Presidential spotlight: Hillary Clinton

[SavageSun4x4]

Some things never change and some things should never be in a news release.

Hillary named Rep Alcee Hastings, D. Florida as her National Campaign Co-Chair.

Not a big deal unless you take a look at Alcee Hastings. Appointed to the federal bench by Dimmy Carter in '79. In less than 2 years he was indicted for soliciting a bribe in an FBI sting. In '83 he won an acquittal but a subsequent investigation found he had committed perjury in the trail. The House Judiciary Committee charged him with 17 counts for impeachment in '88.

Business as usual in the Clinton camp and corruption is as corruption does :rolleyes:

[desertrubi]

What? A Clinton pair up with a liar and a cheat? Say it isn't so.:rolleyes:

[amber.hodge]

HILLARY CLINTON: LIVING PROOF THAT SATAN IS A WOMAN

Anyone who would vote for her is a complete and total tool.

(bring it on, John P. - you defend her, you go in my catagory of people I commonly refer to as COMMUNISTS)

[desertrubi]

HILLARY CLINTON: LIVING PROOF THAT SATAN IS A WOMAN

Anyone who would vote for her is a complete and total tool.

(bring it on, John P. - you defend her, you go in my catagory of people I commonly refer to as COMMUNISTS)

LOL....I'm with you on that one amber.

[John_P]

HILLARY CLINTON: LIVING PROOF THAT SATAN IS A WOMAN

Anyone who would vote for her is a complete and total tool.

(bring it on, John P. - you defend her, you go in my catagory of people I commonly refer to as COMMUNISTS)

Hey Amber, do you ever have anything intelligent to say?

Your childish poking is a yawn.

[SavageSun4x4]

Hey Amber, do you ever have anything intelligent to say?

Your childish poking is a yawn.
Come on John, forget the silly poke at Amber and just dig in and stand up for Hillary, we all want to hear what you have to say. ;)

[shannonmac]

not every democrat feels the need to stand up for hillary

after all she voted for the war with YOUR guys...

[amber.hodge]

Hey Amber, do you ever have anything intelligent to say?

Your childish poking is a yawn.

Hey, John - BITE ME. :eek: ......oh, and eat rocks....pound sand....shove it....up your's....and many, MANY other colorful sayings and idioms.

I'll childishly poke you and enjoy every minute of it....because I really don't like anything you have to say. :D have a nice day.

[1BLKJP]

not every democrat feels the need to stand up for hillary

after all she voted for the war with YOUR guys...

So did 28 other democrats shannon. Including several presidential candidates. What's your point?

[Kiwi]

For anyone that works for Hillary - make sure your affairs are in order. People seem to turn up dead alot around the Clintons.

Seriously though - while being a 'poll president' (no pun intended) might have worked for Clinton in the relativity peaceful, ride the stock market boom 90's, that just won't work now. Right now, we need a leader that accepts responsibilities for his/her decisions.

Knowing what I know now, I would not have authorized war. What the hell kinda of statement is that from someone that wants to lead the country?

Remember, she is on record as saying that she thoroughly investigated all the evidence and removing Saddam was the only viable option. Of course, she never did read the entire CIA report.

Then, National Health Care? Oh please! What government run program has EVER worked properly and doesn't balloon out of control?

Make the rich pay their 'fair share'? Would that also include all her Hollywood jet setting buddies? Or, how about themselves? While Clinton was in office, their tax returns showed they paid about 20% of their income in taxes, after all deductions. Surely, they could afford their 'fair share' and not take deductions.

How about that Indian CEO the Clintons pal around with? donated millions to the Clintons. Stayed in the White House. Flys Hillary around on his own private jet. No big deal - he just owns the largest job outsourcing firm in India. In fact, his spending on the Clintons is so lavish, his board is suing him for misusing company funds.

I'm trying to think of ONE good thing to say about the Clintons - but I just can't!

[John_P]

Interesting decision.

I am not going to defend Hastings, his crimes have been addressed by both houses.

Second, republicans should watch where they point the corruption finger, there are likely three pointing back.

In terms of Hillary...I like where she is on the issues I care about...whether that translates into a vote for her; I am still undecided. For the most part, I like her voting record in the Senate...for the most part.

I find it funny that some of you bark about accepting responsibility for decisions...What would you have her do? Echo the words "I was wrong", a' la Edwards? That was a political ploy to separate himself from Hillary.

And, how many of YOU in your life, in hindsight, felt you would make a different decision given a second chance?

I expect to elect a human being in '08. How about you?

The whole discussion about the authorization of Bush to conduct his invasion is moot, anyhow. It makes for good discussion, but I want to know about the future...I want to know about how the next president will extract our brave soldiers from this civil war and restore our place at the diplomatic table...We need allies...not more conflicts.

Health care is a separate debate altogether, and I am in support of reform. Whether that is a single-payer, multi-payer, or increased regulation/cost cutting, I am unsure. All I know is there are examples on both sides of success and failure with all three...

In terms of rolling back Bush tax cuts...I am in favor...I don't make over 250k a year...it is less likely many here do, so I fail to see why many of you would not support that..."pay to play" is my motto, and you should not get a discount when you have the advantage.

Finally, many many people have stayed in the White House...Including two overnighters during Bush's watch by Jack Abramoff. [see fingers comment]

[John_P]

Hey, John - BITE ME. :eek: ......

I'll pass...I use the 5 second rule...:D Wouldn't want to catch anything...


I'll childishly poke you and enjoy every minute of it....because I really don't like anything you have to say. :D have a nice day.

...most likely because you don't have anything interesting to say...sort of high school-ish

[offroadaz]

hillary would not get my vote for 1 simple reason

I dont want the whitehouse to be run by one family for over 12 years.

Bush's had it for 16 years and if Hilary is elected the Clintons would have had it for at least 12 years

The US needs change and new ideas. If a clinton is back in there that would mean the US has been run by the same 2 familys(bush/clinton) for over 25 years

[Kiwi]

Re-distribuition of wealth has never worked - besides, it is all just feel good politics. The elitist wealthy left knows there are enough loopholes in the tax system to never have to pay the top amount. Most middle and lower class don't. So, they vote for these people thinking they are going to 'stick it to the rich guys' when, in fact, it just ends up hurting the middle class the most.

Just ask 'Babs' She donates a large garden property in malibu to a 'conservatory' - a non profit. Of course, she still uses the property whenever she wants, for fundraisers, etc... But, she doen't have to pay any property taxes on it. How nice.

[desertrubi]

I agree. We need change. Some one who is not a career politician and is willing to try to force change. A president can only do so much. No matter who is in office Congress will still try to do things that benifit them. But, the President can try to force some changes. Big government has been getting out of control. They need to relinquish a lot of things back to state governments.

As far as health care. I too have no idea. With the track record of our gov't lately, it would turn into one more massive bloated program.

