This is news?

"We got nothin' to offer but vote for one of us cause we ain't Hillary."

Watch the Clintonistas turn this into an attack on women and the Goppers spend the next year defending themselves. Remember how they turned the impeachment on the Republicans?

Remember how they turned the impeachment on the Republicans?

Actually, no. You might want to explain that.

Red: Clinton ceased being the bad guy and became the victim of a Rightwing attack. The Republicans ended up backing down.

Latest opinion polls show that, post impeachment, Clinton's approval rating has jumped ten per cent to an all-time high 73 per cent, beating Ronald Reagan's record at the height of his popularity. The same CNN-Gallup Poll shows a precipitous drop in popular perception of the Republicans. Approval rating for the party has fallen from 57 per cent to 31 per cent with a corresponding increase in ratings for the Democratic party.

The poll also showed 63 per cent of the people disapprove of the impeachment and 68 per cent don't want the Senate to try him.

9-11, 9-11, 9-11.

Guess who?


Zzzzzzz.

Guess who?

Bomb, bomb bomb let's bomb Iran.

Guess who??

9-11, 9-11, 9-11.

Guess who?

Zzzzzzz.

Guess who?

Bomb, bomb bomb let's bomb Iran

Guess who??

Wow Danni, that's gotta be the best Rudy. Mitt and McCain impressions Spud has ever heard.

(Actually yer singing voice is way better than McCains)

Somebody the other day tried to declare that gruesome twosome (Rudy and McCain) together on the same ticket as being some kind of unstoppable political force or sommat.

Spud just laffed and laffed.

Be Well.

Thank you Spud, I've been practicing.

Only one more year (and a few days) to listen to their collective horse shit.

North - And how did that turn anything against the Republicans? They still won the elections for both Congress and the White House in 2000.

"They still won the elections for both Congress and the White House in 2000."

Well, at least part of that sentence is true.

p.s. - the candidates aren't the only ones against this woman for potus - think again.

Wow Danni, that's gotta be the best Rudy. Mitt and McCain impressions Spud has ever heard.

(Actually yer singing voice is way better than McCains)

Wow Danni-I didn't recognize your voice...are you wearing sunglasses or something else to disguise it?

This is a republican dream.

Get everyone thinking Clinton is the ticket and they just might have a chance.

The funny thing about this is Danni and Corky think Clinton has a chance.

I keep trying to tell the two that if Clinton gets the Democratic party nomination I will vote republican. There are millions and millions of other U.S. citizens who are democrats who will vote republican if hillary is the nom.

Why don't they understand this?

I lean Democrat but am not afraid of the republicans and Hillary is clearly bad for this country. Staying with her out of party loyalty is no different than BOWA.

Danni and Corky, are you like BOWA? If you are, nothing you post can be trusted.

""I keep trying to tell the two that if Clinton gets the Democratic party nomination I will vote republican. There are millions and millions of other U.S. citizens who are democrats who will vote republican if hillary is the nom.""

Last week the SC refused to hear the case about the man renditioned, tortured and dumped in Albania. Say what you will but another REpublican will turn this country into a fascist nation. Vote for whoever you want but take responsibility for the consequences.
Nader voters did grat harm to this nation, believe it.

Danni sez... Thank you Spud, I've been practicing

Yer welcome. That's how you get to Carnegie hall, ya know.

Is cool wot practising yer scales and arpeggios can do!

On Topic?

Jon Stewart was having fun deconstructing the spin from the last GOPher debate. After playing a whack of predictable (and laffable) anti-Hillary sound bytes Stewart declared.

"So that's wots been wrong with the country for the last six years... Hillary Clinton!"

Spud's almost ready to start calling them the "Blame Hillary First" crowd.

Do they know how stOOpid this makes them look to the average intelligent voter or do they just care that their basest of bases lap it up?

Spud wonders sometimes.

Be Well.

Staying with her out of party loyalty is no different than BOWA.

Monewar, you know nothing about me. It is so pathetic to watch you hold a grudge just because I've proven you wrong a number of times in the pst couple of weeks. It's hilarious. Move on already.

In regards to your comment about my voting habits -- actually-- if Rudy doesn't win I don't know who I will vote for. I don't like Romney, Thompson, or McCain. I dislike Hillary and edwards, and I don't think Obama is ready for prime time yet -- though he is the most likeable of the Democratic front runners.

I guess I'll hope that Bloomberg will get into the race as an independent. I know he's more liberal than Rudy on many issues but it is hard not to like the guy -- he is extremely competant, diplomatic, and self-assured. he is fiscally conservative and has a proven track record at succesfully running both a business and the 4th largest budget in the US as mayor of NYC. And He definitely is not beholden to anyone. He would be a much more impressinve and serious candidate then Perot ever was -- and he could throw $500 million of his own money into the campaign and not even blink. Definitely a force to be reckoned with if the hated Hillary gets the nod and the GOP picks a lightweight like McCain, Romney or Thompson

Of course they're going to be united because they see her as their biggest threat and competitor.

and I don't think Obama is ready for prime time yet

I don't understand how this is still a talking point. Obama knows 10 times more than Bush knows NOW. All Presidents have a learning curve. His may be a bit steeper, but I'm not worried. He'll be more experienced by the end of the first day than the boy king is.

And personally I think we need a President who's a bit humbled by the office, who will treat it with the respect it deserves.
I don't see any of the more 'experienced' candidate doing that.

NORM

He'll be more experienced by the end of the first day than the boy king is.

I know that statement is a bit of hyperbole but when it comes voting I'd prefer a different example than comparing Tweedle-Dee to Tweedle-Dum.

Whoever makes it to the Oval Office will be bombarded with a thousand things he didn't know even existed. I want someone who can separate the wheat from the chaff from the git-go.

Hillary Clinton!

Yes, lets chose Hillary! Hillary all the way!!!

Get ready for a Republican President all over again.

MONEY . . . follow the money.

Who do you think can beat her? Mr. No-neck?

Of course, I realize that the neo-cons haven't tapped all their potential candidates yet. They might find somebody squeeky clean . . . pure as the driven snow so to speak . . . but it's going to be difficult.

Right now I think every Democrat in the race would have to fall down dead before one of these neo-cons could win.

Twin,

Hillary has the far left, people like Danni and Corky who will vote Democrat no matter what.

The Far right will always vote republican no matter what, the Eberly and Jeff J.'s.

Those who usually stay within party lines but move back and forth will not vote for Hillary, and that is both sides of the aisle.

Republicans know they have a chance if Hillary is the democratic nominee.

