Hillary or Condy?

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by 26X Champs:
Hillary has done a GREAT job as our senator, hence her strong approval rating. Are you intelligent enough to grasp that we in NY elected her and will reelect her and approve of her performance?

Or, are you going to write stupid posts that attack her because YOU hate her? I realize that "approval ratings" and Republicans don't mix these days so we always get to hear idiotic statements like "It depends on who you poll" or "I don't believe in polls."

Well the bare naked truth is that Hillary's approval rating is over 60% and Bush's rating is barely over 35%.

BTW - What has Condy been elected to exactly?

Did you know that while people were drowning in Louisiana Condy was seeing Spamalot on Broadway? That was on Sept. 1st....3 days after the floods...and before she went down south for photo ops. Another compassionate conservative, right?

Champs, you and Hillary are probably the only thing I like about NY. I enjoy reading your posts with Pride. Keep'em on their toe's.

Not to get off topic, but Willis Reed was a *****.

 

[AlbqOwl]

New Yorkers are proud of Hillary's 60% approval rating. I won't fault her for her carpetbagger's status since NY has no residency requirements other than a person has to live there on the day s/he is elected. (Dumb rule in my book, but it's not my call.) I will point out that New York is one of 50 states and it is a blue state, but without a deep enough blue to keep a Pataki or Guiliani from being elected. And as the blue is concentrated mostly in a few very large metropolitan areas, the vast majority of the country is red.

What will Hillary's approval rating be if the entire country is polled? What will Condi's be should she be drafted to run? Unquestionably Hillary has as good credentials as Condi so far as qualifications go. But Hillary has far more negatives than anything the Dems can get to stick to Condi. I think Condi would win.

At the very least, it would be one of the most riveting campaigns of our lifetime.

 

[MrFungus420]

Now thats just stupid. So then if it came down to you the last vote. And you were voting for a president who was known to start war with little countries and the other was known to start war with bigger countries. You wouldnt vote for the one who starts war with smaller ones?

So, you think that it is better to vote for a bully than someone who prefers a fair fight? Seems to me that in that case the bully would be the greater evil. I would vote only for someone that I felt deserved my vote.

Knowing that probably less people would die as a result of that.

I'm willing to bet that in the long run, the bully would be responsible for more deaths.

But no you would rather not even vote and whatever happens happens.

And you would rather vote in a manner that perpetuates a system that has become corrupt. A system in which the two parties have become, essentially, the same thing. They are both only interested in getting/maintaining power. They both just say what they think will enable them to get more power.

Sounds kinda pasive to me.

Which is more passive? Someone who refuses to take part in corruption, or someone who just blindly follows the system that has become corrupt. Someone who votes only when it follows their conviction, or someone who votes just because they've been told it's what they're supposed to do.

So why even follow politics? Becasue thats all its about is the lessor of two evils.

Because I refuse to believe that there aren't good people out there. It takes a lot more effort to find them and support them.

No one person or place or thing is perfect. Its all the lessor of two evils.

I'm not asking for perfection. If there is someone that I believe is a good person, who has ideas that I support, then I will vote for them. Those are my two criteria, and I don't think that they are unreasonable.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by MrFungus420:
I'm willing to bet that in the long run, the bully would be responsible for more deaths.

Since the Soviet Union is no longer around, were the big bully on the block.

 

[MrFungus420]

Yea, I would never vote for Condeleeza Rice, even if she was the only one running. I would reluctantly vote for Hilary, because I believe she is the lesser of 2 evils. Both are for this Iraq quagmire.

That's one of the probelms with the system. Too many people are willing to choose the lesser of two evils. Look at other candidates than just the republicrats and demicans. Who knows, you might find someone worth voting for, instead of just voting against the worst candidate.

If everybody would do this, rather than just sticking to the two big parties, we might actually end up with some reform in our government.

Unfortunately, people continually get told that this is "wasting" their vote. Personally, I think that the only time that a vote is truly wasted is when you don't vote for someone that you feel is worth voting for.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by MrFungus420:
Too many people are willing to choose the lesser of two evils.

Do they ever realize the lesser of two evils is still evil?

 

[MrFungus420]

I think it is irresponsible to write that Hillary is, in effect, a whore for votes. I find that offensive, sorry.

I'll expand that. I think that it is offensive to refer to any politician as a whore. A whore will give you honest service for your money. Calling a politician a whore is an insult to whores!

 

[mixedmedia]

Hillary is a carpet bagger.........she is not even from New York and has made fools out of all of you.........

And the republicans attempted to "carpetbag" Alan Keyes into Illinois to defeat Barack Obama but they failed miserably because he just happens to be a psycho - brilliant move that. But, silly me, of course that's completely different, right? They only did it to try and sabotage the black vote. Hillary actually lives in New York - how dare she.

Sheesh....

 

[AlbqOwl]

That's one of the probelms with the system. Too many people are willing to choose the lesser of two evils. Look at other candidates than just the republicrats and demicans. Who knows, you might find someone worth voting for, instead of just voting against the worst candidate.

If everybody would do this, rather than just sticking to the two big parties, we might actually end up with some reform in our government.

Unfortunately, people continually get told that this is "wasting" their vote. Personally, I think that the only time that a vote is truly wasted is when you don't vote for someone that you feel is worth voting for.

In the last election, an attractive third party could easily have put a shallow, convictionless, and dishonest John Kerry into office. Nadar didn't have enough appeal to make a difference, but that may not always be the case. Remember back to Perot who pulled a whopping 19% of the vote.

Personally I think our vote should not be cast just because we like a particular candidate the best or just to make a statement. Our vote should be cast in the best interest of the country, or at the very least 'to do no harm'. I'm sure there are many Republicans and Democrats who voted for George Bush who would have preferred another candidate. But they were true patriots and recognized he was the best choice made available to us.

It's fun now to think about a matchup between Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice. It would be a fun campaign. But once we get through the interesting speculation, it is necessary to settle down and do the hard work of making a choice that is in the best interest of the country.

 

[taxpayer]

Hillary is a carpet bagger.........she is not even from New York and has made fools out of all of you.........

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Aparently the Bushs made fools of all you Republicans too.
The Bushs are from Connecticut!!!
But it did take a lot to fool you Republicans, a ranch, horse, saddle, cowboy hat and a camera.

 

[taxpayer]

In the last election, an attractive third party could easily have put a shallow, convictionless, and dishonest John Kerry into office. Nadar didn't have enough appeal to make a difference, but that may not always be the case. Remember back to Perot who pulled a whopping 19% of the vote.

Personally I think our vote should not be cast just because we like a particular candidate the best or just to make a statement. Our vote should be cast in the best interest of the country, or at the very least 'to do no harm'. I'm sure there are many Republicans and Democrats who voted for George Bush who would have preferred another candidate. But they were true patriots and recognized he was the best choice made available to us.

It's fun now to think about a matchup between Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice. It would be a fun campaign. But once we get through the interesting speculation, it is necessary to settle down and do the hard work of making a choice that is in the best interest of the country.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Instead we got a shallow, convictionless, dishonest and lying George Bush in office!

 

[AlbqOwl]

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Instead we got a shallow, convictionless, dishonest and lying George Bush in office!

No. You may not have gotten what you wanted, but you got a man with convictions--it is those convictions that those on the Left most condemn him for. And you got a man who says what he means and follows through on his campaign promises to the best of his ability--that is rather unique in American politics. And as often as those on the Left almost wistfully call him a liar, they have yet to catch him in a lie.

We don't know yet whether history will be kind or cutting to George W. Bush. I imagine everybody who voted for him wishes he was better at some things; had done some things differently; would concentrate on some things more. (Most of those who didn't vote for him only want him to fail.) But he was the best choice available to us, and we did elect a good, decent man.

 

[Navy Pride]

What was it you said about Bush bashing?

I just calls em as I sees em..............You did not she moved to New York to run for the Senate.............

 

[Navy Pride]

But Bill wasn't a liberal. He was the most to the right in the bunch that ran that year. He is not even close to liberal, so your silly statement is meaningless. Wellstone was liberal. Jim Hightower is liberal. Bill Clinton is not.

Your claim is silly.

"Slick Willie" fooled the voters in 1992.He ran as a moderate........Zell Miller was even fooled.He made the key note speech for Clinton in 1992........Clinton governed as a liberal...his first deed in ofice was to try and get gays to serve openly in the military.................. The only reason this man accomplished anything was because he was made to do so by a Republican Congress and their Contract with America........

 

[Navy Pride]

And the republicans attempted to "carpetbag" Alan Keyes into Illinois to defeat Barack Obama but they failed miserably because he just happens to be a psycho - brilliant move that. But, silly me, of course that's completely different, right? They only did it to try and sabotage the black vote. Hillary actually lives in New York - how dare she.

Sheesh....

The thing Keyes did to was wrong......Just like Hillary.....I condemn him for doing it..Will you condemn Hillary for doing the same thing?:roll:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Navy Pride:
I just calls em as I sees em..............You did not she moved to New York to run for the Senate.............

I "...did not..."......what? She lives their now.

 

[Navy Pride]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Aparently the Bushs made fools of all you Republicans too.
The Bushs are from Connecticut!!!
But it did take a lot to fool you Republicans, a ranch, horse, saddle, cowboy hat and a camera.

