Bush & Clinton Most Admired in America

[Genesis 1.0]

According to the Annual Gallup Poll for 2007, President Bush and Hillary Clinton are the Most Admired Man and Woman in the United States respectively. This marks the 6th straight year that these two have won this award.

It's rather hard to believe with all the anti-Bush rhetoric that he would still be named the Most Admired Man for a 6th straight year but I suppose a number of Americans still look up to him for their own reasons. Hillary I can understand among the female population.

You can find this article on CNN, Newsweek or Gallup to see for yourselves. I just chose CNN at random.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30/most.admired.ap/index.html

[Handsome Rob]

According to the Annual Gallup Poll for 2007, President Bush and Hillary Clinton are the Most Admired Man and Woman in the United States respectively. This marks the 6th straight year that these two have won this award.

It's rather hard to believe with all the anti-Bush rhetoric that he would still be named the Most Admired Man for a 6th straight year but I suppose a number of Americans still look up to him for their own reasons. Hillary I can understand among the female population.

You can find this article on CNN, Newsweek or Gallup to see for yourselves. I just chose CNN at random.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30/most.admired.ap/index.html

They both surprised me. I don't know who I expected would have received the "Man" award (Not President Bush), but I thought there were enough people opposed to Senator Clinton that Oprah would have won for "Woman."

[Alexia Dark]

Hahaha. Bush most admired. Rigged.

[Genesis 1.0]

Yeah, but Oprah is a threat to anyone. Hell, the O could have won Man AND Woman of the Year.

[SuBe]

It just goes to show that the Media makes Bush to be a worse off person than he really is.

[Genesis 1.0]

It just goes to show that the Media makes Bush to be a worse off person than he really is.

I agree in part, the amount of bias being thrown around in today's media (through whatever medium) is really insane but this does show that Americans can still think on their own. Fact of the matter is that most of what you see and hear is anti-Bush and it seems they've voted against the tide.

Still, I think it's surprising.

[Moviefan2k4]

According to the Annual Gallup Poll for 2007, President Bush and Hillary Clinton are the Most Admired Man and Woman in the United States respectively. This marks the 6th straight year that these two have won this award.Only in America will you find a collective populace who favor both a right-wing President and a left-wing, liberal, former First Lady for six consecutive years.:whatever:

[Asteroid-Man]

The most admire man in America? Mos Def. The Most admired woman? Lauryn Hill.

[Genesis 1.0]

Heh, ONLY in America baby.

Looking at some of the comments on other sites people seem to be wondering if this means that men more conservative and women more liberal, but I'd say that's too much of a leap. Especially without some other types of surveys aimed at that.

[The Chairman]

I'm surprised by the results on both sides.

While I do agree that there's definitely some bias present in the media's opinion of him, I still assumed there were enough people who legitimately disapproved of Bush regardless of the media's opinion.

And Hilary always seemed like a figure everyone was divided on. I thought someone like Oprah or heck, even Jolie would've made Most Admired Woman.

[The Senator]

Only in America will you find a collective populace who favor both a right-wing President and a left-wing, liberal, former First Lady for six consecutive years.:whatever:

And that's why I love this country!:woot:

[Drizzle]

My logic detects bull****.

[MaskedManJRK]

My logic detects bull****.

Same here. :o

[Alex The Great]

According to the Annual Gallup Poll for 2007, President Bush and Hillary Clinton are the Most Admired Man and Woman in the United States respectively. This marks the 6th straight year that these two have won this award.

It's rather hard to believe with all the anti-Bush rhetoric that he would still be named the Most Admired Man for a 6th straight year but I suppose a number of Americans still look up to him for their own reasons. Hillary I can understand among the female population.

You can find this article on CNN, Newsweek or Gallup to see for yourselves. I just chose CNN at random.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30/most.admired.ap/index.html
bush most admired??? RIGGED!

[Erzengel]

It was a poll of 1,000. :huh:

[Alex The Great]

1,000 GOVERMENT OFFICIALS NO DOUBT :cwink::up:

[Handsome Rob]

It was a poll of 1,000. :huh:

Polls like this one (and pretty much any poll you read about in the news from approval ratings to voter support) are almost always conducted with a sample size of between 1,000 and 2,000 people. Whenever you see a "margin of error" with a poll, it means that they are confident their sampling is accurate to within a few percentage points of the whole population, mainly because they use statistical sampling techniques to get a sample that is reflective of the population the sample is supposed to represent.

Here's a link with further explanation:

http://janda.org/c10/Lectures/topic05/GallupFAQ.htm

[CalebYourMaster]

i dont mind Bush...but Hillary?

[Iceman/Psylocke]

I thought it was Bill Clinton. That I might have been able to understand.

Bush! :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Arkady Rossovich]

Hahaha. Bush most admired. Rigged.

I know,people wish he was dead.I've heard it with my own ears.

[jaguarr]

Bush is disliked for his ACTIONS and his demeanor. He did it all by himself, no help from the press required. My bull**** detectors are also sounding the alarm.

jag

[Docker2.0]

Agreed Jag! There is no way he is the most admired man in America and ANYONE who says that they honestly believe that has got to be the most nieve person ever born! :whatever:

[zanos]

Bush is the new JFK!

[Moviefan2k4]

Poeople get angry at Bush, for the same fundamental reason the public rallies against any leader. The citizens constantly cry, "We want change!"...but when someone shows up who honestly wants to change America for the better, he becomes the enemy...because he's not doing things that everyone agrees with. He uses his own judgment as leader, to the best of his ability. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't...but he's still the President. Folks treated tons of other Presidents the same way: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt (both of them), Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan...tons of them. And, in the end, it all boils down to one ormore groups being offended or insulted by the man their country willingly elected.

[Addendum]

How has Bush "changed America for the better"?

[Moviefan2k4]

His administration was partially responsible for hanging Saddam Hussein, for one. Also, he did have the proverbial "balls" to engage Al Qaeda after 9/11, where other Presidents may have backed down.

[Addendum]

As corrupt as Hussein's regime was, it was the only thing that held Iraq together. The way things have transpired in Iraq since the invasion isn't something anyone would want to take credit for.

Any president would have gone after those responsible for 9/11

[Docker2.0]

His administration was partially responsible for hanging Saddam Hussein, for one. Also, he did have the proverbial "balls" to engage Al Qaeda after 9/11, where other Presidents may have backed down.

My gawd man! you acn't be this blind!! :huh:

[Mr. Socko]

Congrats to Bush and Clinton. Fantastic leaders, I admire them both. :)

[Docker2.0]

Congrats to Bush and Clinton. Fantastic leaders, I admire them both. :)

You sux! :cmad:

[The Senator]

His administration was partially responsible for hanging Saddam Hussein, for one. Also, he did have the proverbial "balls" to engage Al Qaeda after 9/11, where other Presidents may have backed down.

Bush may have gone after Al Qaeda on a much larger scale than other Presidents. Actually, the only President who could have gone after Al Qaeda was Clinton, since the organization did not exist in its current state until the early-to-mid 1990s. He went after them, but he didn't declare that the U.S. was at war with them. Certainly, he should have done more. I can see why many people fault him with that. But people forget that Bush hasn't been the perfect little leader when it comes to taking out the number one terrorist organization. People who support him fail to recall that we haven't caught Osama bin Laden. We haven't even dampened Al Qaeda's efforts, if you want to know the truth of it. They're still planning destruction throughout the world. Bin Laden's still alive, and I'm quite certain that he's still orchestrating efforts to overthrow Middle Eastern and western societies alike.

Instead of finding and killing Bin Laden and all the holy rollers at the top of Al Qaeda's chain of command, we have gone into completely different territory. We went after a dictator who-- while a horrible, despicable person-- had very little ties to Al Qaeda. We've been taking a five year detour in Iraq, while the terrorists are still out there, plotting revenge or Jihad or whatever catch phrase you'd like to call it. But I will give you one thing: Bush certainly has balls. Anyone has to if they're willing to sacrifice their political legacy and the entire reputation of the country which they lead on intuition.

[kedrell]

Hillary the most admired woman?!!:wow: I smell something rotten in Denmark. Bush is hard to buy as well, but she takes the taco. Damned woman is practically Satan incarnate.

[C.F. Kane]

Bush still has admirers?

[dpm07]

Bush may have gone after Al Qaeda on a much larger scale than other Presidents. Actually, the only President who could have gone after Al Qaeda was Clinton, since the organization did not exist in its current state until the early-to-mid 1990s. He went after them, but he didn't declare that the U.S. was at war with them. Certainly, he should have done more. I can see why many people fault him with that. But people forget that Bush hasn't been the perfect little leader when it comes to taking out the number one terrorist organization. People who support him fail to recall that we haven't caught Osama bin Laden. We haven't even dampened Al Qaeda's efforts, if you want to know the truth of it. They're still planning destruction throughout the world. Bin Laden's still alive, and I'm quite certain that he's still orchestrating efforts to overthrow Middle Eastern and western societies alike.

Instead of finding and killing Bin Laden and all the holy rollers at the top of Al Qaeda's chain of command, we have gone into completely different territory. We went after a dictator who-- while a horrible, despicable person-- had very little ties to Al Qaeda. We've been taking a five year detour in Iraq, while the terrorists are still out there, plotting revenge or Jihad or whatever catch phrase you'd like to call it. But I will give you one thing: Bush certainly has balls. Anyone has to if they're willing to sacrifice their political legacy and the entire reputation of the country which they lead on intuition.

This is a very true post, and one I personally support.

[Handsome Rob]

Gallup is one of the most respected polling organizations in the world. CNN partners with them all the time. I highly doubt the results are "rigged." Here's a quote from the article:

"The incumbent president is almost always the most admired man in such polls."

Also, keep in mind that he only received 29% of the vote. That's it. While it may rank him number one, it's hardly a majority and is entirely plausible.

[2star]

Americans *shakes head*

[Obi-Ron]

Gallup is one of the most respected polling organizations in the world. CNN partners with them all the time. I highly doubt the results are "rigged."

And yet they won't say where they got the 1000 adults they polled. :o

"People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that. "
--Homer Simpson

[Handsome Rob]

And yet they won't say where they got the 1000 adults they polled. :o

"People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that. "
--Homer Simpson

Actually, they do.

"These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,011 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 14-16, 2007. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103462/Hillary-Edges-Oprah-Most-Admired-Woman-07.aspx

The Homer Simpson quote, though, is something to keep in mind when reading ANY poll, as Gallup notes the problems inherent in statistical sampling and extrapolation to the population as a whole.

[Docker2.0]

I take it you really believe this "random" poll. :whatever: The poll is complete bs. :o

[Kel]

You are actually callinga a Gallup Poll, the most respected poll world wide, used by countless respected magazines and news programs worldwide BS????

Whether you agree with the poll or not is really irrelevant.....its a poll of a group of people. Polls in general are only a snapshot....but to call it BS, simply because you disagree is hmmmmm....biased? lmao

Oh, and I love the Homer quote up there Obi....lol

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Holy Cow. :dry:

Does moviefan really live in a fantasy world where another president, when faced with the aftermath of 9/11, WOULDN'T have tried to find the people responsible and make them pay?

The most peace-loving, wussy president on Earth would still go after them.

Please, dude. :rolleyes:
Have you ever been right about anything? :huh:

[Kel]

Bush may have gone after Al Qaeda on a much larger scale than other Presidents. Actually, the only President who could have gone after Al Qaeda was Clinton, since the organization did not exist in its current state until the early-to-mid 1990s. He went after them, but he didn't declare that the U.S. was at war with them. Certainly, he should have done more. I can see why many people fault him with that. But people forget that Bush hasn't been the perfect little leader when it comes to taking out the number one terrorist organization. People who support him fail to recall that we haven't caught Osama bin Laden. We haven't even dampened Al Qaeda's efforts, if you want to know the truth of it. They're still planning destruction throughout the world. Bin Laden's still alive, and I'm quite certain that he's still orchestrating efforts to overthrow Middle Eastern and western societies alike.

Instead of finding and killing Bin Laden and all the holy rollers at the top of Al Qaeda's chain of command, we have gone into completely different territory. We went after a dictator who-- while a horrible, despicable person-- had very little ties to Al Qaeda. We've been taking a five year detour in Iraq, while the terrorists are still out there, plotting revenge or Jihad or whatever catch phrase you'd like to call it. But I will give you one thing: Bush certainly has balls. Anyone has to if they're willing to sacrifice their political legacy and the entire reputation of the country which they lead on intuition.


I agree with your statement....


Does not mean you can't find at least 25% of a group of Americans who respect the president.....thats not exactly an unheard of thing in any presidency....

[Kel]

Holy Cow. :dry:

Does moviefan really live in a fantasy world where another president, when faced with the aftermath of 9/11, WOULDN'T have tried to find the people responsible and make them pay?

The most peace-loving, wussy president on Earth would still go after them.

Please, dude. :rolleyes:
Have you ever been right about anything? :huh:


Hmmmmm....even though I agree with you.......Carter would have probably ****ed it up even worse....


And I'm sure Moviefan has been right a couple of times.........as have most around here with differing opinions.

[jaguarr]

Bush may have gone after Al Qaeda on a much larger scale than other Presidents. Actually, the only President who could have gone after Al Qaeda was Clinton, since the organization did not exist in its current state until the early-to-mid 1990s. He went after them, but he didn't declare that the U.S. was at war with them. Certainly, he should have done more. I can see why many people fault him with that. But people forget that Bush hasn't been the perfect little leader when it comes to taking out the number one terrorist organization. People who support him fail to recall that we haven't caught Osama bin Laden. We haven't even dampened Al Qaeda's efforts, if you want to know the truth of it. They're still planning destruction throughout the world. Bin Laden's still alive, and I'm quite certain that he's still orchestrating efforts to overthrow Middle Eastern and western societies alike.

Instead of finding and killing Bin Laden and all the holy rollers at the top of Al Qaeda's chain of command, we have gone into completely different territory. We went after a dictator who-- while a horrible, despicable person-- had very little ties to Al Qaeda. We've been taking a five year detour in Iraq, while the terrorists are still out there, plotting revenge or Jihad or whatever catch phrase you'd like to call it. But I will give you one thing: Bush certainly has balls. Anyone has to if they're willing to sacrifice their political legacy and the entire reputation of the country which they lead on intuition.

I agree with all of this, and it's a classic example of why all the balls in the world where get you nowhere if you don't have some brains to back them up. I think we should also add in that Bush has taken the U.S. from a record surplus when he entered office to a record deficit (we owe China so much money it's sickening), abused the Presidential signing statement provisions to hell and back, ruined our educational system with his "No Child Allowed To Excel" program, shot down alternative energy proposals that would get us off of big oil right and left, allowed the stranglehold corporate lobbyists have on our government to become even worse especially with companies that engage in war-profiteering (Haliburton, anyone?), oil and the healthcare industries, destroyed our foreign relations with all but a handful of countries, and encouraged hate mongering of homosexuals and immigrants in our own country. He's ****ed this country up royally and anyone who thinks that he's a great or even a good President needs a full frontal lobotomy.

jag

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Hmmmmm....even though I agree with you.......Carter would have probably ****ed it up even worse....I can tell you one thing, Carter wouldn't've lied in an attempt to connect it all to Iraq.
No one but a P.N.A.C. pawn could've "****ed it up" this well.

[Handsome Rob]

I take it you really believe this "random" poll. :whatever: The poll is complete bs. :o

I believe that the results of the poll are the results of the poll. Whether they are absolutely accurate or not, no one knows--you would have poll the entire nation to get that (even then, you still couldn't claim 100% accuracy). That's why Gallup stresses the 95% confidence and +/- 3%. It's a fundamental part of sampling, and anyone with even the slightest grasp of statistics understands that.

But, I'm not inherently opposed to the idea that my own personal belief may not be reflective of what I think the majority of others' opinions are (or should be). Gallup is one of the most respected polling organizations in the world and is frequently utilized by all of the major news organizations. So, I wouldn't so quickly throw out the results and cry "rigged" or "B.S." simply because it didn't turn out the way I wanted it to. :whatever:

[Kel]

I can tell you one thing, Carter wouldn't've lied in an attempt to connect it all to Iraq.
No one but a P.N.A.C. pawn could've "****ed it up" this well.

Possibly, but that would only be speculation at this point, as it is speculation in my above post.:yay:

[Superman]

My first post of the year. :grin:


Anyway, I have to question any poll that has Bush among the "Most Admired Men".:whatever:

[Docker2.0]

My first post of the year. :grin:


Anyway, I have to question any poll that has Bush among the "Most Admired Men".:whatever:

Agreed! This poll could be "legit" but who did they question? A small republican town in Texas? Then of course Bush will be "admired" and for him to do it YEARS in a row is a bunch of crock!

[Obi-Ron]

Exactly.

[Kel]

Agreed! This poll could be "legit" but who did they question? A small republican town in Texas? Then of course Bush will be "admired" and for him to do it YEARS in a row is a bunch of crock!

Usually in a poll of this type from Gallup, they do a "cross-section" of the US, they don't do it in a specific region, unless its something like a poll for a specific primary.

It would do them no good to take it from one town in Texas.

You have to look at the %.....YES I would question it if the % for Bush was anything over 50%, but wasn't anywhere near that...

[Docker2.0]

Geez Kel! What do you have against me? First you won't remove this flag off my account and now you just try to discredit me...........for no reason. I thought you was cool, guess not. :(

[Matt]

According to the Annual Gallup Poll for 2007, President Bush and Hillary Clinton are the Most Admired Man and Woman in the United States respectively. This marks the 6th straight year that these two have won this award.

It's rather hard to believe with all the anti-Bush rhetoric that he would still be named the Most Admired Man for a 6th straight year but I suppose a number of Americans still look up to him for their own reasons. Hillary I can understand among the female population.

You can find this article on CNN, Newsweek or Gallup to see for yourselves. I just chose CNN at random.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30/most.admired.ap/index.html

Do polls really matter? They are rich and powerful, of course they are admired.

[StorminNorman]

Geez Kel! What do you have against me? First you won't remove this flag off my account and now you just try to discredit me...........for no reason. I thought you was cool, guess not. :(

When you make stupid comments like the ones you have filled this thread with you get treated accordingly.

[Kel]

Geez Kel! What do you have against me? First you won't remove this flag off my account and now you just try to discredit me...........for no reason. I thought you was cool, guess not. :(


What the heck are you talking about? How was anything I wrote, personally discrediting you?

What flag?

The infraction? its expired.....lol But just alittle clue...

Only you and the mods can see it...so had you not said anything about it........no one would have known.......way to go Docker, dang now everyone knows you were warned.......you now have the Scarlet W on your breast.:cwink:

[jaguarr]

Only you and the mods can see it...so had you not said anything about it........no one would have known.......way to go Docker, dang now everyone knows you were warned.......you now have the Scarlet W on your breast.:cwink:

Ewwww! Docker is unclean! UNCLEAN!!!!!!!! :(

jag

[Docker2.0]

When you make stupid comments like the ones you have filled this thread with you get treated accordingly. Gawd your an idiot! I was teasin Kel! :whatever: and yeah...........I'm not teasing..........you are a idiot! :o

What the heck are you talking about? How was anything I wrote, personally discrediting you?

What flag?

The infraction? its expired.....lol But just alittle clue...

Only you and the mods can see it...so had you not said anything about it........no one would have known.......way to go Docker, dang now everyone knows you were warned.......you now have the Scarlet W on your breast.:cwink: Teasing maam! :grin:

Ewwww! Docker is unclean! UNCLEAN!!!!!!!! :(

jag That hurt me to my heart! :csad:

[EdRyder]

Usually in a poll of this type from Gallup, they do a "cross-section" of the US, they don't do it in a specific region, unless its something like a poll for a specific primary.

It would do them no good to take it from one town in Texas.

You have to look at the %.....YES I would question it if the % for Bush was anything over 50%, but wasn't anywhere near that...

Not to mention the poeple who had to be told "Dr. McDreamy" was not a valid answer.

[Genesis 1.0]

You are actually callinga a Gallup Poll, the most respected poll world wide, used by countless respected magazines and news programs worldwide BS????

Whether you agree with the poll or not is really irrelevant.....its a poll of a group of people. Polls in general are only a snapshot....but to call it BS, simply because you disagree is hmmmmm....biased? lmao

Oh, and I love the Homer quote up there Obi....lol

I'd have to agree with this.

Claiming a Poll is rigged simply because you don't agree with the results is the worst kind of cop out. Rather conveinent to block out anything you don't agree with but if you insist on grasping at throse frail conpiracy straws, 1 year maybe but 6? I think not.

What I find to be more interesting is the fact that Bush and Clinton have son this for 6 years in a row and there's been little to no publicity over it aside from a 15 second news blurb here and there, if that. Meanwhile any news of lowered approval ratings or anything slightly disconcerting is splashed on the front page of any newspaper or at the top of a news braodcast. The simple fact of the matter is that the news is unaccountably biased. So what we have is a corrupt media reporting on a corrupt administration.

So which one's Pot and which one's Kettle?:o

[kedrell]

I came close to calling shenanigans when I saw Clinton up there, but I still trust Gallup. Just wierd is all.

[luke1234]

Now if it was bill clinton then i might have agreed with this but uhhh na

[Raiden]

bush most admired??? RIGGED!

Yeah.

[Obi-Ron]

I distrust all polls, the outcome is irrelevant.

[Aristotle]

Bush and Hillary the most admired man and woman in the USA? I've said Americans are retards for a long time.

[SuBe]

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m38/Spacemonkey3434/hillary_vader2.jpg

[LuiECuomo]

The sad thing is, if I heard the words "I am your father" come out of that thing's mouth, I'm sure it would sound pretty accurate.

[YsoSerious]

Was the poll result for Bill or Hillary as the most admired man?

[kedrell]

Someone should give her green hair, bleach-white skin, and redden her lips. Darth Vader is really the Joker, who in actuality is really Hillary!:woot:

[BobJM]

Bush has had things happen in his two terms that President Bill Clinton did not have to deal with.

Less than a year into his first term, we were attacked by a terrorist faction and became witness to a tragedy worse than Pearl Harbor. I believe his administration has made progress on that front (Department of Homeland Security) and ultimately has made America a better place.

Also, there was the threat of nuclear terror from the Middle East. Negligence was what brought 9/11 upon us, so the Bush administration acted. And because of it, we have thrown Saddam Hussein out of power and have put Iraq towards the path of peace and democracy. We are the strongest nation in the world and we have a responsibility to help those who need it most.

And before anyone says that the war in Iraq is a disaster (and I agree, that it has not gone well for our nation), tell me your candidate's plan for success. Has Obama ever even commented on the war, other than to bash Bush? Clinton's ideals are optimistic, but are they actually possible? You cannot simply pull men out and leave Iraq in such a fragile state. If that occurs, then the deaths of our soldiers will have meant nothing.

You will never find a President to have a perfect career in the White House, but I find it reasonable that Bush is America's most admired man.

[Genesis 1.0]

I actually agree with this completely. He faced a challenge that the majority of of our past Presidents wouldn't have dreamt of and he made a decison that he felt was the best for the security of this nation.

Hindsight's a ***** unfortunately.

[Obi-Ron]

I believe his administration...ultimately has made America a better place.


How so?

[zanos]

I actually agree with this completely. He faced a challenge that the majority of of our past Presidents wouldn't have dreamt of and he made a decison that he felt was the best for the security of this nation.

