice Princess."
 
I see them a lot around here in troglodyte SD.
 
Navy Pride said:
Gay people in here there are a lot of lesbians married and have children......It has to be the only explanation as to why she lets Bill **** on her and opens her mouth and just swallows it..........

I know your a great believer in polls....Have you seen the ones between Condy and Hillary? Condy destroys her.............

I might add because a man or woman is not married does not mean they are gay or lesbian........I have a friend who is a retired navy chief who is not married and he is one of the biggest woman chasers there is..........
Click to expand...

NP, how do you know that Condi is not some flaming liberal? All you know is that she is a neo-Conservative on foriegn policy issues. Other than that, she might make George McGovern seem like a conservative. Moreover, polling right now is meaningless. You can bet that Hillary will never win the nomination. Most Democrats dont even like her. And you can bet that a pro-affirmative action, black, lesbian woman, would never in a million years win the Republican nomination. It would just never happen.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
NP, how do you know that Condi is not some flaming liberal? All you know is that she is a neo-Conservative on foriegn policy issues. Other than that, she might make George McGovern seem like a conservative. Moreover, polling right now is meaningless. You can bet that Hillary will never win the nomination. Most Democrats dont even like her. And you can bet that a pro-affirmative action, black, lesbian woman, would never in a million years win the Republican nomination. It would just never happen.
Click to expand...

Most polls show a 50% favorable opinion of Hillary. I doubt those are Republicans saying that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm

She will get the nomination. It's not even a question.
 
doughgirl said:
Can you imagine Condi and ole Hillary running agaisnt each other.......now that would be a cat fight to the end.
Click to expand...



I teach a high school government class (to homeschoolers) and have said that one about a billion times this year lol

I'm soooooooooooooooo hoping for that very race in 2008 :)
 
Kelzie said:
Here's another poll specifically on Dems and Hillary.



http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/
Click to expand...

Ya she's definately going to win the primary but who cares about the primary? In the '08 election she's not going to get any swing voters and there will probably be quite a few Democrats who either won't vote because she's running or will vote Republican instead. To be honest I hope she runs she'll be easy to beat especially if McCain gets the Republican nomination. He'll pull a large section of the McCain Democratics though none of them will be female.
 
Kelzie said:
Most polls show a 50% favorable opinion of Hillary. I doubt those are Republicans saying that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm

She will get the nomination. It's not even a question.
Click to expand...

I might be wrong, but I just don't see it happening. Polls are meaningless right now. Hillary is not half the statesman that her husband is. Besides, Hillary polls high right now because a lot of people know who she is. In two years it will be different. There will be several other Dems on the national stage and that will be when polls might start meaning something. For example, the Democratic governor of Montana will probably run. No one knows who he is now outside of Montana, but they say he would make a very attractive candidate. All Hillary is right now is a fund raising tool for Republicans.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya she's definately going to win the primary but who cares about the primary in '08 she's not going to get any swing voters and there will probably be quite a few Democrats who either won't vote because she's running or will vote Republican instead. To be honest I hope she runs she'll be easy to beat especially if McCain gets the Republican nomination. He'll pull a large section of the McCain Democratics though none of them will be female.
Click to expand...

Against McCain she might lose. She's runnning about a 50% approval rating right now. I'm not sure that McCain will get the GOP nod though.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I might be wrong, but I just don't see it happening. Polls are meaningless right now. Hillary is not half the statesman that her husband is. Besides, Hillary polls high right now because a lot of people know who she is. In two years it will be different. There will be several other Dems on the national stage and that will be when polls might start meaning something. For example, the Democratic governor of Montana will probably run. No one knows who he is now outside of Montana, but they say he would make a very attractive candidate. All Hillary is right now is a fund raising tool for Republicans.
Click to expand...

So even though 73% of Dems want her to run, you think some guy from Montana that nobody's heard of is going to get the presedential nomination?
 
Kelzie said:
Against McCain she might lose. She's runnning about a 50% approval rating right now. I'm not sure that McCain will get the GOP nod though.
Click to expand...

I don't think Clinton stands a chance in hell no matter who she runs against. People who have never voted in their lives will vote just to make sure she doesn't get elected. :lol: In an election you need to pull swing voters and Hillary no matter how hard she tries to hide it is way over to the left. Her moving towards the center is the same ruse that her husband pulled in '92. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom