What's the bet? She'll trounce Giuliani, especially the more he spouts his 9/11 "leadership" and the more that turns out to be a complete fraud. Besides that, if it's Hillary vs. Giuliani, the religious right will be sitting it out.
What is so bad about Clinton again? As long as the leaders can lead, which is more than I can say about Bush II. I think Obama wouldn't be bad either.
To me, it's almost a wash on domestic issues,...If Giuliani is unfriendly towards the religious right, and unfriendly towards pro-2nd admendment,...not so grounded on other strengths of the right,...then: I'd rather have Hillary who has more indirect/direct experience,....is super intelligent (more than Bill),...and although is unlikeable compared to an Obama, she is the consummate politician...She has a great healthcare plan as well... Of course, I lean right on too many issues, so my 1st choice is Fred...
Given a choice between the two, I'd much rather have Clinton as President, as well. So we agree! D&D. Impeach Barbara Bush!
she is against bringing the troops home from iraq, despite the fact that the majority of the country and the vast majority of her supporters are calling for it. she is open borders - pro-amnesty she is pro-bombing iran she is too comfy w/ corporate interests and lobbyists, whom she fully supports she wants national health care and like edwards, wants to require us to go to the doctor. the irony is that she is a bush-supporters wet dream, but they are so fixated on the whole b.s. bush vs. clinton ideology that they dont even look at policy - its all about the name and the little r or d after it.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/88REf0tjZHo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/88REf0tjZHo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
she is against bringing the troops home from iraq, despite the fact that the majority of the country and the vast majority of her supporters are calling for it. She is? she is open borders - pro-amnesty That is an issue I am not sure about, I see both sides. she is pro-bombing iran Not sure about that one. she is too comfy w/ corporate interests and lobbyists, whom she fully supports So is everyone other politician. she wants national health care and like edwards, wants to require us to go to the doctor. Sounds great to me.
yes. clinton and bush are sure about it - they are pro-amnesty perhaps you should dig up some of her quotes than. she has made a myriad of war-mongering statements w/ regards to iran. but i dont see too many telling us how great they are and that they will never refuse lobbyists like she does. and i find it a tad condescending that she tells us that lobbyists work for the people...b.s. http://www.maniacworld.com/Hillary-Clinton-Thinks-Lobbyists-Represent-The-People.html "im not going to be influenced by lobbyists or interest groups" - what a load of crap! "lobbyists represent real americans" im not against some kind of national health care plan. my health insurance has doubled in the last year and a half, but do you want your government telling you you have to go to the doctor? is that america?
There's nothing wrong with open borders, keeping troops in Iraq, or national healthcare. The Clinton Bush comparison isn't really a good one since Hillary isn't a legacy like Dubya. I don't have any problem with 8 years of Hillary and I'm pretty sure the country is going to agree in the next election. She's smart, politically savvy and she does actually seem to want to do the right thing.
i didnt say there was anything wrong w/ national healthcare. as far as open borders and keeping troops in iraq, most of the country disagrees with you, the bushs and the clintons. see what i mean?
Most of the country wanted to intervene in Iraq, so that must have been the right decision, huh? Considering the nature of most of your positions on this board, it's slightly amusing that you'd defer to what the public believes as an arbiter, lol. I neither voted for Bush nor would I be considered a 'Bush supporter' by any reasonable standard.
i was against the decision to "intervene" in iraq from the beginning and now most of the country agrees with me. it just took most of the country awhile to come around, but better late than never. furthermore, this administration lied and fear-mongered the country into the war. if they had told the truth most of the country would never had gone along with it so willingly. how am i deferring to what the public believes? and even if i was it is amusing that you would find it amusing - "lol" indeed! if you say so, but you do seem to spend alot of time defending his policies and the direction he is taking this country.
Nice try but that's irrelevant. You make the fallacious argument that since the public feels a certain way that must be the right choice. Iraq is a clear example of why (if you believe it was a mistake) such an argument is flawed (see Argumentum ad populum). Simple - you use public opinion as a warrant for your claim. Yet you express quite a few opinions on the board that I doubt the public would agree with if asked. It's amusing that you attempt to use public opinion when it coincides with your opinion and ignore it when it doesn't. I am on record in many threads criticizing the administration and Bush in particular. You are mistaken. I am more hawkish than much of our bbs - so it's possible you are confusing that with being a 'Bush supporter.' I also have gone on record pointing out some criticism of the administration was undeserved and gross exaggeration (IMO), but that also doesn't equate to being a 'supporter.'
the will of the people is irrelevant? how "bush" of you! all i am saying is that you, bush and clinton are in the minority when it comes to your positions on iraq and open borders. you initially stated that there is nothing wrong w/ open borders or our occupation of iraq - all i was doing was pointing out that most of the country disagrees w/ you. iraq was based on lies, fraud and fear-mongering. the american people were manipulated. and again, when public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of invading iraq i was staunchly against it. what does that tell you? that i blindly follow popular opinion or that im smarter than most of the country? actually, all i was doing was pointing out that you are in the minority when it comes to iraq and open borders. i wasnt using public opinion as a warrant for anything other than to show that you, bush and clinton are going against the will of the people. link? when have i ignored public opinion when i dont agree with it? and how would that be relevant to the fact that most of the country disagrees w/ your positions on iraq and open borders? if you say so.
Unlike basso, and his brother, the comedian, Hayes does have a long history of being critical of Bush and his policies, and has posted about it. basso, on the other hand, claims to have some disagreements, and never posts anything bad about the goofus, attacking anything critical of the idiot, ignoring threads pointing out things Bush has done in areas outside of Iraq that were beyond stupid, like his foreign and domestic policies outside of Iraq. Hayes has made many posts critical of Bush's foreign and domestic policies. We just disagree, in the main, on Iraq. And I am a member here that was against the invasion before it began. D&D. Impeach Barbara and George H.W. for having Baby George.
Yes, exactly. You are using public opinion to further bolster your position. That's my point. The public once agreed to have slaves. That isn't an indicator whether or not that policy is a good policy or not. Again, it tells me that you point out when public opinion coincides with your own and ignore it when it doesn't. That's the point. That the public was 'lied to' etc only bolsters the point that appeals to public opinion are poor warrants for policy action. Right, now you're just being silly. You positioned yourself against the 'will of the people' when you were against the intervention. So what is the point of you saying that, lol. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Sigh. There is no point to you saying anything about being against public opinion unless you're implying it's undesirable. Otherwise it is a non sequitur. The conversation goes like this: Me: What is wrong with open borders? You: The public is against open borders. Me: Do you believe the public is always right? You: No, I didn't say anything about wrong or right. I was just sayin'... So you can choose: either you made an irrelevant observation or you are hypocritically using public opinion in some cases to bolster your position and ignoring it when it doesn't coincide with your opinion. Thank you, kind sir.
i never said it was. can you provide an example of this? i could say the same about you. i never said i wasnt going against popular opinion and i never "ignored" the fact either. in and of itself, popular opinion isnt the be-all-end-all and i never claimed it was. again, all i was doing was reminding you that your positions on iraq and open borders go against popular opinion. i didnt realize it would be such an issue. ok, so the rub for you seems to be that when you said... "There's nothing wrong with open borders, keeping troops in Iraq, or national healthcare." my reply was thus... "most of the country disagrees with you, the bushs and the clintons." would it have helped if i had said instead "there is plenty wrong w/ keeping troops in iraq and open borders" and left it at that? if it does help, than i take back my initial comments and simply leave you with "i disagree". 99% of the comments made on this bbs are irrelevant observations. again, when do i ignore public opinion when it doesnt coincide w/ my opinion?