Hindsight's a ***** unfortunately.


Precisely! I would dare say no president in history would have dreamt of taking over Iraq in pursuit of the 911 terrorists.

[Obi-Ron]

Precisely! I would dare so no president in history would have dreamt of taking over Iraq in pursuit of the 911 terrorists.

I really wouldn't be so sure of that. It could very well be (and I suspect is the case) that the powers that be were just waiting for an excuse to start going after Middle East interests.

[SuBe]

Someone should give her green hair, bleach-white skin, and redden her lips. Darth Vader is really the Joker, who in actuality is really Hillary!:woot:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c161/lsharma/hillaryjoker.jpg

this was in the Batman Manip thread

[jaguarr]

Precisely! I would dare so no president in history would have dreamt of taking over Iraq in pursuit of the 911 terrorists.

I agree, since Iraq didn't have a damn thing to do with 9/11.

jag

[Obi-Ron]

I agree, since Iraq didn't have a damn thing to do with 9/11.

jag

Heh.

[PLAS]

I agree with all of this, and it's a classic example of why all the balls in the world where get you nowhere if you don't have some brains to back them up. I think we should also add in that:
Bush has taken the U.S. from a record surplus when he entered office to a record deficit (we owe China so much money it's sickening), abused the Presidential signing statement provisions to hell and back
ruined our educational system with his "No Child Allowed To Excel" program
shot down alternative energy proposals that would get us off of big oil right and left
allowed the stranglehold corporate lobbyists have on our government to become even worse especially with companies that engage in war-profiteering (Haliburton, anyone?) oil and the healthcare industries
destroyed our foreign relations with all but a handful of countries, and
encouraged hate mongering of homosexuals and immigrants in our own country.

He's ****ed this country up royally and anyone who thinks that he's a great or even a good President needs a full frontal lobotomy.

jag


isn't it scary?

[cookiva]

It just goes to show that the Media makes Bush to be a worse off person than he really is.

What? Please explain before I :bh:

[Obi-Ron]

I'm still waiting to hear how he "ultimately made America a better place."

[Kel]

I'm going to post this from something that Leno said recently.......DON'T KILL ME, I'm posting it for the sake of discussion......AND THAT IS ALL....

Another teacher sent this to me.......I don't necessarily agree with what is said here, just putting it out there for discussion purposes...

"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''* Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.

Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. *Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?* Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating?* Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11?
*
The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? *Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?

The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?* Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.

They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? *Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day or at least be thankful and appreciative.

"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Jay Leno
2007

[LuiECuomo]

Leno said this? Funny, I thought he was a Democrat.

[zanos]

This only confirms my beliefs that Jay Leno is a complete buffoon. An untalented one at that. Sad part is this moron represents a good chunk of america.

[LuiECuomo]

Tell me, Zanos, who do you support in the primaries?

[Genesis 1.0]

Heh, Jay's just gone up a few notches in my book.

[SuBe]

What? Please explain before I :bh:
I am saying the that Constant Bush Bashin across the Media might actually just be that, and the Majority of Americans actually like the President. Maybe, the Media focuses on the Percentage of people that don't like him to make it look like no one likes him. Maybe the Media is driving the Issue. Not the American People.

[Obi-Ron]

It's true, the vast majority of this country could very well be stupid.

[LuiECuomo]

That's true. They might even vote for Clinton!!

[Genesis 1.0]

It's true, the vast majority of this country could very well be stupid.


And I suppose statements of this enlightened variety make those of your persuassion superior?:o

I'll pass.

[Obi-Ron]

That's true. They might even vote for Clinton!!

Clinton was a national embarrassment, but nowhere near as bad as the Frat Boy-In-Chief.

[Genesis 1.0]

Clinton was a national embarrassment, but nowhere near as bad as the Frat Boy-In-Chief.

I give up.

How could I possibly argue with this magnitude of sheer logic?!

I am humbled.

[kedrell]

It's true, the vast majority of this country could very well be stupid.

That basically sums up every group of people that's ever existed in human history. Stupidity is natural to mankind. It's just the way of nature.

[Obi-Ron]

That basically sums up every group of people that's ever existed in human history. Stupidity is natural to mankind. It's just the way of nature.


Yes, I know. The especially stupid take it personally.

[The Senator]

This president has caused me personal pain. Pushing for an amendment to the constitution which would prohibit me from being able to marry is quite personal, so my hatred for him, I feel, is rational.

Nevermind everything else I disagree with him on; that's all petty to me compared to this.

[LuiECuomo]

Clinton was a national embarrassment, but nowhere near as bad as the Frat Boy-In-Chief.

No, I'm talking about Hillary. Now THAT would be a shame.

[Malice]

You know since I know I am the center of the universe...how anyone cannot see my point of view...very strange :)

[LuiECuomo]

By looking at your signature, Malice, I can tell that you and I would get along just fine. ;)

[jaguarr]

By looking at your signature, Malice, I can tell that you and I would get along just fine. ;)

Would you still feel that way if he told you he was a GINORMOUS Nader fan?

jag

[The Senator]

No, I'm talking about Hillary. Now THAT would be a shame.

Funny, I think it might be the best thing for this country.

[Malice]

By looking at your signature, Malice, I can tell that you and I would get along just fine. ;)

:)
I have some democratic views...but man I hate those three...but this is not the thread for it...
Welcome!

[Malice]

Would you still feel that way if he told you he was a GINORMOUS Nader fan?

jag

Who hates Nader!?!?!?

[jaguarr]

Who hates Nader!?!?!?

Gotta be Morg. I'm sure of it. It's always Morg.

jag

[Malice]

Gotta be Morg. I'm sure of it. It's always Morg.

jag

Ahh...Morg Again....
*growls*

[LuiECuomo]

Funny, I think it might be the best thing for this country.

(Shudders) I'm afraid not.

[Obi-Ron]

No, I'm talking about Hillary. Now THAT would be a shame.

Yeah I'm not too crazy about her either.

[kedrell]

To me she's Josef Stalin in a dress and with a little bit less facial hair.

