hillary or osama er bama....

Cannon Shell · #1 01-20-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

I dont know what she says about herself. I know what I have heard from friends and relatives that work for Corning, and they have given me examples of other companies that she has worked with. Then I heard about much of the stuff on NPR that my relatives had already told me about. OOPs NPR and my relatives cant be trusted. And how did you get your information that she does nothing? And if Canon has not felt her effects directly I can tell you that I have not felt any effects directly of our great senators in the State of Texas, Kay Bailey and John Cornyn. So because Canon has not felt direct effects she has done nothing... Hmmmm.

Bottom line Timm: you may not like her, but the lady gets work done. I can understand why people do not like her poll watching. But do not confuse this with her willingness to work her rear off to get things accomplished instead of JUST playing the critic, like many Democratic candidates.

It is simple really. Just tell me what tangible positive effect Senator Clinton has had on the citizens of NY. Maybe I missed somwething but no one that I know that lives in NY can think of one thing.

PSH · #2 01-20-2007, 03:56 PM

I am a die hard Democrat and it is painfully obvious that Hillary is not electable. Not even a discussion here....

PSH

timmgirvan · #3 01-20-2007, 04:04 PM

GR/Brian: Let's wrap this thing up....Liz Michael does sound like a whackjob! But it was a list. As I said, there are others. McDougal wasn't finished testifying with Starr, having being visited last by Susan McDougal before his death. You may blithely disregard these happenings as revengeful political rantings, but I assure that's not the situation with me. The probability of all these things happening around the Clintons' is astronomical,but doesn't make that irreffutable, it draws a circle around the actions of a political machine that won't stop for 2nd place. The recent attacks on Obama,Kerry and others point to the sublety of actions(at whatever price) and her rushed announcement of her candidacy(?)is Modus operandi for this group. But, heh, I just won't vote for her! Pardon my Interruption...I'm just tired of the whole scene right now. btw...Brian: I wasn't denigrating your youth...just the time frame of your reference. Cheers!

brianwspencer · #4 01-20-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GR/Brian: Let's wrap this thing up....Liz Michael does sound like a whackjob! But it was a list. As I said, there are others. McDougal wasn't finished testifying with Starr, having being visited last by Susan McDougal before his death. You may blithely disregard these happenings as revengeful political rantings, but I assure that's not the situation with me. The probability of all these things happening around the Clintons' is astronomical,but doesn't make that irreffutable, it draws a circle around the actions of a political machine that won't stop for 2nd place. The recent attacks on Obama,Kerry and others point to the sublety of actions(at whatever price) and her rushed announcement of her candidacy(?)is Modus operandi for this group. But, heh, I just won't vote for her! Pardon my Interruption...I'm just tired of the whole scene right now. btw...Brian: I wasn't denigrating your youth...just the time frame of your reference. Cheers!

Fair enough. I just don't buy it, and have yet to run across anything that would make me change my mind into thinking that somehow the Clintons value their machine to the point of ensuring that people are killed for it. You'd think that $70 million in two senate campaigns against her would have been able to produce some tangible evidence of it. All you'd have to do is prove that they were behind even one of those deaths and her career would be over. Nobody can do that even with $70 million? Pardon my subsequent skepticism.

I'm sure there will be plenty more of these conversations in the coming year or two, so no need to rush for now

GenuineRisk · #5 01-21-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

GR/Brian: Let's wrap this thing up....Liz Michael does sound like a whackjob! But it was a list. As I said, there are others. McDougal wasn't finished testifying with Starr, having being visited last by Susan McDougal before his death. You may blithely disregard these happenings as revengeful political rantings, but I assure that's not the situation with me. The probability of all these things happening around the Clintons' is astronomical,but doesn't make that irreffutable, it draws a circle around the actions of a political machine that won't stop for 2nd place. The recent attacks on Obama,Kerry and others point to the sublety of actions(at whatever price) and her rushed announcement of her candidacy(?)is Modus operandi for this group. But, heh, I just won't vote for her! Pardon my Interruption...I'm just tired of the whole scene right now. btw...Brian: I wasn't denigrating your youth...just the time frame of your reference. Cheers!