What I would like to see is a President that was willing to return to the basics. Make people responsible for their actions. We as a society have started coddling people to much. Not gonna get into a rant on that one.

Also come up with a sensible immigration plan. One that dosn't reward the people that broke the law, and slap those of us that have worked so hard to get where we are at. I am all for giving a person a chance to better their lives and chase that American dream. They just need to chase it with hard work. Not our hard work. Why should I have to work my *** off to support you, and pay your way if your not going to contribute. So we give the millions of people here amnisty(spelling?), that won't stop another 10 million from coming across the border knowing that we will just give them the same thing down the road.

I want to much though. A President with morals and one that will take care of the American citizens first.

[John_P]

Re-distribuition of wealth has never worked - besides, it is all just feel good politics. The elitist wealthy left knows there are enough loopholes in the tax system to never have to pay the top amount. Most middle and lower class don't. So, they vote for these people thinking they are going to 'stick it to the rich guys' when, in fact, it just ends up hurting the middle class the most..

Interesting...I don't consider a progressive tax system as redistributing wealth. I cannot recall anyone who is 'poor' (i.e. less than 14k per year) ever becoming rich using the tax system. I cannot even fathom how anyone can consider WIC a form of 'wealth redistribution'. The whole notion is silly.

[Kiwi]

How is WIC funded? Private enterprise? Or Goverment? If goverment - how? Taxes, maybe? So, we take money from one group of people to 're-distribute' to another. Pretty simple concept, actualy. Soviet Union thought it would be a great idea - everybody is equal - nobody gets rich. One big, happy middle class family.

And, as far as I know, not too many people on WIC run companies and employ people, who, in turn, pay taxes.

We all hate to admit it, the country depends on rich people. To employ people. To pay taxes. To buy things so that the middle class can produce. Remember the luxury tax on yachts? Sales plummented, at least here in the US. The 'rich' just bought elsewhere, employing non-americans.

Trickle down economics has been proven over and over again to work. Trickle up doesn't really seem to work as well.

[John_P]

How is WIC funded? Private enterprise? Or Goverment? If goverment - how? Taxes, maybe? So, we take money from one group of people to 're-distribute' to another. Pretty simple concept, actualy. Soviet Union thought it would be a great idea - everybody is equal - nobody gets rich. One big, happy middle class family.

And, as far as I know, not too many people on WIC run companies and employ people, who, in turn, pay taxes.

We all hate to admit it, the country depends on rich people. To employ people. To pay taxes. To buy things so that the middle class can produce. Remember the luxury tax on yachts? Sales plummented, at least here in the US. The 'rich' just bought elsewhere, employing non-americans.

Trickle down economics has been proven over and over again to work. Trickle up doesn't really seem to work as well.

Several comments and comparisons you make are just flat wrong or false.

First of all, the purpose of WIC is not equate the poor with the rich. That is why the term wealth redistribution is a misnomer. No gets 'wealthy' off of WIC...trust me. They are not even close to 'middle class'...

Sure...people who are on WIC don't run companies that is for sure...and most likely get all of their taxes refunded...However, I would much rather spare them the little in taxes they do pay rather than have them starve or become homeless.

Depend on 'rich people' eh?

Wow....I won't even touch that type of mentality...the results of such thinking are scary. Just remember that you cannot become rich in a vacuum.

[Miles2go1979]

not every democrat feels the need to stand up for hillary

after all she voted for the war with YOUR guys...

and so did almost every dimokrat... before they voted against it, and against funding it.

[amber.hodge]

I'll pass...I use the 5 second rule...:D Wouldn't want to catch anything...



...most likely because you don't have anything interesting to say...sort of high school-ish

LOL - You know, I do have a lot of opinions and thoughts, I just find you a waste of my time and for that matter, a waste of my taxes to employ you.

[Kiwi]

See John, in the end, we actualy do kinda agree on something

'Just remember that you cannot become rich in a vacuum'

That was my point. Rich folks consume, which in turn provides jobs. Strip away all that 'excess' wealth in the form of taxes, and everybody below suffers. Simple trickle down economics.

[John_P]

See John, in the end, we actualy do kinda agree on something

'Just remember that you cannot become rich in a vacuum'

That was my point. Rich folks consume, which in turn provides jobs. Strip away all that 'excess' wealth in the form of taxes, and everybody below suffers. Simple trickle down economics.

Trust me, if the rich were that over-brudened with taxes, we would not continue to call them rich. ;)

[John_P]

...a waste of my taxes to employ you.

I am not on the payroll right now...no worries OK?

[desertrubi]

Well, your APS bill pays for me.:D

Turn those Air Conditioners down another notch or two.;)

[SavageSun4x4]

Simple trickle down economics.

That is part of it. The other part is know as the "multiplier effect". Money being spent further up the food chain generates more and more wealth as the dollars travel thru the system. Example:

Money in the economy that is primarily spent for for necessities rather then luxury items does not create much wealth. If my pay check only covers modest living quarters, car, food and clothing the dollars I spend do not travel far thru the system. The money goes to pay for goods and services at the lowest level, which is also the level at which folks similar to myself work and live. Shopping at 99 cent stores vs shopping at Neiman Marcus. There is very little trickle down at this level

Money spent at the highest levels. Buying a multi-million $ home, Rolls Royce, 100 foot yachts and Gold Rolex watches. Now the multiplier effect really starts to take over. There are a lot of watches between the $29 Timex and the $29k 18kt gold Rolex. Lot of boats between the $400 John boat and the $400M custom built yacht. Gettin the pic?

It is the multiplier effect and trickle down that is capitalism. Without it all you have is socialism the green fields for the extreme liberals led by the like of George Soros, Ted Turner, Owl Hore, John Ferry, Hillary Clinton. [note: the prime supporters of socialism and the redistribution of wealth, never mean their wealth and they want to be the ones who are in charge of redistribution :rolleyes: ]

This is where it falls apart. Humans are competitive by nature. We like to measure our success by our toys, homes, watches etc. But socialism takes that away. "take from each according to their ability and give to each according to their needs" Smart people do smart easy work, dumb people hoist shovels, but they all make the same. The dummy with 6 kids lives in a 6 bedroom home and the smart guy who is single lives in a 1 bedroom apt.

So why do the folks on welfare and the very poor have more kids then the hard workers? Smart or dumb? Neither! They receive 3 of the 4 basics of life, food, clothing, shelter and they now have all the time they want for sex. Sex = kids.

Hence the DEMAND of the liberals that we allow as many illegals and their extended families over here and make them citizens. Most estimates show that number to be approx. 40 MILLION. 40M mostly bottom feeders who would love to have food, clothing, and shelter given to them. Socialism is favored by those at the bottom...thinking they will get something for nothing.