Edwards will be land slide over any republican chosen, any republican chosen. Period, bar none!

Obama has a chance but there are still too many racial idiots out there so it leaves it up for grabs.

Clinton's have left a sour tart in the population as far as moral integrity that is so obtrusive that no matter how good she could be will not get the final vote.

I will never vote for her, ever. Clinton is bad for this country and she will be like anyone of the republican candidates, so if my vote goes that direction I will be hurt none.

Now if Obama or Edwards gets the nod, my vote will surely go their direction. I like Edwards better than Obama only because Edwards is most likely the one who will pick up the moderate right vote.

MONEY:

There's so much wrong (IMHO) with what you just said:

Hillary has the far left She also has the middle left and the crossover moderate repubs who have caught onto the neo-conserevative's war-mongering and aren't too happy about the prospects of WWIII.

The Far right will always vote republican Right now they're having a lot of trouble swallowing this "Morman" thing and James Dobson says Giuliani is out of the question. They'll likely stay home or try to front a home grown candidate and split the party. Right now, it's just a threat.

Those who usually stay within party lines but move back and forth will not vote for Hillary, I think just the opposite. I think people are so sick to death of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Libby, Wolfowitz etc. will stampede to the left if Hillary or Edwards is the candidate. Not so much if it's Obama, however.

Obama has a chance but there are still too many racial idiots out there I wish that wasn't true.

Clinton's have left a sour tart in the population as far as moral integrity I disagree strongly on that one. Bill Clinton has poll numbers that a repub can only dream about. Both at home and around the world. He's one hell of an asset to Hillary's election. I don't know where you came up with that sour tart thing. He ended up looking the victim of the repubs and the sympathy of the country went for him.

so if my vote goes that direction (Republican) I will be hurt none. Yes you will. All of us will . . . the world will . . . These neo-cons have some nice little surprises lined up for everybody if they don't get booted to the curb. I hope you do your part . . . sincerely I do.

Twin,

I am a conservative moderate left leaning individual if that makes sense.

If I had to predict Jeff J. and Eberly, who by all rights are conservative right mo-moderates, voting, it would be Edwards 1st, Obama and never Hillary. It is nearly the same as mine.

I however will not go republican unless Hillary is the front.

Jeff J. and Eberly will have difficult decisions if Edwards is a front, but outside of that they will go republican.

We will see in the morning when they see this post.

MONEY

I know you're just citing examples but I think it's a mistake to equate DR posts or posters with what's going on in the world.

Sometimes we delude ourselves into thinking we're broadcasting to the world but we're not. We're talking to about 10 people.

This is a small but highly opinionated place to vent and that's all. It attracts quite a few extremeists to put it politely. That's hardly a microcosm and nothing said here gets carved in granite. (With the exception of that one time when Spud got quoted)

Still too early.

ARGH

It's never too early for an opinion on the Drudge Report.

It's what we do best.

Jesus, did I say that?

I meant Retort damn it! RETORT!

Sometimes we delude ourselves into thinking we're broadcasting to the world but we're not. We're talking to about 10 people.

10 people?

The real number is a bit higher than that certainly and it aint really the point.

The point is we're talking.

We're not just passive receptors for the MSM to fill up with it's traditional fluff and nonsense.

We react to the MSM and slowly but surely the MSM are forced to react to us.

The DR aint the only place this is happening.

It's happening all over in practically every country in the world.

Everything counts in large amounts.

Even the opinions of those who aren't in the 1%ers club.

Since the dawn of time communication has largely been a one way street. The powers that be have told their people wot to think and any who disagreed were usually butchered unmercifully.

It's better now. In western democracies the rule of blunt force has been replaced with a corporately cozy MSM manufacturing consent in cahoots with big biz and big gov while trying to maintain that they are still the fierce guardian of the people's right to know that they were set up to be.

As the disconnect between political rhetoric and reality as most people see it increases the role of blog-world in filling that void bcomes more clear.

Blogworld is more important than it knows.

The world will change the way it's always changed.

One heart.
One mind.
One idea at a time.

It's just that the global, real-time, many-to-many simultaneous, intercommunicational aspect of blog-world makes it possible to happen at a heady clip w/o so many filters and phoneys delaying the process and muddying the waters.

Memes are rife in blog-world.

Corporately unsponored ones that is.

It's hard to get an idea out of yer head once it gets in there, particularily a good one. It doesn't really matter how it got in there either. A NYT article, a million dollar splashy ad or the demented scribblings of a largely imaginary potato on some obscure lefty leaning blog.

All the same.

Think about it.

Be Well.

PS: It's a sleepy Spud wot wonders off in search of serious sack time. Spud wonders wot dreams he'll haff tonight. Spud's dreams are sommat else.

Spud exits the hallowed ground of the Drudge Retort now, exiting, as ya do,
stage left.

Geesh, Spud.

Did you just pop out of your tater skin for a minute or so?

Did I do tha-a-a-t?

That's OK. I love both of you.

That's OK. I love both of you.

There's nothing you can do that can't be done
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy.

Did you just pop out of your tater skin for a minute or so?

Did I do tha-a-a-t?

Did Spud drop the third person narrative briefly?

Well it's late and only about ten peple actually reads this blog and two of 'em are us so the odds aint that bad.

Must. Sleep. Now!

Be Well.

In regards to your comment about my voting habits -- actually-- if Rudy doesn't win I don't know who I will vote for. I don't like Romney, Thompson, or McCain. I dislike Hillary and edwards, and I don't think Obama is ready for prime time yet -- though he is the most likeable of the Democratic front runners.

I guess I'll hope that Bloomberg will get into the race as an independent. I know he's more liberal than Rudy on many issues but it is hard not to like the guy -- he is extremely competant, diplomatic, and self-assured. he is fiscally conservative and has a proven track record at succesfully running both a business and the 4th largest budget in the US as mayor of NYC. And He definitely is not beholden to anyone. He would be a much more impressinve and serious candidate then Perot ever was -- and he could throw $500 million of his own money into the campaign and not even blink. Definitely a force to be reckoned with if the hated Hillary gets the nod and the GOP picks a lightweight like McCain, Romney or Thompson

Posted by Bowa


Why is it that so much of your decision-making seems to rest on personality and whehter or not you "like" someone? Do you give any thought to actual ISSUES and the PLOICY decisions that would be made?

This is not the high school student council election.

This is not the high school student council election.

Posted by midiman at 2007-10-18 06:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not in name...

