Bruceswar wrote:I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?
Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.
Moderator: Community Team
Bruceswar wrote:I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?
angola wrote:Bruceswar wrote:I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?
Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.
ViperOverLord wrote:So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.
ViperOverLord wrote:angola wrote:Bruceswar wrote:I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?
Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.
So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.
Woodruff wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:angola wrote:Bruceswar wrote:I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?
Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.
So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.
I really don't think Obama's loss can be determined yet at this early stage. That being said, I don't think that Hillary would be a bad President, nor do I think she'd be a President that most Republicans (despite their claims otherwise) would have a real serious problem with.
ViperOverLord wrote:Woodruff wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:angola wrote:Bruceswar wrote:I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?
Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.
So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.
I really don't think Obama's loss can be determined yet at this early stage. That being said, I don't think that Hillary would be a bad President, nor do I think she'd be a President that most Republicans (despite their claims otherwise) would have a real serious problem with.
You have got to be kidding me. Hillary Clinton is repulsive and no self respecting person wants anything to do with her.
Woodruff wrote:
So you don't like the military, then? Because her voting record for the military, military benefits and military retiree benefits is almost unparalleled. Yes, I am serious...look it up at the Congressional Records. I didn't realize it myself until the primary when it was looking like a two-horse race between her and Obama...I was stunned too. She made McCain look like a military-hater...then again, from his voting record, I suspect McCain DOES hate the military, as he's not at all supportive.
ViperOverLord wrote:Woodruff wrote:
So you don't like the military, then? Because her voting record for the military, military benefits and military retiree benefits is almost unparalleled. Yes, I am serious...look it up at the Congressional Records. I didn't realize it myself until the primary when it was looking like a two-horse race between her and Obama...I was stunned too. She made McCain look like a military-hater...then again, from his voting record, I suspect McCain DOES hate the military, as he's not at all supportive.
Let me refer you to the horse's mouth. Back when HC was a senator and she politically grand standed herself to visit Afghanistan; none of the troops wanted to sit at her lunch table. Troops literally had to be ordered to eat lunch with her.
ViperOverLord wrote:And you can pretend that she is in the military's corner all you want but there are plenty of examples where she has merely politicized miliatry affairs rather than take a firm stance:
ViperOverLord wrote:From wikipedia:
In the second Democratic debate of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton said that she voted for the resolution under the impression that Bush would allow more time for UN inspectors to find proof of weapons of mass destruction before proceeding. However, reporter Carl Bernstein and others have questioned why Clinton would have voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have required President Bush to allow more time to UN weapons inspectors and also would have required a separate Congressional authorization to allow a unilateral invasion of Iraq, if her vote was simply a vote for strong diplomacy.
Woodruff wrote:
You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).
Woodruff wrote:I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.
So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).
ViperOverLord wrote:Woodruff wrote:
You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).
Nice way to spin it. No I showed you what the military actually thinks of her and any poll of military voters that has come out has been very unfavorable. Why is that? Because you can take her token votes and refer to the fact that she has politicized the wars in which they are risking their very lives. Also if you want to talk of voting records how about you actually give me some Hillary vs. high profile Republican contrast and then perhaps you might be on to something.Woodruff wrote:I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.
So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).
You're talking about her voting record huh?
How about her non vote (no yes or no) in 2008 on Defense appropriations bill to get the military 688 billion? This was as she was losing the primaries and she desperately tried to distance herself from the wars at the troops expense. Don't give me your shit about being dishonest. I know a person that politicizes war when I see one.
Iliad wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:Woodruff wrote:
You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).
Nice way to spin it. No I showed you what the military actually thinks of her and any poll of military voters that has come out has been very unfavorable. Why is that? Because you can take her token votes and refer to the fact that she has politicized the wars in which they are risking their very lives. Also if you want to talk of voting records how about you actually give me some Hillary vs. high profile Republican contrast and then perhaps you might be on to something.Woodruff wrote:I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.
So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).
You're talking about her voting record huh?
How about her non vote (no yes or no) in 2008 on Defense appropriations bill to get the military 688 billion? This was as she was losing the primaries and she desperately tried to distance herself from the wars at the troops expense. Don't give me your shit about being dishonest. I know a person that politicizes war when I see one.
So she hates the military because of one denial of a proposal, which to me seems ridiculous. 688 billion to the military in 2008, at the height of the GFC? Are you fucking kidding me? How can you even attack the Democrats for waste spending and hold less taxes, less spending as your economic thesis and not even bat an eyelash at the military demanding 688 billion?
ViperOverLord wrote:Woodruff wrote:
You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).
Nice way to spin it. No I showed you what the military actually thinks of her and any poll of military voters that has come out has been very unfavorable. Why is that?
ViperOverLord wrote:Because you can take her token votes and refer to the fact that she has politicized the wars in which they are risking their very lives.
ViperOverLord wrote:Also if you want to talk of voting records how about you actually give me some Hillary vs. high profile Republican contrast and then perhaps you might be on to something.
ViperOverLord wrote:Woodruff wrote:I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.
So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).
You're talking about her voting record huh?
How about her non vote (no yes or no) in 2008 on Defense appropriations bill to get the military 688 billion? This was as she was losing the primaries and she desperately tried to distance herself from the wars at the troops expense. Don't give me your shit about being dishonest. I know a person that politicizes war when I see one.