[John_P]

That is part of it. The other part is know as the "multiplier effect". Money being spent further up the food chain generates more and more wealth as the dollars travel thru the system. Example:

Money in the economy that is primarily spent for for necessities rather then luxury items does not create much wealth. If my pay check only covers modest living quarters, car, food and clothing the dollars I spend do not travel far thru the system. The money goes to pay for goods and services at the lowest level, which is also the level at which folks similar to myself work and live. Shopping at 99 cent stores vs shopping at Neiman Marcus. There is very little trickle down at this level

Money spent at the highest levels. Buying a multi-million $ home, Rolls Royce, 100 foot yachts and Gold Rolex watches. Now the multiplier effect really starts to take over. There are a lot of watches between the $29 Timex and the $29k 18kt gold Rolex. Lot of boats between the $400 John boat and the $400M custom built yacht. Gettin the pic?

It is the multiplier effect and trickle down that is capitalism. Without it all you have is socialism the green fields for the extreme liberals led by the like of George Soros, Ted Turner, Owl Hore, John Ferry, Hillary Clinton. [note: the prime supporters of socialism and the redistribution of wealth, never mean their wealth and they want to be the ones who are in charge of redistribution :rolleyes: ]

This is where it falls apart. Humans are competitive by nature. We like to measure our success by our toys, homes, watches etc. But socialism takes that away. "take from each according to their ability and give to each according to their needs" Smart people do smart easy work, dumb people hoist shovels, but they all make the same. The dummy with 6 kids lives in a 6 bedroom home and the smart guy who is single lives in a 1 bedroom apt.

So why do the folks on welfare and the very poor have more kids then the hard workers? Smart or dumb? Neither! They receive 3 of the 4 basics of life, food, clothing, shelter and they now have all the time they want for sex. Sex = kids.

Hence the DEMAND of the liberals that we allow as many illegals and their extended families over here and make them citizens. Most estimates show that number to be approx. 40 MILLION. 40M mostly bottom feeders who would love to have food, clothing, and shelter given to them. Socialism is favored by those at the bottom...thinking they will get something for nothing.

Liberals are not against capitalism.

Republicans co-wrote wrote the current immigration bill.

Thank you.

[John_P]

That is part of it. The other part is know as the "multiplier effect". Money being spent further up the food chain generates more and more wealth as the dollars travel thru the system. Example:

Money in the economy that is primarily spent for for necessities rather then luxury items does not create much wealth. If my pay check only covers modest living quarters, car, food and clothing the dollars I spend do not travel far thru the system. The money goes to pay for goods and services at the lowest level, which is also the level at which folks similar to myself work and live. Shopping at 99 cent stores vs shopping at Neiman Marcus. There is very little trickle down at this level

Money spent at the highest levels. Buying a multi-million $ home, Rolls Royce, 100 foot yachts and Gold Rolex watches. Now the multiplier effect really starts to take over. There are a lot of watches between the $29 Timex and the $29k 18kt gold Rolex. Lot of boats between the $400 John boat and the $400M custom built yacht. Gettin the pic?

It is the multiplier effect and trickle down that is capitalism. Without it all you have is socialism the green fields for the extreme liberals led by the like of George Soros, Ted Turner, Owl Hore, John Ferry, Hillary Clinton. [note: the prime supporters of socialism and the redistribution of wealth, never mean their wealth and they want to be the ones who are in charge of redistribution :rolleyes: ]

This is where it falls apart. Humans are competitive by nature. We like to measure our success by our toys, homes, watches etc. But socialism takes that away. "take from each according to their ability and give to each according to their needs" Smart people do smart easy work, dumb people hoist shovels, but they all make the same. The dummy with 6 kids lives in a 6 bedroom home and the smart guy who is single lives in a 1 bedroom apt.

So why do the folks on welfare and the very poor have more kids then the hard workers? Smart or dumb? Neither! They receive 3 of the 4 basics of life, food, clothing, shelter and they now have all the time they want for sex. Sex = kids.

Hence the DEMAND of the liberals that we allow as many illegals and their extended families over here and make them citizens. Most estimates show that number to be approx. 40 MILLION. 40M mostly bottom feeders who would love to have food, clothing, and shelter given to them. Socialism is favored by those at the bottom...thinking they will get something for nothing.

That is not totally true...It has been noted in a couple of places that extreme inequality in wealth actually slows growth.

Just goes to show that some redistribution...SOME...is good.

[SavageSun4x4]

That is not totally true...It has been noted in a couple of places that extreme inequality in wealth actually slows growth.

Just goes to show that some redistribution...SOME...is good.
It is true insofar as I spoke of it. But what you are saying is totally correct...like in Mexico, where about 5% of the people have about 90% of the nations wealth. This scenario is the case in most all communist-socialist countries in the world. Iraq, Saudi, Vietnam, much of Latin America, Afrika and the old USSR.

A countries economic health and strength is measured in its middle class. No one knows for sure the best curve of wealth, but the best guess is the standard bell curve. Let either end, rich/poor balloon and economic and political instability will ensue. In fact we are rapidly heading towards that now. The DimOkrats have a singular goal and that is to populate the US with as many poor as possible. 40 M new DimOkrat voters would be a windfall and bring us close to single party system. Which is fine if you are a Dim.

In fact one could say and I do, that much of the mess the US is in is due to a DimOkrat controlled congress for most of the 20th century. Over that time the shift to the left became further and further until Congress and our courts got out of control. Thank God for RR who set this country on a course of success. Sadly we are still living off of his efforts to turn us around politically and economically.

Look at our Presidents since JFK, who in today's world would no doubt run as a Republican:eek:

LBJ: Pres by mistake, owed too many favors to his cohorts on the hill to be effective. Ushered in the Great Society our second step into socialism, the first being FDR. Slippery shoes

Nixon: Way past his prime, a pawn of the party, mud on his shoe

Ford: Pawn of the party, no footprint

Carter: Clearly the worst President in post-war America by any standard or measurement, joke of the world, footprint of a bumbling fool

Klinton: 8 years of do nothing, status quo, pass the buck, hamstrung by extreme immaturity, good 'ole boy from Arkansas president, just wanted to be pals and buddies with the world, very little footprint for 8 years of walking

Bush I: Maybe the best VP of the 20th century, RR was a hard act to follow, shoes just not big enough

Bush II: After 8 years of nothing and the candidate line of Dims the tide went for Bush. History will treat him well for his world view and not backing down in face of bad press, polls or the bad guys. But lacks a good understanding of how to run things and choose folks that are the right fit for the job. To basic of a good person for the job he is in. Lots of footprint, some good, some bad, some ugly

RR: Simply the best at home and abroad and with Bush as a VP was a winning combo, maybe the best combo of the 20th century and he was mostly one of he best Pres of the century. Best shoes of the century!

[John_P]

Let either end, rich/poor balloon and economic and political instability will ensue. In fact we are rapidly heading towards that now. The DimOkrats have a singular goal and that is to populate the US with as many poor as possible. 40 M new DimOkrat voters would be a windfall and bring us close to single party system. Which is fine if you are a Dim.