You're so cute with your conspiracy theories, Timm. Really, I find it kind of endearing, even though I don't buy conspiracy theories. For example, I don't think the Bush gov't planned 9/11- In light of the past six years, I can't see those bozos being competent enough to pull that off. Because if they had, I would assume they'd have been smart enough to coach GW how to behave when he got the news, so he wouldn't have sat for 8 minutes staring off into space.

And I find it hilarious that the Clinton and the Bush death lists both include Ron Brown.

Downthestretch55 · #6 01-21-2007, 10:46 AM

Wow!!!
What a thread!
Truth be told, I haven't posted a common dreams link for quite a while.
And now that Hillary has formed her "exploratory"...well, all I can say is that since Timm has decided not to run, and Condi is unoccupied at the moment,
I've gotten a huge flag standing up for the past couple of days.
It's erect, but a bit difficult to hide when I wear my kilt.
And for Brian, I'm with you buddy. Sometimes I don't believe myself either.
Now, where the heck did I leave the gasoline can, that fire needs to be stoked!
Feel the surge! Feel the fire!
Take a Midol if you feel the heat.
Johnny Mc C looks like his buns are in the fire as much as Dub's.
Dicky C has hunting to do.
Nancy has no balls.

And now a poem:
Obama??
Osama??
Pajama??
Alabama???
Yer Mamma???
Bowla-ramma??
Could I jamma??
Who's the famma??
Shamma, slamma!!!

#7 01-20-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is simple really. Just tell me what tangible positive effect Senator Clinton has had on the citizens of NY. Maybe I missed somwething but no one that I know that lives in NY can think of one thing.

A short blurb from my Sister-in-Law who works for Corning.

In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that provided hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company.

And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign....

Corning ... and its employees contributed $137,000 from the time she was elected in 2000 through the end of 2005...

So business got a lot better and the workers felt very gratified. First Democrat to ever receive money from Corning. Heck, 10,000 bucks, they just loaded her up didnt they Cannon? Drop in the bucket compared to what Rep. received from this company. BTW, Clinton intitiated the contact after reading about the problem and before any money came in for her re-election. So you did not benefit and no one you know has... I guess that covers NY.

Again it is very easy to criticize and not find anything positive about the party or person you dont particularly like. So we play this game of destruction instead of asking about anything positive. Which is exactly why politicians use Ads to slay opponents, instead of stating what they have done and will do. Its much easier to bust a bridge apart than to build one. Thats why I hate politics. Because as one reads this thread, it is clear that kicking is easier than applying a cast.

Its the same thing Dems do with Iraq. And your plan? Oh... the plans start to arise after Bush has made a decision about how to clean up a mess. But first all we do is just scream about the mess, with now idea how to clean the mess up.
Just leave Iraq immediately. Quite a plan... Very well thought out. Less well thought out than the plan to send only 120,000 troops in the first place, when 350,000 were recommended by a number of Generals. How many Democrats stood up and said this is clearly not enough troops after voting yes...?
I prefer builders, not destroyers. So lets see the smearing continue... because its so damn easy.

hoovesupsideyourhead · #8 01-20-2007, 07:51 PM

i suggest you read "inside the clinton white house'......trailer trash in the white house...lmfao...and osama..hes never going to get the popular vote...

GenuineRisk · #9 01-21-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

A short blurb from my Sister-in-Law who works for Corning.

In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that provided hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company.

And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign....

Corning ... and its employees contributed $137,000 from the time she was elected in 2000 through the end of 2005...

So business got a lot better and the workers felt very gratified. First Democrat to ever receive money from Corning. Heck, 10,000 bucks, they just loaded her up didnt they Cannon? Drop in the bucket compared to what Rep. received from this company. BTW, Clinton intitiated the contact after reading about the problem and before any money came in for her re-election. So you did not benefit and no one you know has... I guess that covers NY.

Again it is very easy to criticize and not find anything positive about the party or person you dont particularly like. So we play this game of destruction instead of asking about anything positive. Which is exactly why politicians use Ads to slay opponents, instead of stating what they have done and will do. Its much easier to bust a bridge apart than to build one. Thats why I hate politics. Because as one reads this thread, it is clear that kicking is easier than applying a cast.