[The Senator]

(Shudders) I'm afraid not.

I beg to differ. She's a nice woman, even better in person.

[SuBe]

To me she's Josef Stalin in a dress and with a little bit less facial hair.
:lmao:

[LuiECuomo]

I beg to differ. She's a nice woman, even better in person.

She's definitely not. She's incredibly conniving and twisted.

[The Senator]

She's definitely not. She's incredibly conniving and twisted.

No, I think she's a wonderful person with innovative ideas and an excellent sense of reality.

[LuiECuomo]

I think she's a terrible person who would run this country to the ground and make us look like fools to our enemies. Yes, even moreso than the way Bush has done.

[Obi-Ron]

She's not my favorite candidate, but I must say I find it annoying the way the "objective" print media (newspapers) is using the most ridiculous photos of her they can find.

[The Senator]

I think she's a terrible person who would run this country to the ground and make us look like fools to our enemies. Yes, even moreso than the way Bush has done.

I think she'd bring a level of dignity and respect to our country which the international community hasn't paid us in five years.

[LuiECuomo]

How so?

[The Senator]

How so?

Well, no matter what I write or believe, I cannot convince you, nor do I want to try. The purpose of this little game was to counter your outrageous attacks. "She'll run the country into the ground!" "She's twisted and conniving!" Please. That's an outright moronic thing to say, and you know it. You'd counter me if I said Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul would run the country into the ground, too. You refuse to acknowledge that there's a chance that things might go along just swimmingly. The reason why I don't make outlandish claims like that is because I'd be eating my words years from now if the reverse came true.

Other posters, when they attack a candidate, at least have the gull to write why they believe what they believe with supporting evidence. You just write short, biting statements which are designed to monger fear and hatred towards a politician you don't like, for whatever reason you dislike her. People who dislike Hillary Clinton have an irrational hatred for her, which they can't seem to get across intelligently. They blurt things out like "she's a commie!" or "she's a *****," but is there a reason why she's those things? My problem isn't that you dislike her, it's that you won't tell us why you dislike her, other than a few jabs.

So, you want me to give evidence that she'll do an absolutely perfect job? I can admit that there is no evidence that she will be a good leader. You can't admit that there might be evidence that she'll be a good leader. There's no evidence of any kind; it's all relative to what you believe will happen. Unfortunately, you can't seem to convey what you believe in without making some sort of exaggerated, one sentence attack.

Since I believe Senator Clinton has done an amazing job for my homestate, I think her successful record as a Senator will be reflected in her Presidency. I think she has the charm and the know how when it comes to dealing with foreign affairs, but I also think she's a hawk, and she'll know how to act in terms of an international crisis. I support her position on health care, I understand her Iraq strategy, and I mostly agree with the economic plan she unveiled today. Does that mean she's my top choice for President? No, but I would rather have her in office than most of the other candidates currently running, due to her record of success back at home and tough nature.

There are my reasons for supporting her. Where are your reasons for opposing her?

[Malice]

She's not my favorite candidate, but I must say I find it annoying the way the "objective" print media (newspapers) is using the most ridiculous photos of her they can find.

Welcome to real life..
They do that to all.
Just depends on the paper.

[LuiECuomo]

Well, no matter what I write or believe, I cannot convince you, nor do I want to try. The purpose of this little game was to counter your outrageous attacks. "She'll run the country into the ground!" "She's twisted and conniving!" Please. That's an outright moronic thing to say, and you know it. You'd counter me if I said Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul would run the country into the ground, too. You refuse to acknowledge that there's a chance that things might go along just swimmingly. The reason why I don't make outlandish claims like that is because I'd be eating my words years from now if the reverse came true.

Other posters, when they attack a candidate, at least have the gull to write why they believe what they believe with supporting evidence. You just write short, biting statements which are designed to monger fear and hatred towards a politician you don't like, for whatever reason you dislike her. People who dislike Hillary Clinton have an irrational hatred for her, which they can't seem to get across intelligently. They blurt things out like "she's a commie!" or "she's a *****," but is there a reason why she's those things? My problem isn't that you dislike her, it's that you won't tell us why you dislike her, other than a few jabs.

So, you want me to give evidence that she'll do an absolutely perfect job? I can admit that there is no evidence that she will be a good leader. You can't admit that there might be evidence that she'll be a good leader. There's no evidence of any kind; it's all relative to what you believe will happen. Unfortunately, you can't seem to convey what you believe in without making some sort of exaggerated, one sentence attack.

Since I believe Senator Clinton has done an amazing job for my homestate, I think her successful record as a Senator will be reflected in her Presidency. I think she has the charm and the know how when it comes to dealing with foreign affairs, but I also think she's a hawk, and she'll know how to act in terms of an international crisis. I support her position on health care, I understand her Iraq strategy, and I mostly agree with the economic plan she unveiled today. Does that mean she's my top choice for President? No, but I would rather have her in office than most of the other candidates currently running, due to her record of success back at home and tough nature.

There are my reasons for supporting her. Where are your reasons for opposing her?

Please. Your replies to my comments were just as long as mine, so you can't possibly use that argument.

First of all, Clinton would make this country look like a joke to our enemies in the Middle East, where they look down on women, especially those in positions of power.

Secondly, she has changed her position so many times on Iraq, it's frightening. I don't think she has the balls to be a commanding military leader, which is what we need right now.

Thirdly, she's practically a Marxist. You admire her economic plan, you say? And you think this is a GOOD thing?

Fourth, she's an anti-Semite. For all the a-holes out there who think that Republicanism is the party of racists, then do your research on this topic.

[The Senator]

Please. Your replies to my comments were just as long as mine, so you can't possibly use that argument.

Yes, I can. I already told you-- I did it to counteract/ mock your short, baseless attacks, because I felt they didn't deserve to stand out on their own.

First of all, Clinton would make this country look like a joke to our enemies in the Middle East, where they look down on women, especially those in positions of power.