I love your totally unfounded assertions.

When in doubt...blame it on a Dem. :rolleyes:

RR's economics was BS...smoke and mirrors...He used government spending to generate supply...increasing deficits...the effects of which supply-side theory remains silent. Moreover, tax revenues fell under RR...contrary to what SST would predict.

[jpotts]

Did you guys get the ToS from Joe West today?

It says that "discussions involving politics and nationalities or anything of a sexual nature be reserved for other message boards that are better venues for these topics," but more importantly, it said that "insulting or mean spirited language is simply not allowed here."

This "Presidential Spotlight" thing is obviously political, and the fictional word DimOkrat is obviously mean spirited and insulting.

I think that moderators should lead by example. How are others supposed to be expected to follow the rules when the mods do not. I think that mods undermine their own authority to moderate the board when they are hypocritical by not following the rules themselves.

Just my $.02

[Antman]

Hey Amber, do you ever have anything intelligent to say?

Your childish poking is a yawn.


! Amber get your goat John.........Chill out man......:p

[amber.hodge]

He doesn't have a goat to get, antman....he just likes to pick on me because I got him all ticked off over that Vtech shooting thread....ever since then he's been relentlessly trying to one-up me. Its really funny, actually.....seeing someone so much older than me act like a dumbarse.

Darned rabid easily butt-hurt libbies with inferiority complexes....

[John_P]

He doesn't have a goat to get, antman....he just likes to pick on me because I got him all ticked off over that Vtech shooting thread....ever since then he's been relentlessly trying to one-up me. Its really funny, actually.....seeing someone so much older than me act like a dumbarse.

Darned rabid easily butt-hurt libbies with inferiority complexes....

Your giving yourself too much credit...

[desertrubi]

Wasn't this thread about Hillary?

I havn't followed her to much since she got into office. I do know that her stance on guns is bad news. That and she is to much of a "politician". Her husband was applauded for the economic growth during his time in office. In reality, I think, that would have happened no matter who was in office. It was fueled by dot coms springing up. But if it is his doing, then the downfall of the economy when dot coms failed would be his too. The failure of those was not caused by any president. It happened when people found out a company with one computer run out of a garage was listed as being worth millions when in reality, it was just an empty shell.

I don't see her as a leader. Which is what we need.

[amber.hodge]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Anyway, back to topic and off of the character assassination....

I really do not feel that Hillary Clinton is a respectful person, e.g. I do not give her very much respect and poke "childish" fun at her, as is my right to do so. I didn't have very much respect for her as she was one of those demonstrators during the Vietnam War....She obliterated any doubts I had with her uncalled for unprofessional and disrespectful behavior during the speeches given by individuals other than her husband at the funeral of Ronald Reagan. She was rolling her eyes and making all sorts of inappropriate facial expressions and gestures...It shows a lack of professionalism - a professionalism which must be inherant in anyone who vollies for the position of President of this country.

[jpotts]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Anyway, back to topic and off of the character assassination....

I really do not feel that Hillary Clinton is a respectful person, e.g. I do not give her very much respect and poke "childish" fun at her, as is my right to do so. I didn't have very much respect for her as she was one of those demonstrators during the Vietnam War....She obliterated any doubts I had with her uncalled for unprofessional and disrespectful behavior during the speeches given by individuals other than her husband at the funeral of Ronald Reagan. She was rolling her eyes and making all sorts of inappropriate facial expressions and gestures...It shows a lack of professionalism - a professionalism which must be inherant in anyone who vollies for the position of President of this country.

Hillary demonstrated against Vietnam??

I bet she was a draft dodger too:rolleyes:

[CarolinaRubi]

If theses guys & gals dont mind discusing these topics and it is called "off topic" then lets not make it a police state. They are all coming from a specific point of veiw in how they look at thing (jeepers) . If i dont agree and dont want to see, i dont look. Cant we all just get along.

[amber.hodge]

Hillary demonstrated against Vietnam??

I bet she was a draft dodger too:rolleyes:

Do you research a candidates past and does it matter to you? I believe actions of one's past - especially with politicians - in many times can reveal what you can expect at worst from a person in the future. With politicians, they have to put on such a public show that you really don't know what is true and what is a facade - I believe knowing what they did and how they acted when they didn't realize the whole world would be watching is of at least a bit of importance when assessing the merit of any presidential candidate.

[jpotts]

Do you research a candidates past and does it matter to you?

I was asking a question. I haven't heard that she demonstrated against Vietnam. I have heard that W avoided going to Vietnam and heard things about John Kerry demonstrating against the war after returning from Vietnam, but never anything about Hillary. Just curious where you heard that

[amber.hodge]

I never voted for W., but he is my commander in chief, so I cannot by regulation state whether I support or do not support him. I lost that right of speech when I put on the uniform. Every time there has been a danged election they have me on travel orders and I've had problems with an absentee balot - I plan to vote even if it kills me, for the next election...I have voted in primaries, however....McCain every time. McCain again this time, too.

I had seen it on the news when Clinton (mr. not mrs.) was running on an election year. I will research tomorrow for the information and will post up the news story from back then for your information. Well....she has indoor plumbing, so had no draft to dodge....:D

[Joe West]

While I don't have a great deal to add to this particular thread regarding Hillary... I can say that it is time for a change... I'm sick of having to choose between the presidential candidate I hate the least.

Like many; I'm an issue voter. I care about all freedoms, I don't like religion mixing with politics, and I like intelligent (and enlightened) leaders.

I voted for GWB and he invades a country (stupidity), agrees with gun control laws (anti-freedom), vetoes stem-cell research (Misguided religious beliefs leaking into government) and I could go on and on...

Looking back, I wish to hell I had voted for Gore.

Looking forward, I honestly can't say who I would vote for...but I sure hope some candidate steps forward who shares at least a few of my core beliefs; and if they do... I'll vote for them regardless of what party they belong to.

My gut tells me our system is simply going to produce more of the same... political insiders with an agenda that will ultimately cause me to choose between dumb and dumber.

sigh

I really am glad I won't be around in 75 years to see what this country turns into.

There is always a ray of hope that someone will step up.

Joe

[jpotts]

Do you research a candidates past and does it matter to you? I believe actions of one's past - especially with politicians - in many times can reveal what you can expect at worst from a person in the future. With politicians, they have to put on such a public show that you really don't know what is true and what is a facade - I believe knowing what they did and how they acted when they didn't realize the whole world would be watching is of at least a bit of importance when assessing the merit of any presidential candidate.

Sorry, I quoted your original post, so I'll address the edited version here.

The topic of Vietnam is an especially sensitive one to me. My father served in Vietnam, and the war has had a real effect in his (and our family's) life. If she did protest Vietnam, I would like to understand her position on the war. I think that it is possible to oppose the political reasons for being at war while supporting the troops. I don't necessarily have a problem with a position like that. I'm not really sure what the purpose of the war was - except maybe to bail out the French once again. If she took a position against people who went to war, I would definitely have a problem with that.