But they lived in Texas for many years before Bush ran for Governor......Surely even you can see the difference........maybe not.....:roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

One of the main reasons Hillary was elected Senator in New York was the female sympathy vote because of what "Slick Willie" did to her and their marriage......He made a mockey of it with his many affairs and made a doormat out of her.............He shoveled it in and she opened mouth and swallowed it ..........People felt sorry for her especially women.........

She was totally unqualified to be a Senator....

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Navy Pride:
One of the main reasons Hillary was elected Senator in New York was the female sympathy vote because of what "Slick Willie" did to her and their marriage......He made a mockey of it with his many affairs and made a doormat out of her.............He shoveled it in and she opened mouth and swallowed it ..........People felt sorry for her especially women.........

She was totally unqualified to be a Senator....

Kind of like Bush and the Presidency. Somewhere in Texas a village is missing their idiot.

 

[26 X World Champs]

"Slick Willie" fooled the voters in 1992.He ran as a moderate.

For someone who "condemns" name calling you seem to do it quite often. Are you incapable of writing something about the Clintons or Michael Moore or countless other Democrats without calling them names. Does that make you a hypocrite since you condemn others for Bush bashing?

BTW - What were President Clinton's margins of victory in his elections and how about his polling numbers? Clinton supports a war in the Balkans and zero Americans die. President Bush starts a war in Iraq and thousands of Americans (so far) are dead tens of thousands are maimed. Clinton ran the government to record surplusses and Bush ran it into record deficits.

Under Clinton less people lived beneath the poverty line than do today, and never during his presidency did the povery rate increase. Under Bush it's gone up four years in a row.

Under Clinton gasoline was less than $1.50 per gallon, under Bush we may never see less than $3.00 again.

Under Clinton the USA was respected and admired in most parts of the world. Under Bush America has never been more hated, more alone than we are today. To make matters worse those of you who are ardent Bush loyalists don't give a rat's ass how the rest of the world regards us. You're not smart enough to know that the world is shrinking and that for the USA to be successful long term economically we need to be part of the world community not scorned by it.

Bush used a war to get reelected, nothing could be more devious than sacrficing American lives to win an election.

Clinton governed as a liberal...his first deed in ofice was to try and get gays to serve openly in the military.

What's a matter Pride? Are you unsure of your masculinity to the point that knowing that someone else is Gay would prevent you from being a soldier and doing your job? Does that mean that you're prejudice runs so deep that you would be unable to perform the job that you're being paid to perform? Does it mean that you do not believe in the Constitution where it says "All Men Are Created Equal"? Isn't it Unamerican to not believe that All Men Are Created Equal? Do you think that if you were in a tank with a gay man that he would be more interested in you than your mission? What are you afraid of, exactly? Is one a homophobe if they are unable to be in the same workplace as a gay person?

The only reason this man accomplished anything was because he was made to do so by a Republican Congress and their Contract with America........

:rofl
The only reason? Really? Can you provide some proof regarding what I consider to be an outrageous statement? Unless I'm misunderstanding your post I think it says that Republicans, according to you, deserve credit for every single thing that Clinton accomplished. That's quite a statement.

Let me guess? Everything that Clinton did right is because of Republicans and everything that he did wrong was because of Clinton? Isn't that what it means when someone writes:

The only reason this man accomplished anything was because he was made to do so by a Republican Congress and their Contract with America........

Can you provide all the facts necessary to prove that "anything" that Clinton accomplished was due to Republicans? I'm sure it should be no problem for you, right? Just do us a favor this time and do not try to pass off sources that are tongue in cheek as truth like you did yesterday when you claimed that Howard Dean "Denounces Timing of Rehnquist’s Death."

 

[Navy Pride]

Kind of like Bush and the Presidency. Somewhere in Texas a village is missing their idiot.

Billo it seems you would learn after awhile that this president is dumb like a fox.....You keep running his intelligence down as he beats you liberals and your party in every phase of politics.........You said he was dumb in 2000, he kicked your ass then and then again in 2002 and 2004 and will do the same in 2006........Seems like you liberals would try a new tactic becasue this one is not working.........

 

[Navy Pride]

For someone who "condemns" name calling you seem to do it quite often. Are you incapable of writing something about the Clintons or Michael Moore or countless other Democrats without calling them names. Does that make you a hypocrite since you condemn others for Bush bashing?

BTW - What were President Clinton's margins of victory in his elections and how about his polling numbers? Clinton supports a war in the Balkans and zero Americans die. President Bush starts a war in Iraq and thousands of Americans (so far) are dead tens of thousands are maimed. Clinton ran the government to record surplusses and Bush ran it into record deficits.

