Dumb Dems "shocked" by Hillary's "maybe"

[Nie Trink Wasser]

this is probably one the most phony scripts to come along in a while. Who in their right mind would be "shocked" by this bs ?

Isnt it obvoius that they're hoping for some soap opera drama and oh so dramatic tension in the media about whether or not this bowl of soup is going to run for president ?

these headlines are becoming so stupid, yet all the Dems keep acting astonished and shocked by something as predictable as this.

yet another case of how uttery scripted and phony liberals can be.

and the situation just keeps getting repeated in the press as if its something important.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/118624p-106901c.html

Bill on Hil: It's a maybe

His hint she may run in '04 shocks Dems

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT


Sen. Hillary Clinton talks to Queen Rania of Jordan.

Clinton loyalists were startled yesterday to hear former President Bill Clinton suggest that his wife hasn't made up her mind yet about running for the White House.

[Suddenly]

I'd be shocked if she ran. Mainly because I doubt she has a chance.

She seems a conniving, mean, ambitious, sneaky, b*itch that usually gets what she wants. I'd vote for her. Heck, I'd vote for her just because I'd like to see Rush Limbaugh's head explode. I suspect all that blather on FOX news about respecting the presidency would go right out the window. I'll give 2-1 they start calling for violent overthrow of the government. I'm giddy just thinking about it.

It won't happen in 2004. If she tries it will just make it harder for her when she runs down the road. :(

[Sundog]

I wish she wouldn't. I'd like to see her get more experience first.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I'd be shocked if she ran. Mainly because I doubt she has a chance.

She seems a conniving, mean, ambitious, sneaky, b*itch that usually gets what she wants. I'd vote for her. Heck, I'd vote for her just because I'd like to see Rush Limbaugh's head explode. I suspect all that blather on FOX news about respecting the presidency would go right out the window. I'll give 2-1 they start calling for violent overthrow of the government. I'm giddy just thinking about it.

It won't happen in 2004. If she tries it will just make it harder for her when she runs down the road. :(



you liberals and your little social experiments.
her campaign/position is a starring film role to her and most liberals. It's comical that people would simply vote for her just to see how it would f**k everything up.

[Tony]

If she really loves america, she'll commit suicide before she has a chance to run.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony
If she really loves america, she'll commit suicide before she has a chance to run.

You still haven't explained to me why you dislike her so.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


You still haven't explained to me why you dislike her so.

Yes I did (im pretty sure).

[shemp]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser




you liberals and your little social experiments.
her campaign/position is a starring film role to her and most liberals. It's comical that people would simply vote for her just to see how it would f**k everything up.

And how would YOU f**K everything up? Oh, we already know, never mind.

[DavidJames]

Tony & NTW - Just curious, do you guys think you are a fair representation of how conservatives think in the U.S?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by shemp
And how would YOU f**K everything up? Oh, we already know, never mind. [/B]

where's joke ?

oh, it's shimp.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Tony & NTW - Just curious, do you guys think you are a fair representation of how conservatives think in the U.S?


maybe. That's not a simple yes or no question.

I think its interesting to note that none of the other conservatives here (besides maybe Kodiak) even take a liking to me.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Tony & NTW - Just curious, do you guys think you are a fair representation of how conservatives think in the U.S?

I don't think so. Kodiak, corplinx and some others are probably more representative of the mainstream.

[wollery]

I think she'll lose so I hope that she runs, partly because I wouldn't like her to go down in history as the first female president (not that I think she'd be that bad, just that I think that that honour should go to a woman who can be seen as having made it on her own and not on the coat tails of her husband the former president), but mainly because it means that Bush will get a second term, and when he really stuffs it up the conservatives won't be able to blame anybody else for it!

[shemp]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


where's joke ?

oh, it's shimp.

That's MR. SHIMP to you pal!

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Tony & NTW - Just curious, do you guys think you are a fair representation of how conservatives think in the U.S?


Im not a conservative.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Sundog

I don't think so. Kodiak, corplinx and some others are probably more representative of the mainstream.
True. The mainstream conservatives probably think of NTW and Tony like a family thinks of the annoying uncle who always shows up at family gatherings and gets drunk.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

I'm not a conservative. I'm not a conservative!
But you are dressed as one!

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by shemp


That's MR. GIMP to you pal!

why Mr. Gimp ?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

But you are dressed as one!

How?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tricky

But you are dressed as one!

