What gets me is the hard core (feminist)Hillary supporters saying that they wont vote for Obama if thats what happens. SO... by their apathy they would rather have a man who openly called his wife a C*%T and would not hesitate to over turn Roe V. Wade?
BTW McCain now is NOT the same man who tried 8 years ago.
I don't get this war between the Obama supporters and the Hillary supporters in the Democratic Party. It's getting pretty nasty. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two in politics. In social values, Obama is a traditional Black Baptist and Hillary is a Radical Feminist who has been trying to tone it down for the campaign. I could remember when Bill was governer of Arkansas, she didn't even want to use the name Clinton. Now she is saying that she represents the working class Joe better than the Black Guy does. WTF? A Yale Law School Educated Feminist representing blue collar white guys while saying that the other guy is an elitist? Obama went to Harvard and attended private schools. I don't think either one of them ever worked in a factory.
McCain is a Naval Academy Graduate who comes from a family of the Military Elite. I don't think he was ever out there digging latrines with the enlisted men. He married big money and represents big money.
All three of these candidates are elitists. Maybe they need to just dump the elitist accusations and start talking about what they plan to do about Iraq and the sagging economy.
neon4891 wrote: What gets me is the hard core (feminist)Hillary supporters saying that they wont vote for Obama if thats what happens. SO... by their apathy they would rather have a man who openly called his wife a C*%T and would not hesitate to over turn Roe V. Wade? BTW McCain now is NOT the same man who tried 8 years ago.
Sadly enough, I think this is a matter of women wanting to elect one of their own fighting with blacks who want to elect one of their own. Both sides are saying if they don't win they will take their marbles and go home.
I disagree, Snowdoggie. One side is saying that they will take their dollies and go home.
It all really seems pretty straight forward:
(blatently plagerized here) On one side, you have a biatch who is a lawyer; married to a lawyer... running against a lawyer, who is married to a biatch, who is a lawyer.
On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big boobs who owns a beer distributorship.
Is there a really contest here?
Dr Hess, you make a strong arguement :grin:
Dr. Hess wrote: On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big boobs who owns a beer distributorship. Is there a really contest here?
Depends, are we talking good beer? Or pisswater?
I don't want a Busch crony who's going to try to limit my choice of free consumption!
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kang."
Dr. Hess wrote: I disagree, Snowdoggie. One side is saying that they will take their dollies and go home. It all really seems pretty straight forward: (blatently plagerized here) On one side, you have a biatch who is a lawyer; married to a lawyer... running against a lawyer, who is married to a biatch, who is a lawyer. On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big boobs who owns a beer distributorship. Is there a really contest here?
Seems to me that when the other side ran a war hero you Swiftboated him.
Also, you seem to have a big bias against lawyers. Giuliani and Fred Thompson are lawyers, and Fred also played one on TV. :grin:
Snowdoggie wrote: Seems to me that when the other side ran a war hero you Swiftboated him.
Yeah, but there was no way he deserved ALL of those purple hearts, probably only deserved one or two of them :grin:
It all really seems pretty straight forward: (blatently plagerized here) On one side, you have a biatch who is a lawyer; married to a lawyer... running against a lawyer, who is married to a biatch, who is a lawyer. On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big boobs who owns a beer distributorship. Is there a really contest here?
That 'good looking woman with big boobs' you speak of is actually a distant relative of mine.
Not that it will affect my decision in the voting booth.
Dr. Hess wrote: I disagree, Snowdoggie. One side is saying that they will take their dollies and go home.
Come on Obama said they were ACTION FIGURES!
I wouldn't have voted for Guliani or Thompson either. I hate to say it but I could sit this one out. I can't vote for any of the three. I'm hoping for an entertaining third party candidate so I can at least go vote.
no canidate is perfect. Try to find the one thats least objectionable.
I have too many objections with all of them.
McCain should have been done with politics after the S&L problems.
Hillary has more issues than I could list.
Obama is far to liberal for my tastes.
I'm not comfortable with any of them in charge and couldn't vote one way or the other.
Hillary's problems are myraid, not the least of which is she's caught the pathological liar virus from Bill. Sniper attack, anyone? Plus, if she wins, he's back in the White House. Reckon she'd put him in charge of health care?
Obama is far too liberal for me as well. He is saying 'vote for change' and then seems to stutter and vaporlock when he is asked what those changes will be. Not to mention his plans to go one on one with every little tinpot dictator around the globe. I can just see him and Chavez now. He doesn't seem to realize that someone like Chavez is looking only for photo ops and to come off as successfully 'belling the cat'.
Mc Cain's record gives me pause, although I think he learned a hard lesson from the Keating scandal. To me, he's the least objectionable of the Prez candidates even if I don't fully agree with his environmental stance.
Having said all this, no real change will come from the Presidential election. Real change will come when We the People get sick of the assclowns we elect to Congress and tell them 'no more'. Then show them we mean it by forcing the passing of term limits.
As long as we don't have another George "Veto" Bush in office that will work.
We need to hold them all more accountable.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/mcclellan.book/index.html
I wonder what effect that book will have..
Dr. Hess wrote: Oh, when you wish for more taxes, please realize that YOU are the problem because today, YOU are free to give more of YOUR money to the federal government but YOU are refusing to do that. When you want to give MY money to the government for whatever programs you like, then I have a problem with that. Right now, the governments get somewhere around half of everything we make. How much is enough? 90%? Would that do it for you? 100%? And just exactly where do you think that money goes? It goes to big corporations. Taking more of OUR money will only transfer more of it to big corporations, owned by filthy rich Democratics.
Hell yes. I wanna make out with you.
I would need at least 15 video cameras on me and my surrounding scenery just to sleep at night.
Stray gunshots in the Beltway are NOT that random and I would like to be certain that the shot did not come from a black helicopter!
That guy has nuts.
MrJoshua wrote: You worked in a shitty situation, you changed it. If that doesnt work to your satisfaction, change it some more. Start your own business. Go back to school. Get a degree with night classes. Move to a field with better respect for employees. There are many opportunities to you that will treat you better than any mandate of societal responsibility could.
ohhh. another gem.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90907222&ft=1&f=1001
How clinton changed on florida and michigan..
belteshazzar wrote:MrJoshua wrote: You worked in a shitty situation, you changed it. If that doesnt work to your satisfaction, change it some more. Start your own business. Go back to school. Get a degree with night classes. Move to a field with better respect for employees. There are many opportunities to you that will treat you better than any mandate of societal responsibility could.ohhh. another gem.
Care to counter the statement?
EDIT-Im assuming you disagree with my statement, but sometimes sarcasm comes across poorly on the internet. Sooo-If you disagree with the statement-Care to counter it?
woo hoo is all I have to say...
belteshazzar wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: It goes to big corporations. Taking more of OUR money will only transfer more of it to big corporations, owned by filthy rich Democratics.Hell yes. I wanna make out with you.
The democrats own Halliburton?
What are the chances that The Puppetmaster gets out of politics after he and GW are out of office this fall?
It now looks as if BHO will be the Dem, the press seems to like the idea of Hilliam getting the #2 spot...
Thoughts?
You'll need to log in to post.