Why is it that so much of your decision-making seems to rest on personality

Sorry, Midiman. I saw nothing in his post to suggest that personality wasn't the reason he didn't like those candidates. Maybe the reason he doesn't like them is because of their stances on the issues.

That is a rather broad assumption for you to make.

Right now, it looks as though she will get the nomination. However, we were saying the same thing four years ago about Howard Dean. Things could change in the next few months. However, if not, and Hillary is the nominee, you can expect that her history will be exposed for all to see. And believe me, the liberal media has been deliberate in not reporting her negatives.

"Things could change in the next few months."

True...but it's going to have to be something monumental taking place to keep Hillary from being the nominee. All she has to do at this point is coast along without a major negative event. As for the media, they WANT her elected. Don't expect very much negative publicity from THAT source.

report from yesterday...
last two months fred thompson is the leading money getter of all the candidates......and that included hillery rodham.......

and HANS and others........

also outraising the carpetbagger dem in my congressman's seat..........

sekula-gibbs..........




oh and her oppenent has almost as much but most of it comes from out of state and not here....

Hillary has too many against her within the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean the Democrat voter will vote straight Republican.

Republicans are angry with Bush, Republicans that can see beyond the party. Look at Hannity. I know people love to bash him, but he bashes Bush and Republicans. It the one reason why his audience is still there. He may lean ridiculously right, but he hasn't held back the bashing of his own party.

Bush isn't running for office. So, that leaves every contender free to stand on their own merits. Whatever they are in some cases. The biggest obstacle for the Democrat is the Republican candidate - even the party base isn't sure who it is. That is actually a benefit for the R's. The turn-out for the nomination will be interesting to see.

I have to admit, Ron Paul has a strange following in my town - it's like Perot all over again. I hope he doesn't pull a Perot and duck and then try to get back in. Go all they way if you want the job.

I'm middle of the road and I usually scatter my vote all over the place. The ballot always has many to choose from and, believe it or not, there actually are good people on both sides of the aisle.

A question I've seen asked that goes unanswered is:
Other than being a one-time Senator, what other offices has Hillary won? What are her creditials for public office?

A question I've seen asked that goes unanswered is:
Other than being a one-time Senator, what other offices has Hillary won? What are her creditials for public office?

Posted by Petrous


Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance within your question itself. When you discover your error, ask yourself that question about Giuliani, Romney, and even the little twit himself. Governor of Texas? PLEASE. No wonder he only like to work a few weeks out of the year.

What are her creditials for public office?

Posted by Petrous at 2007-10-18 08:21 AM |


I think his name is Bill. Oh, and she's a woman. Isn't that enough?

Instead of attacking Democrats at some point Republicans are going to have to start telling voters what they intend to do about Iraq, the deficit, health care, etc. Most Americans are less worried about Hillary Clinton than they are about a continuation of the failed policies of George Bush and the Republican Party. I think for most Americans the most important consideration when deciding who to vote for is who can most likely defeat the Republicans. Look at the polls and this fact is pretty obvious.

"I think his name is Bill. Oh, and she's a woman. Isn't that enough?"

Uh-hun. Oh, and don't forget six years in the US Senate. A little more time than Bush served as governor of Texas. And one other difference: she's an enabler, and he's someone who requires enabling.

what they intend to do about Iraq

Win it.

what they intend to do about the deficit

Lower it.

what they intend to do about health care

Nothing, except maybe remove some of the government strings and re-introduce competition to help lower the costs.

Next?

Republican4Ever has just produced the goods that'll earn the GOP a few years in the political wilderness. Enjoy the trip, boys and girls.

I hope the REpublican Party tows your line Republican4ever, if so Bill will be returning to the WH. Better call Scaife and start the attack machine.

Uh-hun. Oh, and don't forget six years in the US Senate. A little more time than Bush served as governor of Texas. And one other difference: she's an enabler, and he's someone who requires enabling.

Posted by ancientmariner at 2007-10-18 09:09 AM


You'll have no problem, then, producing evidence of legislation she's written or co-written and gotten passed.

I'll wait, I'm sure you'll produce it rather quickly.

I love all of the fear!!!!

BTW, did you know John Kerry named a building in MA., saved a dolphin and sponsored world population awareness day?

Brilliant, for only 2 decades in the Senate, eh?

Oh, and he served in Viet Nam, too.

You may not have know that.

People who don't understand the basic differences between the GOP and the Dems at the top of the ticket, people who say they are the same, are the same people that decided they would prefer to have a beer with GW instead of Al or John K., and ushered in the coup of the already backwards GOP by warmongering imperialist NeoCons.

Though both Parties are unduly influenced by an established system of money = votes, their policy priorities differ greatly.

Also, as we have seen recently, their competence in success at both foreign and domestic policy are polar opposites.

Whenever I hear someone say that if the candidate they like in their Party doesn't win the nomination they will vote for the other Party, I know I am listening to someone who is more concerned about personalities than policies, about having their own way, having their opinions somehow justified, than they are about which policies are more fair and just for the country and the world.

This to me exhibits little more than debate about who is going to win a high school popularity contest, instead of a real world policy debate, and is proof of a poor grasp on political realities.

"Whenever I hear someone say that if the candidate they like in their Party doesn't win the nomination they will vote for the other Party, I know I am listening to someone who is more concerned about personalities than policies,..."

Wow, Corker...we actually agree on something.

Republican4Ever has just produced the goods that'll earn the GOP a few years in the political wilderness. Enjoy the trip, boys and girls.

Posted by ancientmariner at 2007-10-18 09:26 AM

Right, ancientmariner. And the correct Democrat responses are:

what they intend to do about Iraq

Lose it.

what they intend to do about the deficit

Raise it.

what they intend to do about health care

Introduce more government control, stifling competition and raising costs.

Have fun trying to win with that agenda.

Jest,

Don't let it get around, lol!

I get enough flak around here from trying to show a little pragmatism instead of being merely a blind idealist in love with my own opinions and more concerned with personality than policy.

The truth is that little of importance gets done in our governing bodies without compromises from both Parties and, in the long run, the support of the American people.

Listening to a Repub go on about the deficit is so sad, like watching a fat little clown trying to make it clear across the center ring.

Health care? A big-time losing issue for the GOP. Laissez-faire doesn't play well anymore. (Hey, here's one for you: Why not repeal the Pure Food and Drug Act?)

Iraq? Yeah, that's the ticket!

("Win it." Win what?)

I don't know what the Dems are going to push hard, but I do know that the Reps have nothing more than fear and demonization. A cold dish that's starting to spoil.