I think Tony is actually a closeted Liberal. He'll come out one day.;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


I think Tony is actually a closeted Liberal. He'll come out one day.;)

Ive already come out of the closet and said I am liberal, Im just not a leftist or socio-fascist that some of the "liberals" here are.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


Ive already come out of the closet and said I am liberal, Im just not a leftist or socio-fascist that some of the "liberals" here are.

Strange, that's how I describe myself, but we don't seem to agree on much.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


Ive already come out of the closet and said I am liberal, Im just not a leftist or socio-fascist that some of the "liberals" here are.

Well excellent, we have a lot in common since I'm not a "leftist or socio-fascist" either. Just a good old fashioned liberal like you.
Alright, Liberals Unite!!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


Strange, that's how I describe myself, but we don't seem to agree on much.


Most "liberals" only call them selves liberal because they agree with politicians who call them selves "liberal". The "liberal" politicians are no more liberal that the "conservatives".

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Well excellent, we have a lot in common since I'm not a "leftist or socio-fascist" either. Just a good old fashioned liberal like you.
Alright, Liberals Unite!!

*barfs*

i think I respect Tony much more now than the mob-squad operating under the term "liberal".

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
How?
Oh, how shall I count the ways,
No its not, the PC nazis and racial special interest groups use the exact same tactics. That era gave birth to the lefts favorite tactics.
Originally posted by Sundog

But we have to remember that we are Democrats.

Otherwise known as limp dicks.

I dont have a problem with (illegals) being here either as long as they dont get tax payer money in the form of welfare, medicare ect..

Hillary Clinton is a c**t and Al Franken is a skinnier Michael moore with thicker glasses.

Great all we need is another freedom hating beaurocrat.

and how can we forget:
"The peace camp is objectively pro-fascist"
-----George Orwell 1942

[Clancie]

Bill Clinton says there are currently two stars of the Democratic Party--his wife and Wesley Clark.

Since Clark is running for President now :) I'm sure BC will advise her against declaring, too. (And, yes, I think she'd lose in 2004. Clark, on the other hand, may very well win! :roll: ).

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser




you liberals and your little social experiments.
her campaign/position is a starring film role to her and most liberals. It's comical that people would simply vote for her just to see how it would f**k everything up.

Yeah. Next thing you know the economy will be in tatters, world opinion of the U.S. will go into the toilet, and our military will be stuck on some poorly planned "nation building" mission.

Wait a minute.....

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony
If she really loves america, she'll commit suicide before she has a chance to run.

Man you are sick.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Oh, how shall I count the ways,









and how can we forget:




:dl:

I apologize for taking you seriously.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
:dl:

I apologize for taking you seriously.
Those are conservative positions, Tony. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Ich Trink Urine


i think I want to have sex with Tony much more now and i want to become a liberal.

Two can play this game pal.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tricky

Those are conservative positions, Tony. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Hal, when can we have a fascist smiley ?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by shimp
Two can play in my ass pal. [/B]

shimp, no.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Those are conservative positions, Tony. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Those are not conservative positions, hell, they aren't even positions, they are random quotes taken out of context.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I think its interesting to note that none of the other conservatives here (besides maybe Kodiak) even take a liking to me. I just think you're rude and obnoxious. I don't associate with rude people. It's as simple as that.

As for Hillary running for president, I don't think she has much of a chance. Howard Dean and Wesley Clark have much better chances than her, because both of them have backgrounds and experience that would serve them well as president.

Just off the top of my head, thinking of her background:

Has she ever managed an executive branch of government? Has she ever managed any sort of large bureau? Has she ever successfully run a military campaign? Has she ever seen one of her policy initiatives become law? Has she ever been responsible for setting the vision and goals for a large organization? Has she served as an ambassador?

Those are just a few areas that will give a person the skill set necessary to do a good job as president. She, like her husband, is an astute politician, but that does not qualify her to run the country.

[Dancing David]

Hillary, scares me slightly less than Joe Lieberman, where is John Anderson?

Oh, well, i am probably going to piss my vote down the toilet.

[jj]

Originally posted by Sundog


I don't think so. Kodiak, corplinx and some others are probably more representative of the mainstream.

Unfortunately,
None of them talk with others
They just shout loudly.

Listen they will not.
Argue, that they will always.
Reason? I'm not sure!