I have a sincere respect for the people who put their lives on the line to defend our country. I just hope that these people's lives are not risked for no good reason.

[amber.hodge]

Sorry, I quoted your original post, so I'll address the edited version here.

The topic of Vietnam is an especially sensitive one to me. My father served in Vietnam, and the war has had a real effect in his (and our family's) life. If she did protest Vietnam, I would like to understand her position on the war. I think that it is possible to oppose the political reasons for being at war while supporting the troops. I don't necessarily have a problem with a position like that. I'm not really sure what the purpose of the war was - except maybe to bail out the French once again. If she took a position against people who went to war, I would definitely have a problem with that.

I have a sincere respect for the people who put their lives on the line to defend our country. I just hope that these people's lives are not risked for no good reason.


I agree about not having our lives risked for no good reason. I wouldn't be alive if not for the Vietnam War. My mother was married to my dad's best friend, who died of agent-orange exposure related cancer...my dad married my mom and I came along... Anyway, he also served and I took a full year course on the vietnam war in high school and was taught history by three separate disabled vietnam vets in high school. One didn't have his legs anymore, another was missing the distal left leg, and yet another suffered from Chloracne (sp)....I work with vietnam vets who have yet to retire from the Guard on a daily basis who had injuries there. Believe me, I know that it is important to go where we are really, truly NEEDED. The war in vietnam happened at a time where the country was terrified of communists. Vietnam happened to have the french colonizing it and were not communist. As is my understanding, the fall of the French at Dien Bien Fu (sp) marked the American involvement to be able to help france, but also to prevent the south of vietnam to fall to communism. We were outnumbered, and in a new terrain and warring with new opposing tactics which were repulsively cruel and against the geneva convention in every manner imaginable. I understand that protesting a war can state your feelings, but it also can lower the morale of those fighting the war - that morale is sometimes all a soldier has. That is why I fervently cannot stand anti-war protests. If you have an issue, start a petition or write your congressman.

[amber.hodge]

While I don't have a great deal to add to this particular thread regarding Hillary... I can say that it is time for a change... I'm sick of having to choose between the presidential candidate I hate the least.

Like many; I'm an issue voter. I care about all freedoms, I don't like religion mixing with politics, and I like intelligent (and enlightened) leaders.

I voted for GWB and he invades a country (stupidity), agrees with gun control laws (anti-freedom), vetoes stem-cell research (Misguided religious beliefs leaking into government) and I could go on and on...

Looking back, I wish to hell I had voted for Gore.

Looking forward, I honestly can't say who I would vote for...but I sure hope some candidate steps forward who shares at least a few of my core beliefs; and if they do... I'll vote for them regardless of what party they belong to.

My gut tells me our system is simply going to produce more of the same... political insiders with an agenda that will ultimately cause me to choose between dumb and dumber.

sigh

I really am glad I won't be around in 75 years to see what this country turns into.

There is always a ray of hope that someone will step up.

Joe

Joe,
I agree wholeheartedly with you, and at risk of hijacking this thread....do you not see a single republican hopeful that would be a decent president in your opinion?

[desertrubi]

While I don't have a great deal to add to this particular thread regarding Hillary... I can say that it is time for a change... I'm sick of having to choose between the presidential candidate I hate the least.

Like many; I'm an issue voter. I care about all freedoms, I don't like religion mixing with politics, and I like intelligent (and enlightened) leaders.

I voted for GWB and he invades a country (stupidity), agrees with gun control laws (anti-freedom), vetoes stem-cell research (Misguided religious beliefs leaking into government) and I could go on and on...

Looking back, I wish to hell I had voted for Gore.

Looking forward, I honestly can't say who I would vote for...but I sure hope some candidate steps forward who shares at least a few of my core beliefs; and if they do... I'll vote for them regardless of what party they belong to.

My gut tells me our system is simply going to produce more of the same... political insiders with an agenda that will ultimately cause me to choose between dumb and dumber.

sigh

I really am glad I won't be around in 75 years to see what this country turns into.

There is always a ray of hope that someone will step up.

Joe


Well said. I am an issue voter too. I don't consider myself a republican or a democrat.

As far as 75 years from now, it will be interesting. I just hope the political landscape changes from the land slide its in now.

[amber.hodge]

As for clinton protest involvement: I can find over 7 sources that link her when she was only Hillary Rodham to being very involved with the Vietnam Moritorium Committee, which was heavy into anti war efforts and protests...I remember seeing a picture of her protesting on the news during bill's candadacy like it was yesterday....a pic from the 60's...but cannot find it now. I'm sure a little more digging tomorrow and I'll find it.

[John_P]

The funny thing about Hillary is that she is a very centrist or moderate Senator. Her voting record bears that out. However, to not call her a leader is a bit strange to me...Here we have the first woman running for president, a senator from New York, a former first lady, and a former governor's wife.

I don't think you make your way, this far, without having leadership qualities.

I watched both NH debates...Did anyone watch the Democratic one? She was great, took control when needed...and called out the panel when they asked lame questions (as Romney did too).

[Kiwi]

One can spend along time in political life and never achieve the status of leader. Bill was not a leader. A smooth talker and a poll taker. Hillary is no different. She is what people want her to be. No problem changing positions depending on the latest poll figures.

I wonder though, can she nominate Bill for VP? What a team! The ***** and the playboy here to take on the world's problems!

[TRobertsRN]

If I were running the Republican Party (trust me I would never want any job in politics) I would hope the Democrats would have her as Presidential canidate.

I see her as too polarizing to get elected. People seem to like her or think she is the last person in the world they would vote for.

Like Joe I am not pleased with either party currently.

As to which candiates from either party would be my choice so far I don't feel I have learned enough about them yet.

I am considering doing what my grandparents did. Who ever is in control of congress, vote for the other party for President so no one party will have too much power.

There is no perfect canidate in my eys. If Hillary Clinton tomorrow became the perfect canidate in my eye I still would not believe she could get elected as President.

[Kiwi]

I agree. No one from any party stands out. All seems the same old BS and business as usual. I liked Bush sometimes, but then, at other times, he can be a bonehead. Kinda makes it hard for Republicans to run. McCain - please! change parties already!

Hillary? Women hate other women, so in the end, they won't vote for her. And she'll get very little of the male vote. Obama - just media hype. So far, he seems rather socialist.

Oh well, I suppose if my taxes don't go too much, maybe it just don't matter too much anymore. The Dems will lose the majority of the house and senate, again, next election cycle anyways.

[John_P]

One can spend along time in political life and never achieve the status of leader. Bill was not a leader. A smooth talker and a poll taker. Hillary is no different. She is what people want her to be. No problem changing positions depending on the latest poll figures.