Under Clinton less people lived beneath the poverty line than do today, and never during his presidency did the povery rate increase. Under Bush it's gone up four years in a row.

Under Clinton gasoline was less than $1.50 per gallon, under Bush we may never see less than $3.00 again.

Under Clinton the USA was respected and admired in most parts of the world. Under Bush America has never been more hated, more alone than we are today. To make matters worse those of you who are ardent Bush loyalists don't give a rat's ass how the rest of the world regards us. You're not smart enough to know that the world is shrinking and that for the USA to be successful long term economically we need to be part of the world community not scorned by it.

Bush used a war to get reelected, nothing could be more devious than sacrficing American lives to win an election.

What's a matter Pride? Are you unsure of your masculinity to the point that knowing that someone else is Gay would prevent you from being a soldier and doing your job? Does that mean that you're prejudice runs so deep that you would be unable to perform the job that you're being paid to perform? Does it mean that you do not believe in the Constitution where it says "All Men Are Created Equal"? Isn't it Unamerican to not believe that All Men Are Created Equal? Do you think that if you were in a tank with a gay man that he would be more interested in you than your mission? What are you afraid of, exactly? Is one a homophobe if they are unable to be in the same workplace as a gay person?
:rofl
The only reason? Really? Can you provide some proof regarding what I consider to be an outrageous statement? Unless I'm misunderstanding your post I think it says that Republicans, according to you, deserve credit for every single thing that Clinton accomplished. That's quite a statement.

Let me guess? Everything that Clinton did right is because of Republicans and everything that he did wrong was because of Clinton? Isn't that what it means when someone writes:

Can you provide all the facts necessary to prove that "anything" that Clinton accomplished was due to Republicans? I'm sure it should be no problem for you, right? Just do us a favor this time and do not try to pass off sources that are tongue in cheek as truth like you did yesterday when you claimed that Howard Dean "Denounces Timing of Rehnquist’s Death."

I am just going to take your last one because all the other nonsense you posted I have rebutted in detail........

Did you ever hear of the contract with America, that caused Clinton to be kicking and screaming but forced him to pass Conservative bills like the balanced budget after he vetoed it twice.........

 

[26 X World Champs]

Billo it seems you would learn after awhile that this president is dumb like a fox.....You keep running his intelligence down as he beats you liberals and your party in every phase of politics.........You said he was dumb in 2000, he kicked your ass then

I'm a frickin moron because I never knew that losing the popular vote meant that you kicked ass! Just think how different life would be had there been one more Democratic Supreme Court Justice? Think of the thosuands of Americans who would be alive today had Gore been elected?

How smart was Bush just a few days ago when he said:

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job."?

How "smart" was Bush when he said "No one could have anticipated the levees breaking."?

Here's one for you? How intelligent is a man who cannot even win a debate against JOHN KERRY?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Navy Pride:
Billo it seems you would learn after awhile that this president is dumb like a fox.....You keep running his intelligence down as he beats you liberals and your party in every phase of politics.........You said he was dumb in 2000, he kicked your ass then and then again in 2002 and 2004 and will do the same in 2006........Seems like you liberals would try a new tactic becasue this one is not working.........

You go right ahead and call me anything you like. I know where your truth stops and the real world starts.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I am just going to take your last one because all the other nonsense you posted I have rebutted in detail.

I must have missed the part where you said that name-calling is OK? I could have sworn you wrote that name calling was BUSH? :mrgreen:

Did you ever hear of the contract with America, that caused Clinton to be kicking and screaming but forced him to pass Conservative bills like the balanced budget after he vetoed it twice.........

OOOOH.....You got me good there...That was responsible for EVERYTHING good that Clinton did. That is what you wrote. How come when you're challenged to prove anything you claim you seem to avoid doing so? Using one of Fox News Channel's favorite hidden attack phrases "some would say" that by never answering the challenge to prove one's claims that those claims are total bullshit? Some would say that.

How come when you're challenged with Clinton's real record you avoid responding specifically to the facts that were presented?

You just wrote that Hillary was elected out of sympathy for enduring blow jobs given to her husband. Can you prove that? Can you produce a poll that shows that we here in NY State voted for Hillary because of the "Blow Job" factor?

You also wrote that she's not qualified to be Senator. Can you prove that please? I'm very curious on two parts here; one, what qualifies anyone to be Senator, and two, why what made Hillary unqualified? It would be quite refreshing to read your reply to the specific points raised in this post. I'm sure the entire community here is waiting to read what qualifications Hillary lacked as a senatorial candidate?

I guess the fact that Hillary is going to be easily reelected means what? Does it mean that we here in NY still find it necessary to make Hillary feel better about Bill's BJs?