So basicly, the Republican agenda will be continued failure in Iraq, increasing deficit and no reform on health care. Yeah, the voters are going to flock to that. That's probably why Bush's poll numbers are so high. Probably why the REpublican party is losing membership. Why the religious right is considering a third party candidate.

"The truth is that little of importance gets done in our governing bodies without compromises from both Parties and, in the long run, the support of the American people."

Oh oh...I'm startin' to like you now. That's kinda scary. I have an extremely hard time understanding the actual hatred for PEOPLE in government and hoping for their failure even when it is bad for the United States. To tell you the truth, I don't like Bush and will be damn glad to see him gone, but I DO want to see the United States succeed in Iraq. If that would mean a boost for Bush, so be it. I wasn't a Clinton fan either, but I certainly was rooting for him to succeed in Somalia and the missile attacks in Afghanistan while going after the Taliban training camps. Incidently, I was ADAMANTLY oppose to his impeachment and removal from office. The idea of a president Gore sent shivers down my spine.

succeed in Iraq



Define "success"

"Define "success""

In this case, a somewhat stable democratic, secular government on the order of Turkey that would be no threat to the U.S. and would be a model for other Middle Eastern countries. One that would be self-sufficient and an ally against radical Islamics.

-I have an extremely hard time understanding the actual hatred for PEOPLE in government

Remember the old polls that always said that even though people "hate politicians", THEIR particular representative always got high ratings?

People like to bitch and complain and throw aspersions at others, but it is OUR responsibility to elect people who have our priorities in mind and who are willing to make changes (be progressive) in the current system.

You sound like you are more concerned for your country than your Party or a particular politician, and that's a good thing.

""In this case, a somewhat stable democratic, secular government on the order of Turkey that would be no threat to the U.S. and would be a model for other Middle Eastern countries. One that would be self-sufficient and an ally against radical Islamics.""

And there you have the problem. You simply cannot just deny reality and hope for a result which is just not going to happen. Real people's lives are being sacrificed. We have a right to expect realistic goals and whay you say you would consider "success" is just not realistic in Iraq. We knew this before we invaded. Do you not realize that if this ever was a realistic possibility that possibility ended when Bremer took over. We can't now rewrite the history and eliminate the disastrous mistakes (if they were in fact not on purpose). It is too late for that, now we have to deal with the reality that Iraq will end up as a Balkanized nation which many believe was the original intent. The decrease in violence, if it is really occurring is probably best explained by the fact that much of the country has now been ethnically cleansed.

"And there you have the problem. You simply cannot just deny reality and hope for a result which is just not going to happen."

And you "know" that???? If you have YOUR way, it won't. And it certainly isn't going to happen today, or next month, or in 2008....

"It is too late for that, now we have to deal with the reality that Iraq will end up as a Balkanized nation..."

And you "know" that too???? Tell me, I'm sure you know, on which date is global warming going to melt the last sliver of ice and flood the Earth???

"Uh-hun. Oh, and don't forget six years in the US Senate. A little more time than Bush served as governor of Texas. And one other difference: she's an enabler, and he's someone who requires enabling.

Posted by ancientmariner at 2007-10-18 09:09 AM

You'll have no problem, then, producing evidence of legislation she's written or co-written and gotten passed.

I'll wait, I'm sure you'll produce it rather quickly.

Posted by Lou_Dobbs "


Still waiting Lou...




What has Hillary actually done in the Senate?

"Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance within your question itself. When you discover your error, ask yourself that question about Giuliani, Romney, and even the little twit himself. Governor of Texas? PLEASE. No wonder he only like to work a few weeks out of the year.

Posted by midiman"

Midiman, there is no ignorance. The question I raise is about Hillary. Answer the question of what she has actually done in the Senate.

As for mayors and governors, they must show what they did in their specific positions.

As for looking into Guiliani and Romney and Bush? I'm not party-registered. Never have been. I don't believe in any party affiliation. I vote in elections by picking the best candidate - I ignore the party title.

So, I haven't looked into Guiliani or Romney. Don't need to until they are nominated. Guiliani at least I've known from being in Fort Lee and seeing firsthand Guiliani's administration of NYC.

There are crummy things that occurred in NYC (like any large city), but there are positive things in NYC - going there at night actually was possible. I didn't do that in previous years.

Hillary - what has she done other than cast her votes?

You want change....vote Kucunich and Paul....don't just be another DanniDumbshit(tm).

"Define "success""

In this case, a somewhat stable democratic, secular government on the order of Turkey that would be no threat to the U.S. and would be a model for other Middle Eastern countries. One that would be self-sufficient and an ally against radical Islamics.

From where I sit, that's a defintion of the term "delusion."

I'll admit Guiliani made NY safer, but getting more cops on the street to reduce crime is every mayor's job, and Rudy doesn't deserve a handjob because he did what he was supposed to do.

He may make us "safer" as president by some person's standards, but I'm not sure I want his brand of safety.

"You want change....vote Kucunich and Paul....don't just be another DanniDumbshit(tm)."

Kucinich shot his wad when he went to Syria and bashed the U.S. and its policies with Assad. I categorize him in the class with Cindy, Sean and Roseanne.

""And you "know" that too????""

Five years into this disaster...yes I think I can safely say I "KNOW" that.
Now the question is can you ask American soldiers to die for some fuzzy goal which most experts INCLUDING GEN SANCHEZ and many other generals say is impossible??
Do you disregard the words of Gen. Sanchez????
Is he a left wing radical??
Is he a "defeatocrat"?

No, there simply is not a valid reason to keep our soldiers there. We should pass a law that anyone still supporting this stupid war should have to either enlist or have their son or daughter enlist.
Maybe it is time for the draft to finally put an end to this.

"You'll have no problem, then, producing evidence of legislation she's written or co-written and gotten passed. I'll wait, I'm sure you'll produce it rather quickly.
Posted by Lou_Dobbs "

Aside from the fact that I don't dance to your hornpipe, that wasn't the original question. It ran like this:

"What are her creditials for public office?
Posted by Petrous at 2007-10-18 08:21 AM |"

If you want to keep changing the question, that's fine. But I already answered the original one. And, frankly, I don't really care if she got legislation through. I'm not a fan of Hillary's, but I certainly don't have the pathological fear and hatred of her that seems to poison so many Republicans' thought processes.

""I categorize him in the class with Cindy, Sean and Roseanne.""