She wouldn't be any more of a joke than the guys who want to keep our forces in Iraq indefinitely. The terrorists or fascists or whatever catch phrase you want to call them actually broke the glass ceiling before we did, too. Benazir Bhutto was the first female prime minister of Pakistan, and was considered a powerful diplomatic force among most Arab nations. Using her gender and how its viewed abroad as a reason to vote against her isn't a good reason at all. It's like saying not to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. And if you think Hillary will be looked down upon internationally, just wait until Romney gets the Presidency.

Secondly, she has changed her position so many times on Iraq, it's frightening. I don't think she has the balls to be a commanding military leader, which is what we need right now.

She did change her position. But I don't care what position(s) she had; I care about the position she has now. I agree with her strategy in Iraq, to keep a training force in the country while setting a firm debate for withdrawal. Plus, I think she has balls of steel. She's shown this time and time again, from countering attacks on her record from the Republican and Democratic parties, to her record as both a Senator and First Lady of the United States. She can also be placid, tranquil and humorous, which is also good when it comes to the diplomatic approach to foreign relations. She has the ability to be the Margaret Thatcher of our country, though more in terms of personality than politics.

Thirdly, she's practically a Marxist. You admire her economic plan, you say? And you think this is a GOOD thing?

Wow. Someone disagrees with you? This must be the most shocking development in your life.

Yeah, I admire her economic plan. It makes sense and it adds up. Economic policy isn't my forte, but from what I understand of it, it leaves everything addressed which I feel needs to be addressed, and offers a few insights into how to successfully fix our economy, which has been severely damaged and mangled over the past eight years.

You throw Marxism around, but once again, I don't see you telling me why you think her economic policy is Marxist. More senseless fear mongering, if you ask me.

Fourth, she's an anti-Semite. For all the a-holes out there who think that Republicanism is the party of racists, then do your research on this topic.

Not going to address this :up:

[LuiECuomo]

You throw Marxism around, but once again, I don't see you telling me why you think her economic policy is Marxist. More senseless fear mongering, if you ask me.

Why is she a Marxist? Ever hear her quotes about taking things away from people for the "common good?" She wants to punish people for being wealthy.

[The Senator]

Why is she a Marxist? Ever hear her quotes about taking things away from people for the "common good?" She wants to punish people for being wealthy.

No, she wants to help people who have a higher tax burden when they shouldn't, which makes sense, considering we have millions of people in this country who can't afford to support themselves due to the amount of money they pay in taxes per year. Her plan isn't Marxism; in fact, it barely skims the meniscus of Marx's philosophy . I suggest you read up on your Marx before you make nonsensical claims like that.

[The Senator]

Also, here is her economic stimulus proposal, which she unveiled today. Like I said, it barely skims the meniscus of Marxism.


COMMERCE, Calif. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled a $70 billion economic stimulus package Friday aimed at making it easier for millions of people to pay their mortgages and home heating bills.

The five-part plan is designed to help homeowners hurt by the housing foreclosure crisis, help families having trouble paying their energy bills and support people who have lost their jobs, according to a material released by her campaign. Clinton also was urging the government to invest in "green collar jobs" to stimulate the economy and improve the environment, her campaign said.

If the economy continues to worsen, Congress should provide an additional $40 billion in direct tax rebates to working and middle class families, Clinton said.


The proposal, Clinton's campaign said, would provide 37 million Americans with energy assistance. Hundreds of thousands more families would get help to avoid foreclosure, according to the proposal.

According to the campaign, the plan includes:

* Establishing a $30 billion housing crisis fund to help states and localities deal with the fallout of foreclosures. The federal money could be used to ease the effects of vacant properties with anti-blight programs and helping local housing authorities buy and rent out vacant properties.
* Setting a 90-day moratorium on subprime mortgages of at least five years, or until housing lenders have converted mortgages into loans families can afford. The proposal also would increase the portfolio caps at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
* Providing $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing rising heating bills. While 37 million families are eligible for energy assistance, only 5.6 million, or 16 percent, are slated to receive any aid this winter, the campaign said. She is proposing immediate grants to all 37 million eligible families.
* Providing $10 billion to extend unemployment insurance for those struggling to find work while supporting families.


Providing $5 billion in energy efficiency by doing such things as giving tax credits to encourage purchases of low emission vehicles and efficient appliances windows and other clean technologies. She also proposes funds to train and put to work people making public buildings more energy efficient.

[LuiECuomo]

You ever heard of the Fair Tax? That's something that would solve the tax problem, which is one of the primary reasons I support Huckabee. I'd even be a bit impressed if Clinton supported this policy. And don't tell me to do my research if you haven't done enough of your own. There are countless articles around where Clinton paraphrases Marxist ideals. Here's one, for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/29/AR2007052900859.html?nav=rss_nation

[The Senator]

You ever heard of the Fair Tax? That's something that would solve the tax problem, which is one of the primary reasons I support Huckabee. I'd even be a bit impressed if Clinton supported this policy. And don't tell me to do my research if you haven't done enough of your own. There are countless articles around where Clinton paraphrases Marxist ideals. Here's one, for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/29/AR2007052900859.html?nav=rss_nation

Someone who says "we're all in it together" isn't a Marxist. Again, you throw the word around, as if you know what you're talking about.

Yeah, I heard of the Fair Tax. I need to do more research on that, which I admitted in a thread on the very topic.

[Malice]

Honestly for years I have waffled back and forth on a "progressive" tax or a "flat" tax...I simply dont know which we should have...damn, this is one of those things that over the years I simply have not been able to decide on.

[Malice]

Marxist!

[Malice]

Marxist!

Who me?

:cwink:

[LuiECuomo]

Someone who says "we're all in it together" isn't a Marxist. Again, you throw the word around, as if you know what you're talking about.

Yeah, I heard of the Fair Tax. I need to do more research on that, which I admitted in a thread on the very topic.

I honestly hope you didn't choose to just pick out one piece of a quote from that article and use that to support her. Read between the lines of everything she said; after all, that's what politics are all about.

