U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2008, 11:13 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,981,855 times
Reputation: 2365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by teatime View Post
Here it is again. An "enlightened" Obama fan feeling the need to insult other people who haven't been stunned by the BO charm offensive.

Make no mistake, Jaded -- I have a graduate degree (since this seems important to you) and am about the same age as Obama but I do not support his candidacy. In fact, I think that just about any other candidate from either side, except Kucinich, would make a better president than Obama. One term as a U.S. senator -- with much of that being spent on a presidential campaign -- does not adequately prepare one for the nation's highest office, particularly at this time with the sad state of affairs Bush has bequeathed.

No amount of preaching, chanting, slickly played racial cards, or stadium revivals starring Oprah can change my estimation. And when you and your candidate further insult and label those who don't support him, that simply affirms the decision I (and others) have reached.
I am neither enlightened nor brainwashed by Obama. Having a graduate degree isn't important to me...do you know the definition of ignorant? It isn't a insult, it's an observation. And you can have an advanced degree and still be ignorant of a lot of things.

My comments to Maddy1980 were made because she is essentially ignorant to the Clintons, she admittingly wasn't even old enough to vote when Bill first ran for President in 1992. I highly doubt that she has done so much research since then to make up for this fact. IMO, she is more of a radical feminist than anything else.

You not voting for Obama is of no consequence to me; he is winning way more votes than many expected, so, your "no" vote is essentially cancelled out.

Since you seem to "know" all of the facts...let's analyze them:

Hillary Clinton began her US Senate seat in 2001; Obama began his US Senate seat in 2005 (after serving since 1997 in the Illinois Senate). Clinton became First Lady in 1993.

Despite her claiming to have 35 years of experience, she truly only has 8 years over Obama; 4 in the US Senate (she is still a Junior Senator, as is he); and 4 years as First Lady prior to him joining the Illinois Senate. The following term that she was First Lady, he was still serving in the Illinois Senate. So, IMO, they both have sufficient experience as politicians.

If she wants to claim 35 years she should back it up with her own works, and not her hubby's.

Wanna know why she has been unsuccessful in passing her Universal Healthcare??? Because the plan is poorly written and demands too much from citizens. Also, she can't unite anyone. She can't even work with some Democrats, let alone Republicans. She's had over 12 years to try to get it passed and both parties contiually balk at it.

So instead of attacking me when I didn't even address you, perhaps you should take some time for yourself and sip some tea!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2008, 03:22 PM
 
9 posts, read 19,289 times
Reputation: 11
Alright here's the thing with me,I just don't want another Clinton in office. Hillary turned
the other cheek when informed of her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky. after he lied
to the Nation on television.It is said to turn the other cheek is a good and honorable thing to do. I myself wonder how many times has she turned the cheek. and as a Junior Senator how many times. Now as President will her cheek turn as well to further
her Presidency or the Clinton name. I myself was turned away again when President
Clinton stated. Obama becoming President is only a dream. In response i say, who died and elected you GOD!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2008, 08:13 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,407,524 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdiddy View Post
And when you look up whitewater, make sure to post how you learned that the multiple investigations, costing tens of millions of dollars, all absolved the Clintons of any wrongdoing.
Quote:
McDougal claimed last year his testimony absolved the Clintons of Whitewater wrongdoing, but asked by a reporter if that was still the case, McDougal said, "I wouldn't go to the bank on that."
*chuckle*

Just because the investigation was dropped, doesn't make them innocent. If a person was actually following the case back then, they know the shady dealings with the Clinton's in that case with the constant inconsistencies in testimony, the odd timing of "evidence" provided by Hilary, the countless "I can't recall" comments. Then again, we know how the Clinton's handle lying about things. It is their specialty. Then again, I guess that all depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2008, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
5,233 posts, read 7,724,616 times
Reputation: 2623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
*chuckle*

Just because the investigation was dropped, doesn't make them innocent.
Uh...Yes it does. This is America, where you are innocent until proven guilty. All that time and money spent and no charges (except lying to his wife about a blowjob). I think Mr. Starr would have brought ANY charges that would have stuck.

And I KNOW that Bush's dealing with the Texas Ranger stadium deal were much shadier than anything the Clinton's did. Spend $40million investigating that, and charges would be filed. And THAT robbed taxpayer money, too! The Clinton's lost $$$ on Whitewater. Bush MADE $15million dollars on his shady deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2008, 08:39 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,868 posts, read 22,740,633 times
Reputation: 7167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123 View Post
Uh...Yes it does. This is America, where you are innocent until proven guilty. All that time and money spent and no charges (except lying to his wife about a blowjob). I think Mr. Starr would have brought ANY charges that would have stuck.
I have to agree.
If you spend $60+ MILLION - repeat $60+ MILLION - on an investigation and can't come up with anything worthy of filing charges then it's likely you are either grossly incompetent or nothing worthy of filing charges happened.

Of course that's not how the "Hate the Clintons" crowd will see it - but what do I care.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2008, 10:42 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,407,524 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123 View Post
Uh...Yes it does. This is America, where you are innocent until proven guilty. All that time and money spent and no charges (except lying to his wife about a blowjob). I think Mr. Starr would have brought ANY charges that would have stuck.