Oh, the people who have been right about Iraq.
You can pretend that those who stupidly supported this war have superior patriotism or intelligence but unfotunately now the facts are out there for everyone to see. You couldn't be more wrong.
Pretty sad when Roseanne's judgement is far superior to your own.

"From where I sit, that's a defintion of the term "delusion."

That's because your extensive and intensive study in "liberal arts" and the study of "life" has made you so well qualified to make such judgments. Either that or perhaps you are so "ancient" as to have drifted into senility. In either case, you have my sympathy and pity.

Hillary Clinton has sponsored 333 bills, she has co-sponsored 1643 bills.

""That's because your extensive and intensive study in "liberal arts" and the study of "life" has made you so well qualified to make such judgments.""

Is Gen. Sanchez qualified???

"...yes I think I can safely say I "KNOW" that."

Good! That settles that! However, you forgot to tell me the date the final sliver of polar ice will melt.

"Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 333 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 287 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1643 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). "

"Oh, the people who have been right about Iraq."

Danni...I know it's a difficult concept for you to grasp but try hard now...

I put Kuchinich in the same class with Sean Penn and Roseanne for traveling to countries enemical to the United States and meeting with the leaders to bash OUR country. It had NOTHING to do with their political views. Ron Paul is every bit as opposed to the war as Kuchinich, but he hasn't traveled to Venezuela or Syria to hug their despotic leaders. Read S-L-O-W-L-Y now....Kuchinich, Sean, and Roseanne have ALL done that.

JUSTGETTINGALONG you can pretend Gen. Sanchez didn't make his remarks about the disaster (I don't need to specify any long because it is so obvious) but your argument evaporated when he did.
YOu have no case. Just emply hope for something that the GENERALS say is HOPELESS!!!
Send you kids but let everyone else's kids get the hell out of that hell hole before they are killed or maimed.
Have you watched "Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq"??? Very sobering. I think you could use a dose of reality.

"Pretty sad when Roseanne's judgement is far superior to your own."

Right...and I'm sure she's correct about the WTC and Pentagon events being planned and carried out By Bush and Cheney. She's just about the smartest woman to ever shit between a pair of run-down high heels....except for YOU, of course.

"""Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 333 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 287 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1643 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). "

Who's comments????
Opinion, obviously right wing.

""She's just about the smartest woman to ever shit between a pair of run-down high heels....except for YOU, of course.""

At least she isn't in favor of sending other people's kids to go die or be maimed. At least she doesn't put partisan politics ahead of kids lives.
I don't agree with her on everything but I agree with her on more than I do with you. You support a war you don't even understand for strictly partisan reasons and I find that reprehensible.

""H.R. 3731: To suspend temporarily the duty on lutetium oxide.""

Now that is something I can agree with.

I put Kuchinich in the same class with Sean Penn and Roseanne for traveling to countries enemical to the United States and meeting with the leaders to bash OUR country.

How do you know they were bashing America? Could they not have been bashing Bush's policies? Much as you really want to believe anyone who's critical is a traitor, the founding fathers would call you a traitor for doing so.

Bush is not America. He doesn't represent American ideals, and he doesn't represent the average American.

you have my sympathy and pity.
Posted by jestgettinalong

Thank you for your concern. In recognition of your charitable stance, you have mine as well.

...But what I don't understand, jestgettinalong, is why you hate our troops.

"Just emply hope for something that the GENERALS say is HOPELESS!!!"

You including Petraeus as one of those generals? Also, I don't know if you're aware of THIS part of Sanchez's speech.

"Yes, obviously Sanchez ripped the Bush administration -- the media had no trouble reporting that part of the speech. He also ripped the Democrats for playing partisan games and making it impossible to generate the kind of strategy needed to win in Iraq."

Hillary Clinton is turning the Democratic Party into a fuckin' freakshow. I know, some of you think it always has been, now it's worse. Most women want a father figure to be president. She ain't it. It's cool to say you support her now, but when push comes to shove...

"...But what I don't understand, jestgettinalong, is why you hate our troops."

I think you have me confused with John Murtha or perhaps John Kerry. I retired USN in 1975, still attend squadron reunions, I'm a
lifetime memeber of the VFW and American Legion, ocassionally go to the airport to welcome returning troops and contribute to many organizations which support the military. What kind of "mariner" are you? I rode ten aircraft carriers in my career so I might be more "mariner" than you. In fact, you MAY not be as ancient as I.

"Opinion, obviously right wing."

Danni, Danni, Danni, open your eyes.

Is it Clinton/Soros or is it Soros/Clinton? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think you have me confused with....
Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-10-18 11:33 AM"

Not "confused," but "pegged."

"How do you know they were bashing America? Could they not have been bashing Bush's policies?"

I watched them on "60 Minutes" and news reports. And...I disagree that that bashing Bush's policies is not bashing America's policies.

"Much as you really want to believe anyone who's critical is a traitor, the founding fathers would call you a traitor for doing so."

I absolutely DO NOT believe anyone critical of the president's policies is a traitor. Hell, I DON'T approve of his policies. I don't go to the country's enemies to do the bashing though. I don't think the founding fathers would approve of that. I can't remember any of the politicians going to England to hug King George during the Revolution, do you? There WAS, however, Benedict Arnold thought ...right? He was a hero at one time too, wasn't he.

It's Clinton/Murdoch fyi.

"" He also ripped the Democrats for playing partisan games and making it impossible to generate the kind of strategy needed to win in Iraq."

Sorry, been googling but can't find that part of his remarks.

Perhaps a link would be helpful.

""Most women want a father figure to be president.""

Uh-huh. Riiight. I think George W Bush sort of taught the women of America that a "daddy" isn't what we need, a leader is more like it. Hillary is definitely more of a leader than Dumbya.

"Not "confused," but "pegged."

Obviously another qualification bestowed upon you by your extensive and intensive liberal arts studies during you decades in "academia." Did you earn the title of "mariner" during that time while sculling for the ol' alma mater. "Pegging" is a privilege earned only by those as highly placed as yourself. Personally, I've always considered individuals like yourself to be arrogant and irrelevant.

""Is it Clinton/Soros or is it Soros/Clinton?""

Pathetic, even by right wing standards.

"Pathetic, even by right wing standards."


"""Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 333 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 287 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1643 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). "

Who's comments????
Opinion, obviously right wing.

Posted by danni at 2007-10-18 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Pot.kettle, black, if they don't praise a democrat than it must be right wing! What a hoot. Danni open your eyes, think for yourself. Take your donkey glasses off and join the real world.