Its the same thing Dems do with Iraq. And your plan? Oh... the plans start to arise after Bush has made a decision about how to clean up a mess. But first all we do is just scream about the mess, with now idea how to clean the mess up.
Just leave Iraq immediately. Quite a plan... Very well thought out. Less well thought out than the plan to send only 120,000 troops in the first place, when 350,000 were recommended by a number of Generals. How many Democrats stood up and said this is clearly not enough troops after voting yes...?
I prefer builders, not destroyers. So lets see the smearing continue... because its so damn easy.

It's a fair point about the Dems and Iraq, pgardn, and while I'm sure there's a great deal of schadenfreude, watching Bush, after all his nasty, divisive campaigns, imploding in on his own incompetency, it sure isn't helping the situation over there.

If you were a Dem, (or a Repub, for that matter, in this hypothetical it doesn't matter) with a great interest in keeping your job, what would you do in this situation? A majority of Americans want the troops out now, and the situation over there be damned. Any sort of increase in troops is a hugely unpopular decision. So, how would you go about stating your case that what is needed is more young men and women over there? I don't mean this as an accusation, so no throwing insults, Bababooyee (teasing wink). It's a real question.

(I agree with the position, by the way, that more troops were needed, not fewer, but I think the time was back in 2003 and I'm not sure if it would make any difference now. I wonder if the Dems are sitting back and watching the thing implode because they really have no idea how to fix this mess. I don't.)

#10 01-21-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's a fair point about the Dems and Iraq, pgardn, and while I'm sure there's a great deal of schadenfreude, watching Bush, after all his nasty, divisive campaigns, imploding in on his own incompetency, it sure isn't helping the situation over there.

If you were a Dem, (or a Repub, for that matter, in this hypothetical it doesn't matter) with a great interest in keeping your job, what would you do in this situation? A majority of Americans want the troops out now, and the situation over there be damned. Any sort of increase in troops is a hugely unpopular decision. So, how would you go about stating your case that what is needed is more young men and women over there? I don't mean this as an accusation, so no throwing insults, Bababooyee (teasing wink). It's a real question.

(I agree with the position, by the way, that more troops were needed, not fewer, but I think the time was back in 2003 and I'm not sure if it would make any difference now. I wonder if the Dems are sitting back and watching the thing implode because they really have no idea how to fix this mess. I don't.)

I think the decision for more troops makes sense, especially with the must cooperate clause. The extra troops will be used to free up more troops for Baghdad. The explaination of clearing key neighborhoods of weapons and then staying and not allowing insurgents back in(they have another fancy name for it) sounds very reasonable.

However, I think it will fail because "we" are too far down the hill now to climb back. The Iraqi government is clearly pro Shiite and is showing signs of not cooperating (this is our out) which will lead to the eventual pullout within 2-3 years based on what I have read. Saudi Arabi and othe pro Sunni governments will make sure the Shiites dont get complete control via bloodshed. The Iraqis will have to suffer much more until the Shiites realize they must come to the table because of immense suffering. The Sunnis will suffer greatly with the Shiite gov. in power allowing death squads to take out neighborhoods that are Sunni dominated and will spill the blood via their own insurgent groups supplied by the aforementioned governments, and possibly our government after we get clear.
The Arabs and Iranians will have to get this solved eventually.

My take.

Now if the Shiites in power decide to get rid of Sadr somehow and have had enough and do cooperate with us in trying to form a coalition government that splits oil revenue fairly and agrees to fairly crack down on the insurgent groups from both religious factions we will be in for longer than 2-3 years no matter who is elected. ONe cannot pullout if the situation actually starts to improve. But... I dont think the people in power have suffered enough directly to cooperate for peace.

So in conclusion: Give it a try, assess cooperation, leave because I dont think their will be cooperation. A total pullout will not allow the outside parties mentioned to solve the situation. It will be in the interest of both the Arab States and Iranians, to get the problem solved after we leave.

Downthestretch55 · #11 01-21-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

I think the decision for more troops makes sense, especially with the must cooperate clause. The extra troops will be used to free up more troops for Baghdad. The explaination of clearing key neighborhoods of weapons and then staying and not allowing insurgents back in(they have another fancy name for it) sounds very reasonable.