[CapelDodger]

From Nie Trink Wasser:
and the situation just keeps getting repeated in the press as if its something important.
It's even cropped up on the JREF Forum.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony


Those are not conservative positions, hell, they aren't even positions, they are random quotes taken out of context.

I'd like to ask a more constructive question, Tony, what do you consider a liberal, or at least your kind?

What do they believe in, what are their positions on, say, a handful of current controversial topics?

[Zep]

Commander Cool, if I may, I'd like to take a quote from your post above which I think has perceptive questions, and ask it of the incumbent CONSERVATIVE president (and his vice president too, come to think of it).
Has he ever managed an executive branch of government? Has he ever managed any sort of large bureau? Has he ever successfully run a military campaign? Has he ever seen one of his policy initiatives become law? Has he ever been responsible for setting the vision and goals for a large organization? Has he served as an ambassador?NTW, what's the answers here, please?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


*barfs*

i think I respect Tony much more now than the mob-squad operating under the term "liberal".

Hey, he's the one who called himself a liberal, not me.

[DavidJames]

"where is John Anderson?"

Hey, I voted for him when he ran for president :)

[schplurg]

Nie:
I think its interesting to note that none of the other conservatives here (besides maybe Kodiak) even take a liking to me.
It's possibly due to that avatar...gives me the willies. I agree that it is hard to believe that anyone is "shocked" by this game Hillary is playing...it's like a bad sitcom.

Perhaps it is in Hillary's best interest that Bush wins so that she won't have to run against an incumbent in 2008. I think she's setting her sights on that election and anything she does now is in preparation for this...UNLESS she truly thinks that her, or any Dem, can beat Bush in 2004. Depends on Bush's popularity at the time, and she won't announce until she has to.

My crazy theory at this moment.

[peptoabysmal]

Sheesh, if this keeps up, there will be as many running for the Democratic Primaries as there are for Governor of California in the recall election.

Come to think of it, if the 9th Circuit Court gets it's way, those two events will happen at the same time, anyway.

<<<shrug>>>

[gnome]

Tony, you out there...? I had what I thought was a pretty useful question for you back there...

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome
Tony, you out there...? I had what I thought was a pretty useful question for you back there...


You asked:

I'd like to ask a more constructive question, Tony, what do you consider a liberal, or at least your kind?

What do they believe in, what are their positions on, say, a handful of current controversial topics?

I think the definition of the word liberal is a good place to start.

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

I think the 5th definition is the most appropriate.


Their positions on controversial topics would generally revolve around that.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony



You asked:



I think the definition of the word liberal is a good place to start.

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

I think the 5th definition is the most appropriate.


Their positions on controversial topics would generally revolve around that.

Yes, thank you, and that helps. But there are lots of ways to translate that 5th definition into actual positions, what choices do you make based on this principle... I say a handful of controversial topics to allow you to pick which ones are main points for you.

[VicDaring]

Pardon me. If I may, I have a question about the title of this thread.

When, precisely, did Hillary ever say "maybe" on 2004. And what were her exact words?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Pardon me. If I may, I have a question about the title of this thread.

When, precisely, did Hillary ever say "maybe" on 2004. And what were her exact words?
She never has. Hillary has said repeatedly that she plans to finish out her senate term. It is the failure of others (notably Bill) to rule out a run that has sent the Clintaphobes into a tizzy. This is not surprising. Most candidates start a "buzz" before they declare and some even deny it up until the last moment when they say that they "could no longer ignore the voice of the people". This may happen with Ms. Clinton, but I doubt it. She has little or no chance of winning this election and is not so stupid as to waste her chance on a hopeless election. What will be interesting will be to see who, if anybody, she throws her support to. Kingmaker Clinton, anyone?

I don't know that she will ever run. She may discover that the power of being a Senator is enough to satisfy her. We have seen before what a single Senator can do to pass or halt legislation. Besides, she will have an easier time keeping the people of New York behind her than she will rallying the rest of the country behind her.

But this topic was started simply because some folks simply can't let go of the Clintons. The were so much fun to attack and the brave character assassins could say absolutely anything (even accusing them of multiple murders), no matter how ridiculous or slimy because it was the Clintons! There is no Democrat in the limelight today that can replace them as the Punching-Bag-In-Chief, and the guttersnipers are suffering from withdrawal. Oh, yeah, Ted Kennedy is always good for a quick mudball or two, but it is simply not as satisfying.