Pet: So you're saying Fred isn't qualified. He did less the Hillary while vacationing in the Senate.
Rudy was mayor of a large city, but that hardly qualifies him for a job requiring global knowledge. He blew off the Iraq Study Group, so Hillary has him on that. His record on terrorism ain't exactly sterling- how many first responders dies because of his cheaping out on the radios and locating the command center in the prime target. He's also going to be spending a lot of time explaining how, in real life, he never met Kerik, his business partner and DHS pick.
Mitt- Running Taxachuessetts ain't necessisarily a global job. Unless John McCain can tie open borders with invading Iran-he's toast too.
Hillary ain't my choice, but when you get down to it, there's nobody else out there.

"Obviously another qualification bestowed upon you by your extensive and intensive liberal arts studies"

Having you pegged? No, it's something that comes from years of observing people such as yourself supporting unnecessary actions that result in other people getting killed.

"Personally, I've always considered individuals like yourself to be arrogant and irrelevant."

You dragging out your completely irrelevant military service, American Legion membership, humping it down to the airport information would definitely put you in that boat. In your case, probably a ship.

SILENT MAJORITY your comments are pretty foolish considering you haven't supplied the link from which you got your post. When and opinion is expressed, such as (Very Poor), then it is perfectly logical to assume it is made by someone with a partisan agenda. If this isn't so then put up your link.

By the way, JUSTGETTINGALONG, I'm still waiting for the link to Gen. Sanchez's comments where he says Democrats have prevented the formation of a strategy in Iraq.

Read Pet, 1120am.....link....is there.......

"You dragging out your completely irrelevant military service,..."

Awww, yes...this coming from an idiot who accused ME of hating the military. LOLOL...you and your little friends are soooo transparent...highly amusing though so there IS a litle social saving grace.

Still foolish? Whose the blind fool now? Is it you Danni? Take off your donkey glasses! Its never to late to get away from being partisan Danni!

"an idiot who accused ME of hating the military"

And that, from an idiot who believes in pouring more blood into Iraq in order to satisfy the defintion you offered for "success"? You'd have to hate the American military to be willing to see it broken on that wheel. Go back to the AL hall, have a beer, then go out and cheer on an incoming plane at the airport if it makes you feel like any less of a sucker.

ROTFLMAO

Here, Danni, let me help you out. Notice Sanchz's words in the first sentence, "AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ." You were quoting him all over the place but must have overlooked that sentence.

"AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ. A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL WILL UNQUESTIONABLY LEAD TO CHAOS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE STABILITY OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST. IF THIS OCCURS IT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. COALITION AND AMERICAN FORCE PRESENCE WILL BE REQUIRED AT SOME LEVEL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.

Here he is talking about BIPARTISON COOPERATION. Is her referring to the democrats?

AT NO TIME IN AMERICA'S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION. THE THREAT OF EXTREMISM IS REAL AND DEMANDS UNIFIED ACTION AT THE SAME LEVELS DEMONSTRATED BY OUR FOREFATHERS DURING WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II. AMERICA HAS FAILED TO DATE."

Here's ANOTHER little statement that has been overlooked, Danni. I agree with everything he said in the speech, but you probably just like the part where he kinda said, "Bush sucks"...right?

"AS A NATION WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT THE ENEMY WE FACE IS COMMITTED TO DESTROYING OUR WAY OF LIFE. THIS ENEMY IS ARGUABLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANY THREAT WE FACED IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY."

"And that, from an idiot who believes in pouring more blood into Iraq in order to satisfy the defintion you offered for "success"? You'd have to hate the American military to be willing to see it broken on that wheel."

Puts me into the same boat with Sanchez...and Petraeous, doesn't it? You HAVE listened to or read Sanchez's entire speech, haven't you. You really ARE a pompous ass, no doubt about it.

"Puts me into the same boat with Sanchez...and Petraeous, doesn't it?"

That would appear to be the case. Climb aboard. Don't forget to rearrange the deck chairs before the water hits your tailbone. At least they got stars out of it. All you get is a sense of phony patriostism.

Well, ol' ancient one, gotta go for a while. Ya' know, more than the "ancientmariner" you bring to my mind the albatross. "AncientAlbatross" is surely a more appropiate monicker. Fits you very well. In parting, I can't think of anything to say to you except to repeat the immortal words of our distinguished vice president when he told Senator Leahy to "Go f--- yourself."

JUSTGETTINGALONG
I read the speech, as best I could considering it is all in Caps and a little hard to read but the closest I could find to whay you said he said was:
"PARTISAN POLITICS HAVE HINDERED THIS WAR EFFORT AND AMERICA SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS."

I can accept that what you said earlier was close to the meaning though he didn't name Democrats by name. However, I would have to say that the Democrats were pretty supportive (I was not though) during the first two years of the war but became increasingly angry with the corruption which was so obvious. When the administration and the Republicans were unwilling to do anything about the corruption I think it was unrealistic to think the Democrats were going to continue supporting the war. It was a little unrealistic after Abu Ghraib too. The administration could have managed things differently and the support would have been there but using so many contractors who were so corrupt undermined any chance that bipartisan support could have been maintained.

And I do realize that other comment was not yours.

Doesn't take much to getyour tail twisted in a knot, does it? Now, go on down to the nearest airport or dock and cheer on the departing troops, or---who knows?--- you might be able to catch a few arrivals at Dovor to validate your command mentality. Knock yourself out.

""GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.

Here he is talking about BIPARTISON COOPERATION. Is her referring to the democrats?""

Sounds like he is describing Murtha's plan from a long time ago or Hillary's ideas today. He definitely is not describing the Bush plan.
BTW, after the example of Sanchez, I don't think we can expect a candid statement from Patreus until he too is retired. It seems none of the generals speak out until they are retired.

"Hillary ain't my choice, but when you get down to it, there's nobody else out there.

Posted by northguy3"

NG3, there was a thread on the most horrifying movie scene.

There's nobody else out there.

That is probably the most horrifying real scene.

My posts aren't to say Clinton is the only unqualified candidate. I agree that they all are lacking.

But, to declare Hillary is qualified? I want to hear the validating qualifications.

Actually, I don't. I've heard too many things she has said herself and her not reading (including many others) the NIE, she made an extremely important decision with poor judgment.

There are many things a politician will vote for or against that carries consequences - some great, some small. War is too great a mistake to make.

""Actually, I don't. I've heard too many things she has said herself and her not reading (including many others) the NIE, she made an extremely important decision with poor judgment.""

How many others didn't read it including George Bush???

Danni, too many.

AT NO TIME IN AMERICA'S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION.