However, I think it will fail because "we" are too far down the hill now to climb back. The Iraqi government is clearly pro Shiite and is showing signs of not cooperating (this is our out) which will lead to the eventual pullout within 2-3 years based on what I have read. Saudi Arabi and othe pro Sunni governments will make sure the Shiites dont get complete control via bloodshed. The Iraqis will have to suffer much more until the Shiites realize they must come to the table because of immense suffering. The Sunnis will suffer greatly with the Shiite gov. in power allowing death squads to take out neighborhoods that are Sunni dominated and will spill the blood via their own insurgent groups supplied by the aforementioned governments, and possibly our government after we get clear.
The Arabs and Iranians will have to get this solved eventually.

My take.

Now if the Shiites in power decide to get rid of Sadr somehow and have had enough and do cooperate with us in trying to form a coalition government that splits oil revenue fairly and agrees to fairly crack down on the insurgent groups from both religious factions we will be in for longer than 2-3 years no matter who is elected. ONe cannot pullout if the situation actually starts to improve. But... I dont think the people in power have suffered enough directly to cooperate for peace.

So in conclusion: Give it a try, assess cooperation, leave because I dont think their will be cooperation. A total pullout will not allow the outside parties mentioned to solve the situation. It will be in the interest of both the Arab States and Iranians, to get the problem solved after we leave.

Pgardn,
That was a bit long winded, but I agree with a couple of things you said.
Yes, agree that it will fail. Cooperate for peace? Keep dreamin'.
Leave? It's now or later.
So, are the lives that we continue to throw into that firestorm buying time before there's an admission? And, what IS the "mission da jour"?

#12 01-21-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
So, are the lives that we continue to throw into that firestorm buying time before there's an admission? And, what IS the "mission da jour"?

If we just up and pulled everyone right now DTS, you think that will save more innocent people from dying? You appear to care about lives lost. If we just pulled out, do you have any idea how many INNOCENT Iraqis get slaughtered? The ones without the guns?

We made a mess. We have a responsibility to at least try and stabilize in some manner before we get out. And this is a last ditch effort. Once the other parties know we are leaving, and they feel in a position of strength, slaughters will occur. If they feel it has gone on long enough, and enough insurgent groups are decapitated, fewer will die.

But it would be an attrocity to pull out immediately. And if this last effort goes terribly bad, we still might have an attrocity. But no guilt will be associated with cut and run, letem get slaughtered. Maybe I care about a wider range of people than you.

Downthestretch55 · #13 01-21-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

If we just up and pulled everyone right now DTS, you think that will save more innocent people from dying? You appear to care about lives lost. If we just pulled out, do you have any idea how many INNOCENT Iraqis get slaughtered? The ones without the guns?

We made a mess. We have a responsibility to at least try and stabilize in some manner before we get out. And this is a last ditch effort. Once the other parties know we are leaving, and they feel in a position of strength, slaughters will occur. If they feel it has gone on long enough, and enough insurgent groups are decapitated, fewer will die.

But it would be an attrocity to pull out immediately. And if this last effort goes terribly bad, we still might have an attrocity. But no guilt will be associated with cut and run, letem get slaughtered. Maybe I care about a wider range of people than you.

Pgardn,
You pose some interesting questions.
Answer to the one about innocent Iraqis getting slaughtered...last I read, the Johns-Hopkins one... seems to me that 650,000 should be more than enough to pay back for 9-11, even though the Iraqis weren't involved. Lancet's numbers are similar.
Heck, lets just kill a couple of hundred thousand more if it make you and Dubby sleep better. It's a "just cause" after all.
Question number two...Pat, I didn't make this mess...geesh, I didn't even vote for that dictator/err loser/err war criminal,,,nyuk, nyuck. I wish he's go hunting with his vice president. That would solve some problems.
Question three...Do you really believe there is any more that can be done to "stabalize" that debacle? If you do, good luck on that. Let me tell you, I believe in the Easter bunny too. Let's just throw a few more thousand American kids at this. They believe as well. Dorothy was told how to get home, remember? Click your heels three times and repeat, I wish I was home, I wish I was home.
And another answer..."cut and run" was the label that the failed administration accused others of (Murtha, and others that could see through the charade and labels), those that had some sense to speak against the insanity.
You might not agree with me. Many don't. More do lately (70%).
I can't wait for the World Court to begin the trials.
The rest of the world is onto the "game". They'll want answers too.
As I've said before, genocide is easily justified. It still doesn't make it right.