I guess a politician who actually listens to what the people have to say would strike you as odd...woulnd't it? :rolleyes:

[offroadaz]

I guess a politician who actually listens to what the people have to say would strike you as odd...woulnd't it? :rolleyes:

I dont have a problem with a politician changing their views. I would find it scary if they held a position and never changed it even though the situation changed or new facts were brought to light

The main problem I have with hilary is I do not trust her. My personal feelings about her is she trys to conform to whatever crowd she is with. It seems like she tries to dress, talk and act like whoever she is around so people will like her.

[Antman]

I guess a politician who actually listens to what the people have to say would strike you as odd...woulnd't it? :rolleyes:

John, you need to go back and read the Constitution and understand history a
little better. If all candidates did what their polling data said, we wouldn't need them! We could run the government by internet polling! But, on the other hand,
politicians who make decisions on what they know that the public doesn't know,
because of behind the scenes intel and not what the news media wants us to
believe is a lot better in my opinion. A good leader, LEADS, and doesn't follow,
or do what the polls, (that are usually leaning one way or another), want them
to do.

A good leader will do what's right in his or her heart, from her knowledge of the situation that you or I can never fathom!

[offroadaz]

John, you need to go back and read the Constitution and understand history a
little better. If all candidates did what their polling data said, we wouldn't need them! We could run the government by internet polling! But, on the other hand,
politicians who make decisions on what they know that the public doesn't know,
because of behind the scenes intel and not what the news media wants us to
believe is a lot better in my opinion. A good leader, LEADS, and doesn't follow,
or do what the polls, (that are usually leaning one way or another), want them
to do.

A good leader will do what's right in his or her heart, from her knowledge of the situation that you or I can never fathom!

A little off topic but arent politicians elected to do the will of the people? I thought they were our elected representative to do what we want? What do you do when a politician decides to say "screw you guys Im doing my own thing?" What happens when they stop listening to the people who voted them in?

[Antman]

A little off topic but arent politicians elected to do the will of the people? I thought they were our elected representative to do what we want? What do you do when a politician decides to say "screw you guys Im doing my own thing?" What happens when they stop listening to the people who voted them in?

You have the right to vote them out!

But do you think the American people know all the time what's best for the country?

With the bias of the media and lack of knowledge of economics and statesmanship or even a working knowledge of how the government works, people make decisions on what they want their leaders to do? I have a neighbor who told me that the news media can't lie, they have to always tell the truth or they would get sued! If it's in the news, she believes it! All I can do is cancel her vote.:o It's a flawed arrangement we have. If it were run by polling the populace we would have mob rule!

We elect politicians to represent us, yes, but they have laws to follow, and
intell on both domestic and foreign affairs that we could never know about or even understand the consequences of. That's why there are 3 branches of government. Each is a balance of the other two. This doesn't always work
but its the best we have so far.

Would you rather a politician, (Presidents), go strickly by the polling data on
their decisions?

Not me! And I seldom totally agree with the political candidates I vote for.

[offroadaz]

You have the right to vote them out!

But do you think the American people know all the time what's best for the country?

With the bias of the media and lack of knowledge of economics and statesmanship or even a working knowledge of how the government works, people make decisions on what they want their leaders to do? I have a neighbor who told me that the news media can't lie, they have to always tell the truth or they would get sued! If it's in the news, she believes it! All I can do is cancel her vote.:o It's a flawed arrangement we have. If it were run by polling the populace we would have mob rule!

We elect politicians to represent us, yes, but they have laws to follow, and
intell on both domestic and foreign affairs that we could never know about or even understand the consequences of. That's why there are 3 branches of government. Each is a balance of the other two. This doesn't always work
but its the best we have so far.

Would you rather a politician, (Presidents), go strickly by the polling data on
their decisions?

Not me! And I seldom totally agree with the political candidates I vote for.

What about the current immigration bill. The vast majority of Americans 50%+ do not want it yet we have elected politicians forcing it through. Should they keep trying to push it because they think they know better then half the country or should they stop? We cant vote them out until next election and by then the damage is already done

[Joe West]

While I think Bill Clinton was a bit morally destitute for a President of the United States... I do agree he was a leader most of the time... much more of a leader (In my opinion) that George W Bush. Georgy boy clearly has his own agenda and come hell or high water; he is going to do what he wants irrespective of what the congress or people want.

So John... I guess I agree with you on this one.


I guess a politician who actually listens to what the people have to say would strike you as odd...woulnd't it? :rolleyes:

[Antman]

What about the current immigration bill. The vast majority of Americans 50%+ do not want it yet we have elected politicians forcing it through. Should they keep trying to push it because they think they know better then half the country or should they stop? We cant vote them out until next election and by then the damage is already done

I suggest you let your elected reps know how you feel. All the way to the President. If they don't,
then your alternative is to NOT vote for them. I Voted for Bush full well knowing what his feelings
were on immigration and now its come back to haunt me. BUT, I don't see how a voter can be happy with ALL
the stances a politician has anyway. Sorry to say, in our country it's usually
vote for the lessor of two evils.

[offroadaz]

Yep I have wrote to both of our senators and the president. But I feel that its too little too late. They seem steadfast in their decision. I just wish they would step back and look at what they are doing and take time to listen to the people

[1BLKJP]

A little off topic but arent politicians elected to do the will of the people? I thought they were our elected representative to do what we want? What do you do when a politician decides to say "screw you guys Im doing my own thing?" What happens when they stop listening to the people who voted them in?

The way I see this point is; if you vote for someone due to a certain belief say 2nd Amendment or Abortion or Immigration. Then that person completely flops on you after they get elected how is that following "The Will of the People?"

[amber.hodge]

Anyone can be put into a position to lead. The question is: Do they possess the values that a leader should have?

On a smaller thought level: Just as you would want an individual to lead a trail run that has experience, has everyone's safety in mind, keeps in mind limitations, is experienced, and will put those people first - but anyone can post up and show up to lead a run even if they don't have these qualities.....conversely....you would want someone as a leader of this nation to have and display certain characteristics.

From what the Army has taught me, Leadership is an acronym, which without even one of the qualities in that acronym, you do not possess what it takes to be a good leader.

L Loyalty
e
a
D Duty
R Respect
S Selfless Service
H Honor
I Integrity
P Personal Courage

I see Mrs. Rodham-Clinton to be lacking in a few of these areas......

[John_P]

Anyone can be put into a position to lead. The question is: Do they possess the values that a leader should have?

On a smaller thought level: Just as you would want an individual to lead a trail run that has experience, has everyone's safety in mind, keeps in mind limitations, is experienced, and will put those people first - but anyone can post up and show up to lead a run even if they don't have these qualities.....conversely....you would want someone as a leader of this nation to have and display certain characteristics.

From what the Army has taught me, Leadership is an acronym, which without even one of the qualities in that acronym, you do not possess what it takes to be a good leader.

