You are not up to date. That statement has been clarified about 4 news cycles ago. Bringing up something that has long been updated as a reason of why his foreign policy won't work doesn't really help prove the point.
The moron shouldn't be letting garbage like that slip out of his mouth. He needs to be CRISPLY AWARE that saying stupid things to pacify whichever group he's courting is not a time to throw other countries under the bus.
Sorry, but they are almost countless. http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/technologies/spinoffs.html http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/spinoff.html
To me it is just a ambiguous as "the war on terror", if not worse. It would make more sense if Bush was electable. But it is just so stupid I can't believe people are buying into it.
Li'l t posting about morons saying stupid things is a little much given the functional r****d he voted for twice. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000 "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000 "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000 "They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000 "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000 "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
This is a classic example of trying to use humor to deflect attention away to your candidate's weaknesses. By the way - your humor is dumb and not funny. All of these quotes don't involve PISSING OFF ONE OF OUR MOST VALUED TRADING PARTNERS, CHINA. BHU is going to be a foreign relations nightmare.
Both parties piss off China in some form or fashion for their constituencies. Whether it's weapons deals for Taiwan to please the hawkish conservatives or "protecting" our trade borders to please unions and recently laid off people.
Though the events cited did happen to individuals and not the populace as a whole, saying events that happened 27 years ago doesnt have any effect today...I'd say there are many Vietnam vets, and 27-30 year old men who have FATHERS AND UNCLES who lived during extreme segregation and experienced it would think otherwise...That isnt living in the past or purposely having a crutch, its REAL events in life. A grandfather TODAY who tells his grandchildren he himself had to ride in a back of a bus and drink from separate water fountains, you dont think that might have an impact on the listener just hearing it? Even if the grandfather didnt have any agenda or "white guilt" to pass on? I dont think for American participants in the current war, or anyone in this country, that 27 years later is enough to just "move on" like nothing. Yes it doesnt have to be a hindrance to living. But they'll never forget. Will add I tend to agree somewhat on "deep voice", MLK styling and eloquence replacing substance. That said, the video had nothing to do with your video synopsis for the lazy.
A bit hardcore in tone... But I partly support you People of all demographics have freedom to have a child. Cant mandate a citizen be at a certain income to do what they want with their body and reproductive systems (though maybe they should think about that, eh?)...Kids just being "popped out" with no plan or direction for them, and women being "over their heads" when they should know better are silent killers to society I think... but thaaaaaats ANOTHER topic and thread altogether....
So in your mind we need another civil rights movement because somebody had to sit in the back of the bus 50 years ago. I think that is disrespectful to Dr King's efforts and his movement served its purpose....40 years ago
complaining about people on welfare is so late 80s early 90s, just one more sign you're living in the past.
Just because you support pieces of crap (constantly and continually) doesn't mean right minded people have to. Say no to crappy music videos! Yes we can stick it up our ass!
Less than 20% of recipients abuse welfare. By far the largest group of recipients are elderly, and the by far the main expenditure goes toward health care. So if taking care of sick elderly people is supporting pieces of crap, then I wholeheartedly support pieces of crap.
Her failure in 1994 on health care though is part of her experience and the fact that she's been able to come back to not only be a successful senator but make a various serious run for the presidency shows she can handle adversity. Part of the problem with what happened in 1994 was the lack of experience on Hillary and the Clinton Admin. in general in trying to overrreach. Keep in mind too that Bill Clinton came to power using much of the same rhetoric as Obama is using now. That he was going to look beyond partisanship to focus on issues that united us. The Clinton health care program was actually an attempt to compromise between a market and a government solution but should be taken as a lesson for Obama supporters regarding just saying something doesn't mean it will happen. As for Hillary Clinton's legislative record off the top of my head she co-sponsored the legislation to raise the minimum wage, she played a large role in setting up the 911 victims fund, she also worked quite a bit on the legislation regarding the department of homeland security (although I think she ended up voting against it when it the Bush Admin. insisted on stripping some workplace protections for employees of the new department), she also got a lot of funding for upstate NY (including getting an ethanol industry going there which I disagree with but it shows that she has delivered for her constituents, even in Republican areas of the state) Also if you are going to criticize Hillary Clinton for having Bill Clinton play a large role in her campaign and likely in her presidency then Bill Clinton's record can also be considered with Hillary's. Even with the problems of government shutdown and impeachment the Clinton Admin. still passed the 1993 budget in the face of hostitility from both Republicans and several Democrats, welfare reform, Americorps and actually balanced the federal budget. In spite of what the candidated are doing Hillary's Clinton's organization is much effective than Obama's and is what is keeping her going. Its true that Hillary is far less likable than Obama and Obama's campaign is one primarily driven by personality of Obama and his top supporters. If you look at states where neither candidate campaigns much Hillary wins largely because her organization is good. There is no doubt Obama is a phenomenon but that is a phenomenon premised on his extraordinary charisma and less on his organization. Again the comparison to the 1960 campaign is apt where JFK's organization was inferior to his opponents in the primary and general yet due to his own personality and capitalizing on new media was able to overcome those defficiencies.