And yes, you would do wise to research the Fair Tax. I'm not saying that it would change your stance on Clinton or anything, but it's definitely worth considering.

[jaguarr]

Marxist!

Who me?

:cwink:


http://charlielovett.com/mainpages/studyguides/marx_thinker.jpg

jag

[Spider-Bite]

I honestly hope you didn't choose to just pick out one piece of a quote from that article and use that to support her. Read between the lines of everything she said; after all, that's what politics are all about.

And yes, you would do wise to research the Fair Tax. I'm not saying that it would change your stance on Clinton or anything, but it's definitely worth considering.

When making informed decisions it's important to listen to the advice of experts so you don't end up like President Bush, trapped in a bubble unaware of what's going on around you.

The economists agree that this is nothing but another way to make the middle class pick up the slack so rich fat cats can get by without paying their fair share of taxes. They benefit the most from this economy and they should have to pay a higher share of taxes so the rest of us can afford to keep buying stuff and keep this economy afloat.

NO corporate taxes means they can take that money and invest it into the stock market and get by without having to pay taxes they otherwise would have had to buy.

The rich don't always use eveyr penny of their to buy something. They invest it into the stock market. Under the fair tax plan they wouldn't have to pay taxes on that. who do you think would end up picking up the slack?

[The Senator]

I honestly hope you didn't choose to just pick out one piece of a quote from that article and use that to support her. Read between the lines of everything she said; after all, that's what politics are all about.

And yes, you would do wise to research the Fair Tax. I'm not saying that it would change your stance on Clinton or anything, but it's definitely worth considering.

I did read through the lines. I read what she said, and then asked myself, "what would Sen. Clinton mean by this?" None of what she said called for radically transforming our economic structure, or the way in which democracy is carried out in this country. Therefore, what she said barely resonated as Marxism in any possible sense.

[LuiECuomo]

Listen, I've made my point clear several times. I know we're both going to continue disagreeing with each other, so rather than hog all the space in this thread for a debate between the two of us, why not call a truce now?

[The Senator]

Listen, I've made my point clear several times. I know we're both going to continue disagreeing with each other, so rather than hog all the space in this thread for a debate between the two of us, why not call a truce now?

My goal was to get an insightful reason as to why you hate Mrs. Clinton as much as you do, and all I got in return was name calling with out any thought whatsoever. But since I can't debate this any longer, I'll agree to a truce for the time being.

[LuiECuomo]

Oh, I'll heartily agree that I tossed some name-calling, but I received no substantial evidence in return that she WOULD be a good President. But this is still a truce, after all.

[The Senator]

Oh, I'll heartily agree that I tossed some name-calling, but I received no substantial evidence in return that she WOULD be a good President. But this is still a truce, after all.

I did admit that there was no evidence suggesting she would be good, just like there was no evidence suggesting she would be bad. I made that clear from the getgo that its based on what you believe would happen, and that I would accept your beliefs/ accusations if you could back them up with evidence-- regardless of whether or not I agreed with you. I provided evidence to refute your claims, not support one I didn't make in the first place.

But the truce. Yes, the truce :up:

[LuiECuomo]

That's the thing. The refuting you did was so outrageous and unbelievable that I, personally, couldn't possibly take it seriously.

But we are in a truce, after all, so...

[The Senator]

That's the thing. The refuting you did was so outrageous and unbelievable that it can't possibly be taken seriously.

But we are in a truce, after all, so...

Which outrageous and unbelievable moments were those? When I told you Hillary wasn't a Marxist, which is true?

Or was it when I pointed out a woman was the successful leader of a Muslim nation, when I refuted the idea that a woman couldn't be a successful diplomat with countries in the Middle East?

Or was it when I presented Hillary's economic plan, which actually has a lot of conservative elements to it, showing you that it barely graced the fundamentals of the Marxism which you think she so boldly embodies?

Could it have been when I said she was a practical, good Senator from the state I've lived in for most of my life?

Was I unbelievable when I told you she was a nice woman? Having met her, asked her a few questions, and picked up on the warmth she actually possesses rather than the coldhearted commie ***** her opponents paint her as... that must be really outrageous.

Did I make an outrageous claim when I said that you couldn't possibly know how she'll run the country, just like I can't?

Yeah, I made a lot of outrageous and unbelievable claims in this thread, but at least I supported them with evidence on her record without resorting to name calling and childlike pandering, using fear tactics which I hoped had been sealed away in Joe McCarthy's casket.

BUT YES, THE GODDAMN TRUCE. LET'S NOT FORGET THIS WONDERFUL TRUCE.

[LuiECuomo]

Nope, none of those arguments were convincing or believable. Sorry.

[The Senator]

Nope, none of those arguments were convincing or believable. Sorry.

I believe that's what the Catholic Church said when Galileo first presented his theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. We know how wrong he was, too.

[LuiECuomo]

What has that got to do with anything?

[The Senator]

What has that got to do with anything?

Nothing at all. I just like those fancy hyperboles and historical allusions. They make me all warm and tingly inside.

[LuiECuomo]

Haha, touche.

[kronos251]

.
.
.

Interesting article! (the one on the first page) :)

Just a sidenote regarding Benazir Bhutto (RIP), but she's not exactly the best example of a supreme leader, not even "a strong diplomatic force among Arab nations." Bhutto was ousted from power in 1990 from corruption charges, and her husband aka "Mr. 10 Percent" spent eight years in prison for similar charges...

For further information, click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Charges_of_corruption, or any other newswebsite/history archive around.

[SuBe]

You ever heard of the Fair Tax? That's something that would solve the tax problem, which is one of the primary reasons I support Huckabee. I'd even be a bit impressed if Clinton supported this policy. And don't tell me to do my research if you haven't done enough of your own. There are countless articles around where Clinton paraphrases Marxist ideals. Here's one, for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/29/AR2007052900859.html?nav=rss_nation
Thanks for the Fairtax shout out, but it's one word, not Fair Tax.

[LuiECuomo]

Okay, I'll keep that in mind from now on.