L Loyalty
e
a
D Duty
R Respect
S Selfless Service
H Honor
I Integrity
P Personal Courage

I see Mrs. Rodham-Clinton to be lacking in a few of these areas......

You forgot one...Good leaders also need to be good communicators. I think it is an important skill that the best leaders in the world possess.

[John_P]

The way I see this point is; if you vote for someone due to a certain belief say 2nd Amendment or Abortion or Immigration. Then that person completely flops on you after they get elected how is that following "The Will of the People?"

Well...the constitution is not stone...and they not called 'amendments' for no reason...

Laws change. Sometime with public opinion, sometimes without.

Also, the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional matter...but abortion is not. Not sure about immigration...but it may be.

[amber.hodge]

oKay, I do actually agree....and they must be good at foreign policy or at least have a good knowledge of it. Nixon had a lot of stigma from his presidency, but he was OUTSTANDING at foreign policy.

[SavageSun4x4]

Few of our Presidents have been good leaders, RR, and JFK are about the only ones I can think of that brought leadership to the table and exercised it during their term of office.

Hillary has none, but she like her hubby simply exercise the do as I say or you will get whacked. The Klintons have leadership like Al Capone has tact.

Rudy G. Right place at the right time and just did not say anything stupid. He is the most conservative of the DimOkrats that are running.

Barrack Obama, like Hillary he makes sure he never gets into a position to have to answer tough questions. Their handlers keep them from being put on the spot. The silly "debates" don't give anyone time to answer anything in depth.

John McCain. Way past his prime, classic symptoms of PTSD, most likely would fold under real pressure and give in.

John Edwards. Lacks any understanding of politics, foreign policy or anything other than where to get $400 haircuts. Soft hands from a lifetime of doing nothing. Likeable but lacks any substance.

Just to mention a few.

[RokNRich]

Latest NBC/WSJ poll results:

If the next election for president were held today, and Rudy Guiliani were the Republican candidate and Hillary Clinton were the Democratic candidate, for whom would you vote?

Rudy Guiliani 43
Hillary Clinton 48
Depends 1
Neither/either 5
Not sure 3


If the next election for president were held today, and Fred Thompson were the Republican candidate and Barack Obama were the Democratic candidate, for whom would you vote?

Fred Thompson 31
Barack Obama 50
Depends 2
Neither/either 7
Not sure 10


Ron Paul is my guy:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[Kiwi]

Can't we just reserect Reagan? Hell, he won't even remember that he was dead!

[amber.hodge]

LOL I am all for resurection of Reagan...or Teddy Roosevelt....

[John_P]

Can't we just reserect Reagan? Hell, he won't even remember that he was dead!

Reagan was terrible. I am not sure why people like him.

[Miles2go1979]

Reagan was terrible. I am not sure why people like him.

Ending the cold war and turning around the economy is such a terrible thing... I'd much rather have a president that who is unfaithful to his wife and uses his status to have affairs with interns, now that is a great president

[Kiwi]

yeah, not sure why I like Reagan. Maybe it was that whole bringing comminism to its knees or something, or maybe rebuilding our military, our economy (and our reputation) after carter destroyed this country....

[John_P]

Ending the cold war and turning around the economy is such a terrible thing... I'd much rather have a president that who is unfaithful to his wife and uses his status to have affairs with interns, now that is a great president

Turning around the economy by increasing government spending = Huge deficits.

Remember, we simply outspent the Soviet Union...essentially bankrupting them.

Also, Reagan was terrible with domestic issues.

On the adultery....well, I don't condone it personally...it is not even political issue. Hardly the basis for judging a president. Given the rampant adultery everyday Americans engage in, makes him seem more human if anything.

[SavageSun4x4]

Reagan was terrible. I am not sure why people like him.
Johnny, you are not old enough to know or understand. That said remember who was at bat before RR?

1963- LBJ/Hubert Humphrey
Nixon/Sprio Agnew
Ford/Rockefeller
1981- Dimmy/Mondale

In spite of RR being a great President, he sure did not have a bunch of hard acts to follow. This country was in shambles, economically, militarily and internationally.

RR TURNED this country around and we have been on a downhill game every since and I certainly see no one on the horizon that can pick up the pieces.

Hillary, Obama, Edwards and the rest can only make it worse.

[amber.hodge]

Turning around the economy by increasing government spending = Huge deficits.

Remember, we simply outspent the Soviet Union...essentially bankrupting them.

Also, Reagan was terrible with domestic issues.

On the adultery....well, I don't condone it personally...it is not even political issue. Hardly the basis for judging a president. Given the rampant adultery everyday Americans engage in, makes him seem more human if anything.

Please expand upon the statement "Reagan was terrible with domestic issues", John. Please cite instances/examples and a president that was better in these areas and why/how. I want to hear what you have to say.

[azrubyman]

I think Reagan is a prime example of a Great President that was also very human.
No matter his faults and his mistakes in governing he was absolutely the right person at the right time to turn OUR attitude around. Under Johnson, Nixon and Carter our countries soul was is peril. Sadly...much like today.
RR made us feel good and most Americans felt we had someone in office that not only cared about each of us, we also felt that we had an American as President that was the genuine article. When a person or country feels good about themselves, they have confidence in themselves and their leaders, great things can happen. The psychological uplifting he brought can not be overstated enough IMHO.
Some could say all we did was out spend and bankrupt the USSR. And I say..."Exactly right" We kicked our greatest enemies hind end and brought down an evil empire. They could not compete with the United States of America militarily, economically or socially. They went bankrupt in all areas, not just economically. And we did that! All of us, together and we can thank Ronald Reagan for having the will power and the leadership to guide us to that point.
Hillary does not have the qualities it takes as a human being, a leader or a politician to lead the world against the biggest threat to freedom since the U.S.S.R.

[SavageSun4x4]

Like many; I'm an issue voter...

Joe

Being an issue voter is truly a double edged sword. Most folks are issue voters and that has a lot to do with where we are at today, since RR left office.

The problem with issue voting or "rice bowl-ism" is that most folks vote to narrow of an issue. They vote for the person who will increase welfare or provide free healthcare. All this causes the candidate to appeal to the most folks and to develop "block voting". [this makes the prospect of up to 40 MILLION illegals in this country frightening beyond anything I can think of]

Yet I too am an issue voter, but I view issues differently than most. I believe that of all the issues there is ONLY ONE that tells me of the mettle of the candidate. Their stand on RKB/2nd Amendment. I feel if you strongly support the RKB then you will view all issues with clarity and make the right decisions for America and all of its people, regardless of race, color, creed, sex or sexual orientation or financial status.

A good example of this is Joe himself. We are 180 degrees apart on our view of Bush [not really, but for purposes of this discussion]. That said, I know where Joe stands on the RKB and his stand is at least as hard as mine if not more so. Thus, Joe and I really want the same things, our thoughts are for America and our end game is the same in spite of minor details that may be different.