This means that Dems are to blame for Bush's poor execution of the war?

Keep reaching Jest. Be careful though, you don't want to pull a muscle...

""AT NO TIME IN AMERICA'S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION.""

Like the Dems giving Bush all the funding he has asked for???

"This means that Dems are to blame for Bush's poor execution of the war?"

Just think of a child or, forget age, immaturity. With Bush, it's always somebody else's fault. The GOP will be blaming the Dems for "failure in Iraq" is a Dem wins the presidency next go-around.

One would have to question the credibility of the leftys that post on this sight , are they that ignorant that they buy into the bull shit LIES of their lefty leaders ?

Whenever I hear someone say that if the candidate they like in their Party doesn't win the nomination they will vote for the other Party, I know I am listening to someone who is more concerned about personalities than policies, about having their own way, having their opinions somehow justified, than they are about which policies are more fair and just for the country and the world.

This to me exhibits little more than debate about who is going to win a high school popularity contest, instead of a real world policy debate, and is proof of a poor grasp on political realities.

LOL!! You just keep telling yourself that big guy, maybe someday it might come true but then you might wake up.

You may delude yourself into thinking the two parties are quite different but the stats don't support your point.

As for the hildabeast, sorry, it isn't about popularity it is about character, leadership, and who funds are being accepted but guess that doesn't matter to you because it is a popularity contest, as long as it is a democrat.

Sorry, I don't play by your rules, I actually evaluate the candidate, not by the party, but by the foundation of their character. Most intellectuals of any worth are not party popular bound.

I wonder why that is? The parties are probably so closely bound and alike that the decision rests with the individual character leadership no doubt.

QUESTION: How do cons sleep at night?

ANSWER: They dont. They rise at dusk to suck the blood out of the middle class and send it to the sink-hole know as Iraq.

""Actually, I don't. I've heard too many things she has said herself and her not reading (including many others) the NIE, she made an extremely important decision with poor judgment.""

How many others didn't read it including George Bush???

Posted by danni at 2007-10-18 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag

Partisan hackery at its best!!!!

How many others are running for President? How many others are trying to become the leader of this nation? How many others are taking the responsibility for their actions?

HACK! HACK HACK HACK HACK HACK HACK but she did just like the others hack hack hack hack hack!!

- the stats don't support your point.

What stats?

If you cannot see the policy differences between the GOP and the Dems, you should have your head, er, I mean your eyes examined.

But then, you may have missed the entire Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, the Reaganite 80's, the move back to fiscal responsibility and comparative peace and prosperity of the Clinton 90's, and the warmongering NeoCon coup of the GOP this century......

So I suppose you could have an excuse for believing that the policies of these two Parties are the same.

Especially on healthcare, education, fiscal responsibility, social nets, equal pay, minimum wage, imperialism, choice, war, diplomacy...... oh yeah, matters not which Party someone belongs to, they are all the same on policy issues.

Uh-huh.

You know, I have some nice swamp lan, er, I mean, real estate down here you might just not notice any difference in.....

healthcare????? Tell us all about the differences.
Education????Tell us all about the differences.
Fiscal responsibility???? Give me a break, they are only slightly better than repocons but that is only because the democrats were not stupid enough to ground themselves into war. And Hillary is right their with the republicans.
Social nets???? What a laugh that is, from both sides of the house and has declined since the 60's.
Equal pay?????Are you kidding me??? Fuck take off the bra then because your really stretching it now!!!
minimum wage????another equal party opportunity but will claim the democrats hold that key.
Imperialism????????Equal party opportunity but guess you don't see the trade agreements and offshoring as a democratic thing either do ya.
Choice?????Are you kidding me again??????Worthless subject brought up every election for 30 years by both parties to get the dumb ass women out to vote.
WAR??????Well as far as I see both parties fall in that basket.
Diplomacy???????What the hell you talking there, Oh you mean like giving 2.1 billion to Israel every year for the next 10 years! Maybe that will keep Israel from bombing us???


You throw out all these policies dogs but assume the democrats and not hillary. Well, Hillary is far from the democrat you presume her to be.

How is that corporate funding coming along?????

That by itself alone should warn you as to what is coming if she is elected and those wages, pay, pensions, off shoring, healthcare, education, will either be paid by you in increase taxes and still you will lose jobs, have lowered wages and greater risk to SS and all the social nets because she will take that and claim the deficit is decreasing with her fiscal responsibility.

Get real Corky, now if you said the democratic party I might follow in line with you a little closes but Hillary is not even close to the democratic line and the fact you can't see that is the one true POPULARITY contest you seem to say you hate.

""AT NO TIME IN AMERICA'S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION.""

Another bull shit statement to get everything you want without having to justify the cost to this country.

Something the republicans seem to lack greatly, not one single runner is able to LEAD this nation.

Decision process involves common sense, and quite frankly everything the republican party has done has not been common sense. Every bill they have pushed since 2000 has been hurtfull and harmfull to this nation, but those Corporations are doing great?????? Funny though, I have never seen a corporation vote! Ask Hillary, she is right in there with them.

That many question marks reminds me of Frank Gorshin as "The Riddler."

He didn't know jackshit, either.

But I think I hear his maniacal laugh in the background when I peruse your rants.

btw-You might note that I was talking about the differences in Parties, not candidates.

-Well, Hillary is far from the democrat you presume her to be.

Since you are so close to her, next time you borrow a pantsuit from her, tell her I said, "Hey", 'K?

Oh, and not to be repetitive, but, "What stats?".

I will vote for Hillary.
I am sick of this country being run by religious zealots.
I do not want these R's picking the next three Supreme Court nominees.
I want socialized medicine.

Oh, and not to be repetitive, but, "What stats?".

Exactly. See there is a big difference!

Education:

PLYMOUTH, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopefuls turned their attention Thursday to education, offering an array of policy prescriptions ranging from expanding tax credits for college expenses to providing universal pre-kindergarten.

ADVERTISEMENT

At Plymouth State University here, front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed expanding a tax credit for students and their families to make college more affordable, along with $250 million in grants for colleges and universities that develop innovative programs to boost their graduation rates, particularly for low-income and minority students.

Farther south in Manchester, N.H., Bill Richardson used a town hall-style meeting to unveil a $60 billion education plan that he said would provide universal pre-kindergarten programs, scrap No Child Left Behind and make public college free.

And in Darlington, S.C., John Edwards released a plan to improve rural South Carolina schools, where eight poor school districts have sued, challenging the way legislators fund public schools. Under Edwards' plan, teachers in poor, rural schools would get a raise of up to $15,000 and 4-year-old kindergarten would be available to all children.