Woodruff wrote:
Really? Because that's not what "Project Vote Smart" says...it says she voted YES on that 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill on the 17th of September of 2008, as you can see here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
By the way...if you'll bother to look, you'll see that JOHN MCCAIN DID NOT VOTE on the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. There's your damn "Republican contrast".
As I said, almost every military retiree organization supported Hillary over all of the other candidates that year, which included one of their own in John McCain - do you honestly believe that most military retiree organizations are going to be particularly liberal-leaning or easily swayed by "token votes"? These people don't care what party the candidates belong to, but they do make it their job to watch over politicians to see who is actually voting in ways that supoprt the military and military retirees.
ViperOverLord wrote:Also you came to her defense for voting yes on a military spending bill but besides that no vote you conveniently overlook her no's? Yea. Pretty f'in convenient.
ViperOverLord wrote:NO WOODRUFF. YOU SAT THERE AND TRIED TO REWRITE HISTORY ABOUT HOW GOOD HC WAS FOR THE MILITARY AND I'VE SHOWN YOU THAT YOU ARE FULL OF BUNK.
Woodruff wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:Also you came to her defense for voting yes on a military spending bill but besides that no vote you conveniently overlook her no's? Yea. Pretty f'in convenient.
I didn't overlook anything...I went specifically to the bill that you referenced, as that was the subject of contention for you, allegedly.ViperOverLord wrote:NO WOODRUFF. YOU SAT THERE AND TRIED TO REWRITE HISTORY ABOUT HOW GOOD HC WAS FOR THE MILITARY AND I'VE SHOWN YOU THAT YOU ARE FULL OF BUNK.
You have done no such thing. You these bills as if you talk about understand what was in them in full, but I suspect you do not. There are parts of those bills that unfortunately either have nothing at all to do with the military or are not good ideas (and I say this as a military man through and through).
And let me ask you this...have you compared her voting record to those you seem to favor so highly? My guess is that you have not, since you don't seem too interested in bringing them up. My statement stands that she has voted in favor of the military and military retirees more often than her opponents.
As I said, almost every military retiree organization supported Hillary over all of the other candidates that year, which included one of their own in John McCain - do you honestly believe that most military retiree organizations are going to be particularly liberal-leaning or easily swayed by "token votes"? These people don't care what party the candidates belong to, but they do make it their job to watch over politicians to see who is actually voting in ways that supoprt the military and military retirees. How do you rationalize that, ViperOverLord?
I will give you this...at least you've done some research here, which is a very nice change from your usual debating methods.
rockfist wrote:If someone can fog a mirror I want them to beat Obama in 2012!
I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.
And don't even get me started on Biden...spend our way out of bankruptcy? Spend our way out of bankruptcy? This idiot would try to dig his way out of a hole. My fucking shoe is smarter than he is. Most people I know could go on a fucking four day bender where their BAC never drops below .3%, be puking bile with the DT's and not come up with a statement that stupid. How does this idiot even understand how to eat...but that's a basic instinct that doesn't require thought or this Neanderthal would starve to death.
ViperOverLord wrote:rockfist wrote:If someone can fog a mirror I want them to beat Obama in 2012!
I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.
And don't even get me started on Biden...spend our way out of bankruptcy? Spend our way out of bankruptcy? This idiot would try to dig his way out of a hole. My fucking shoe is smarter than he is. Most people I know could go on a fucking four day bender where their BAC never drops below .3%, be puking bile with the DT's and not come up with a statement that stupid. How does this idiot even understand how to eat...but that's a basic instinct that doesn't require thought or this Neanderthal would starve to death.
I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President. - I disagree. I'm not a fan of red tape and bells & whistles.
rockfist wrote:I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.
Woodruff wrote:rockfist wrote:I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.
Oh, good lord no! A President doesn't need to be an expert on the economy. It's definitely a plus if they can be reasonably educated, but that's what the President's advisors are there for. Getting the right advisors is really the key here.
Woodruff wrote:rockfist wrote:I mean seriously this guy is the dumbest person when it comes to the economy I could even conceive of. I work with business owners and ANY one of them is more qualified to be President than this ass-clown. I think we need a constitutional amendment that you need to spend at least five years in the private sector before you can become President.
Oh, good lord no! A President doesn't need to be an expert on the economy. It's definitely a plus if they can be reasonably educated, but that's what the President's advisors are there for. Getting the right advisors is really the key here.
rockfist wrote:The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.
Bush was pretty stalwart when he went into office. People couldn't even deny the great job he was doing before the wars and they would claim it was only because he had great advisors. He was a rock though. By 05 you could see the signs of severe frustration with dealing the gridlock and the propoganda attacks from the media and the dems. He still did a lot in Iraq in 06 but he gave up on the economy about that time. By 07 you could see that he had phoned it in. It was kind of sad to see. He stopped responding to any attacks. He just let people roll over him, he caved to the corruption more and more because otherwise the nuts would just shout impeach and bla bla so he did his best to just start flying under the radar. It was pretty sad to see. But I think its an unlearned lesson for the media to be more fair if they want an effective president.rockfist wrote:The worst thing about the Bush administration was that people got so pissed off about him that now we have this as a direct result. So in that sense he may go down as the worst President in history because he begot Barack.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666