And I KNOW that Bush's dealing with the Texas Ranger stadium deal were much shadier than anything the Clinton's did. Spend $40million investigating that, and charges would be filed. And THAT robbed taxpayer money, too! The Clinton's lost $$$ on Whitewater. Bush MADE $15million dollars on his shady deal.
Yes, innocent just like OJ? Spend some time looking into the legal system, people get off all the time for crimes they committed. Her husband lied and was impeached for it, she has been caught in many mis-truths and shady dealings throughout the past. The only reason she wasn't hammered for it was because McDougal testified on their behalf and yet when pressed on it, he even said "I wouldn't go to the bank on that."

I like how you use "This is America, where you are innocent until proven guilty." and then immediately jump on the bandwagon with hate Bush. You claim you "know", but what you really mean is you "feel". Double standard much?

I am not saying the Clinton's are guilty of whitewater, but there are WAY too many questions unanswered, WAY too much "convenient" evidence and testimony that comes up around the case that I don't want her or her husband anywhere near the oval office.

As for the "wasting tax payers money", care to talk about the 9/11 commission? Care to talk about all the money the democrats have wasted with "trials", "commissions", etc... on the issues of Bush? Double standard much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2008, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,700 posts, read 35,574,344 times
Reputation: 7951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Yes, innocent just like OJ? Spend some time looking into the legal system, people get off all the time for crimes they committed. Her husband lied and was impeached for it, she has been caught in many mis-truths and shady dealings throughout the past. The only reason she wasn't hammered for it was because McDougal testified on their behalf and yet when pressed on it, he even said "I wouldn't go to the bank on that."

I like how you use "This is America, where you are innocent until proven guilty." and then immediately jump on the bandwagon with hate Bush. You claim you "know", but what you really mean is you "feel". Double standard much?

I am not saying the Clinton's are guilty of whitewater, but there are WAY too many questions unanswered, WAY too much "convenient" evidence and testimony that comes up around the case that I don't want her or her husband anywhere near the oval office.

As for the "wasting tax payers money", care to talk about the 9/11 commission? Care to talk about all the money the democrats have wasted with "trials", "commissions", etc... on the issues of Bush? Double standard much?

Please tell me how the 9/11 commission was a waste of taxpayer money while the Ken Starr porno report wasn't?

And double standard is Bush getting into the champagne brigade to get out of going to vietnam and then turning around, closing the very loophole that got his weasely rear out of fighting a war in a foreign land when he was annointed president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2008, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
5,233 posts, read 7,724,616 times
Reputation: 2623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Yes, innocent just like OJ? Spend some time looking into the legal system, people get off all the time for crimes they committed. Her husband lied and was impeached for it, she has been caught in many mis-truths and shady dealings throughout the past. The only reason she wasn't hammered for it was because McDougal testified on their behalf and yet when pressed on it, he even said "I wouldn't go to the bank on that."

I like how you use "This is America, where you are innocent until proven guilty." and then immediately jump on the bandwagon with hate Bush. You claim you "know", but what you really mean is you "feel". Double standard much?

I am not saying the Clinton's are guilty of whitewater, but there are WAY too many questions unanswered, WAY too much "convenient" evidence and testimony that comes up around the case that I don't want her or her husband anywhere near the oval office.

As for the "wasting tax payers money", care to talk about the 9/11 commission? Care to talk about all the money the democrats have wasted with "trials", "commissions", etc... on the issues of Bush? Double standard much?
At least there was enough evidence to bring charges against OJ. Ken Starr couldn't even manage that after spending tens of millions of dollars. How are there so many unanswered questions after such a long investigation on a land deal where the Clinton's LOST MONEY?

The reason I know about the Bush deal is that it has gone to court already (civil court) and the Rangers/Bush lost handily to the homeowners that got screwed on the deal. Two homeowners were awarded $11million in actual and punitive damages. The local prosecutor was a Republican and unwilling to end his career by taking on the case. Bush invested nothing of his own money and walked away with $15million.

The Dems haven't spent nearly the time and/or money on Bush as the whole Ken Starr thing did, and the crimes Bush is accused of involve the deaths of thousands of people - not lying about getting a blowjob.

Man this thread went OT. Sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2008, 11:02 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,868 posts, read 22,740,633 times
Reputation: 7167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Yes, innocent just like OJ? Spend some time looking into the legal system, people get off all the time for crimes they committed. Her husband lied and was impeached for it, she has been caught in many mis-truths and shady dealings throughout the past. The only reason she wasn't hammered for it was because McDougal testified on their behalf and yet when pressed on it, he even said "I wouldn't go to the bank on that."

I like how you use "This is America, where you are innocent until proven guilty." and then immediately jump on the bandwagon with hate Bush. You claim you "know", but what you really mean is you "feel". Double standard much?

I am not saying the Clinton's are guilty of whitewater, but there are WAY too many questions unanswered, WAY too much "convenient" evidence and testimony that comes up around the case that I don't want her or her husband anywhere near the oval office.

As for the "wasting tax payers money", care to talk about the 9/11 commission? Care to talk about all the money the democrats have wasted with "trials", "commissions", etc... on the issues of Bush? Double standard much?
You ARE aware that the 9-11 Commission came out of Congress while it was under REPUBLICAN control - aren't you?

And I don't think that any investigations the Democrats have have fostered have been anywhere near the the scale or cost of the Whitewater witchhunt.

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 02-18-2008 at 11:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2008, 01:11 PM
 
1,949 posts, read 4,728,115 times
Reputation: 912
women who rail against men usually are just railing against one man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top