I think Reagan is a prime example of a Great President that was also very human.
No matter his faults and his mistakes in governing he was absolutely the right person at the right time to turn OUR attitude around. Under Johnson, Nixon and Carter our countries soul was is peril. Sadly...much like today.
RR made us feel good and most Americans felt we had someone in office that not only cared about each of us, we also felt that we had an American as President that was the genuine article. When a person or country feels good about themselves, they have confidence in themselves and their leaders, great things can happen. The psychological uplifting he brought can not be overstated enough IMHO.
Some could say all we did was out spend and bankrupt the USSR. And I say..."Exactly right" We kicked our greatest enemies hind end and brought down an evil empire. They could not compete with the United States of America militarily, economically or socially. They went bankrupt in all areas, not just economically. And we did that! All of us, together and we can thank Ronald Reagan for having the will power and the leadership to guide us to that point.
Hillary does not have the qualities it takes as a human being, a leader or a politician to lead the world against the biggest threat to freedom since the U.S.S.R.

Excellent summary ;)

[NVRSTUKXJ]

http://virtualjeepclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11635&stc=1&d=1181935739

[NVRSTUKXJ]

http://virtualjeepclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11636&stc=1&d=1181936061

[John_P]

Please expand upon the statement "Reagan was terrible with domestic issues", John. Please cite instances/examples and a president that was better in these areas and why/how. I want to hear what you have to say.

Reagan's legacy is the most overstated of any President...

The 'teflon' presidents most understated accomplishments...

This is just about spot on...

"The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt, getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals..."

[amber.hodge]

Reagan's legacy is the most overstated of any President...

The 'teflon' presidents most understated accomplishments...

This is just about spot on...

"The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt, getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals..."

That looks like you just copied and pasted......anyway, what I was looking for was for you to take a couple of issues - such as your "ketchup as a veggie" and expand on when this happened, how it negatively impacted our country, etc, etc..... Wasn't quite what I was looking for.....you get a C- :D

[azrubyman]

Reagan's legacy is the most overstated of any President...

The 'teflon' presidents most understated accomplishments...

This is just about spot on...

"The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt, getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals..."

And Bill Clinton was the presiding President during one of the largest genocides that ever occurred on the planet and for all intents and purposes did nothing. That the genocide was carried out by and against blacks didn't seem to matter to him. It didn't matter to his voting block either.
The propblem with polarized people such as yourself is that you fail to look at the big picture. If you were even alive or old enough to remembers the 1970s you wouldn't question Reagans effectiveness. He was in no way perfect and he made some mistakes and some were big time errors.
I guess the best way to describe him was a simple question that he asked Americans when he was running for re-election. " Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He won with a gigantic landslide victory.
The question was answered.
Ken

[John_P]

And Bill Clinton was the presiding President during one of the largest genocides that ever occurred on the planet and for all intents and purposes did nothing. That the genocide was carried out by and against blacks didn't seem to matter to him. It didn't matter to his voting block either.
The propblem with polarized people such as yourself is that you fail to look at the big picture. If you were even alive or old enough to remembers the 1970s you wouldn't question Reagans effectiveness. He was in no way perfect and he made some mistakes and some were big time errors.
I guess the best way to describe him was a simple question that he asked Americans when he was running for re-election. " Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He won with a gigantic landslide victory.
The question was answered.
Ken

Clinton also intervened in Bosnia...where genocide was taking place...

I did cut and paste that paragraph...it was late and it is relatively easy to find a list of Reagan's mistakes.

Finally, it terms of overall popularity...Clinton edges Reagan. Go Look.

[azrubyman]

Clinton also intervened in Bosnia...where genocide was taking place...

I did cut and paste that paragraph...it was late and it is relatively easy to find a list of Reagan's mistakes.

Finally, it terms of overall popularity...Clinton edges Reagan. Go Look.


That Clinton edges Reagan is like saying Mike Tyson would edge Ali. If Tyson was around back during Alis time...Tyson would not have even been a footnote. Same for Clinton....Reagan would have ate Clinton for lunch.
I just laugh when I hear people compare the two.
Ken

[Miles2go1979]

Turning around the economy by increasing government spending = Huge deficits.

Remember, we simply outspent the Soviet Union...essentially bankrupting them.

Also, Reagan was terrible with domestic issues.

On the adultery....well, I don't condone it personally...it is not even political issue. Hardly the basis for judging a president. Given the rampant adultery everyday Americans engage in, makes him seem more human if anything.

When government spending creates jobs instead of just handing it out its a good thing. Thats how Roosevelt helped pull us out of the Great Depression and how we got all the wonderful national forrests.

As far as adultry, it reveals the true integrety (or lack there of) of the President, especially after he lied under oath about it.

[06GrnRubi]

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

[John_P]

When government spending creates jobs instead of just handing it out its a good thing. Thats how Roosevelt helped pull us out of the Great Depression and how we got all the wonderful national forrests.


True....but what is the price of prosperity now? Usually a mess to clean up later...see the recession during Bush I.

It also translates into what most conservatives are constantly complaining about...bigger government. The 'government' grew under Reagan.

[azrubyman]

True....but what is the price of prosperity now? Usually a mess to clean up later...see the recession during Bush I.

It also translates into what most conservatives are constantly complaining about...bigger government. The 'government' grew under Reagan.

True...look at the recession, stock market crash and suffering that began during the last stages of Bill Clintons last term. We still have not fully recovered.
Ken

[SavageSun4x4]

That Clinton edges Reagan is like saying Mike Tyson would edge Ali. If Tyson was around back during Alis time...Tyson would not have even been a footnote. Same for Clinton....Reagan would have ate Clinton for lunch.
I just laugh when I hear people compare the two.
Ken

True....but what is the price of prosperity now? Usually a mess to clean up later...see the recession during Bush I.

It also translates into what most conservatives are constantly complaining about...bigger government. The 'government' grew under Reagan.
Talk about messes to clean up after: Study the debacle of Dimmy Carter.

YEP, ole Der Klinton REDUCED the size of government, on the back of the military. We went for a 800k man force to a 450 man force all the while non DoD government GREW! Ohh, he didn't tell you that did he:rolleyes:

Yea RR outspent the Rusky's, he did it by restoring our military after Carter got rid of tens of thousands and spent nothing on our military. Things were so bad we as officers often had to buy our own gas to go on a field training exercise. I remember going to the post filling station and filling up my Jeep with my MONEY. It was as bad under Klinton.

Then RR had to rebuild and now Bush II has had to rebuild. BUT the dirty little secret that is not being told. WHY do soldier have to go back to the ME 3 and 4 times? Well Congress will not authorize a larger military..Congress sets the size, not the military.

Johnny you would have had to live thru it to understand ;)

[RokNRich]

Sopranos spoof,

click to see the video

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/