The centerpiece of Clinton's plan is a proposal to more than double an existing tax credit from $1,650 to $3,500. Students and their families would be able to claim 100 percent of the first $1,000 of college expenses and 50 percent of the next $5,000, Clinton said.

"This tax credit is the heart of my plan because I want to reward people who are trying to do better for themselves," she said.

The New York senator said there is no guarantee that the United States will remain a great nation with a growing economy if it doesn't do more to make higher education affordable.

"Higher education has never been more of a financial burden, but in today's global economy, it's never been more important," Clinton said. "When it comes to higher education, we should not be playing catch-up with the world, we should continue to be leading."

Democratic Party:

We will create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit.

We see this from all the democratic candidates, they can't even follow their own party line!

Democratic Party:

Democrats believe that the most effective way to increase opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job.

The Democratic Party supports fair trade agreements that raise standards for all workers here and abroad, while making American businesses more competitive, and we don't believe in tax giveaways that reward companies for moving American jobs overseas.

Wow! Hillary:

America's middle class is under siege and ready for a change. People are working harder and longer for less and less.

Corporate profits are up. CEO pay is up. Wages are lagging. Household debt is soaring. At the same time, health care, energy, and education costs are rising. Last year, more people went bankrupt in our country than graduated from college.

As president, she will work from day one to strengthen and grow our middle class and restore the basic bargain: If you work hard and do your part, you can build a better life for yourself and your family.

Hillary believes Americans have the right to expect fiscal responsibility, discipline, and honesty from their leaders.

As president, Hillary will:

Make health care affordable and accessible to every American.
Reduce the cost of energy and make us energy independent.
Expand access to affordable, high-quality child care.
Make college more affordable.
Protect families from predatory lenders and help them avoid foreclosures.
Increase the minimum wage.
Create good jobs with good wages to expand the middle class.
Balance the federal budget so we don't pass today's massive debts to the next generation.
Reward savings, protect pensions, and provide greater retirement security.

Let's see here, since 1980 it has been reagan, bush, clinton, bush and what has the democratic party done to change and make people vote for them.

Nothing, they are a party of DO NOTHINGS, sit and let the republicans make the mistakes so we can bash them.

Policy change from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY parallels the republican party, not true you say, how many vetos have been given to President Bush?????? 4 and two were political and 2 were just plain BAD bills.

All others were same as the opposing party wishes.

What are they doing for Civil Liberties???
----Thinking about giving the corporations away out of violating our civil rights is what they are doing???? Yep, that is a real change from the republicans who brokered the violation. The democrats are trying to exonerate the violation.

Sure they will bitch and yell and cast blame on the Republicans like they always do but in the end when the work hits the door, pooofffff, exoneration!!!!

Same as it has been for the last 20 years. How is it you don't see it!

That many question marks reminds me of Frank Gorshin as "The Riddler."

He didn't know jackshit, either.

But I think I hear his maniacal laugh in the background when I peruse your rants.

Looky looky, I wonder if I should compare this post with WOBBie the ass hole and see if your democratic party responses are any different from his republican ones.

Slightly less off color but the meaning is the same, so you get the point with the democrats being a little more PC.

Yeah!!!! PC is helping our nation greatly!
The democrats really got that policy right.

What is really humorous about this whole sword crossing Corky is I have yet seen a Republican drone actually address these issues and hate the fact you wash over them for simple party line stands.

Want a lasting meaningful party, demand something from them. Getting in office is not or should not be the goal, getting good policy out of them should be the goal.

I dislike Hillary and edwards, and I don't think Obama is ready for prime time yet -- though he is the most likeable of the Democratic front runners.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-10-17 11:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

BOWA,

Serious question for you. I'm not picking on your post but I want to hear the other sides perspective.

Here goes;

Why is Obama labeled as 'inexperienced' when he a a current Senator, yet Fred Thompson who served one term for TN and hasn't been in politics for over 5 years, isn't? Why is that?

Fred was a prosecutor in a big city....hehe

The repubs are idiots. It did not work in 2004 to run anti-Bush. It will not work in 2008 to run anti-Mrs. Clinton. They need to talk about the differences. Talk about the border, taxes, healthcare, social security. Let people know where they stand, then let the people decide.

"They need to talk about the differences. Talk about the border, taxes, healthcare, social security. Let people know where they stand, then let the people decide."

What a concept!

Unfortunately, that would be too honest, to responsible and to logical for politicians to do!

I've been wondering how long it would take the
GOP to get organized and back on its only
message...."Hate Hillary, Hate Hillary"...
especially since "It's all Bill's Fault",
just doesn't seem to wash much anymore since
the Republican owned everything helped explode
the National Deficit by like 3-4 Trillion dollars,
if you include the Iraq fiasco that might be 5 Trillion, have set records in uping the Trade Deficit, decreasing the value of the Dollar, giving record tax windfalls to everyone worth 250k annually or more, whilst harboring a boat load of criminals, thugs, and oil sucking miscreants in their shorts...

Just remember people, it's all about message...

Forget Global Warming, Exxon says it's not happening so it must not be happening...

Forget the National Debt, Dick Chenney says,
"Debts don't matter"...

Forget the sliding value of the Dollar, we need
cheap labor anyways...

Forget Corporate Fat Cats like retiring CEO for
Exxon, Lee Raymond (body double for Jabba the Hutt in Star Wars btw), getting a 400 Million Dollar RETIREMENT PACKAGE, whilst the little people, the workers you know, like you and me are lucky to get 60k a year!!!

Forget Croneyism, Favoritism, No Bid Contracts,
Environmental Degradation, or any of the other
wonderful initiatives put forth by G.W. (Got War?)
Bush and the rest of the G.O.P. (Got Oil Punk?) Party in the last eight years...

Yeah, more of the same...that's what we need...
(hint: that was a Sarcasm don't you know)

"Democratic Party:
....We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit....

Posted by moneywar "


This statement is a real pain and I can't stand it from either party.

I don't want deficit reduction. I want National Debt reduction. That means, not only do have you to have no deficit, you need to be able to pay enough to actually overpay the accruals on the National Debt. When the ND goes down - the gov't is finally getting around to saving our country.

The ND must be paid and it must go down. Lessening the amount of accruals but having the ND go up is fiscally foolish.

I've yet to hear a candidate talk about the ND being paid down. Word is Bill did that, but he didn't. The ND went up every year.