Hillary again. Why do Liberals hate America?

[Silicon]

The Army has identified 129 wounded soldiers who mistakenly received bills for expenses upon returning home from wars — in some cases instead of final paychecks — and it has forgiven their debts.


...


(Hillary Clinton) The Democrat from New York intervened in the case of Spc. Robert Loria, who lost his arm in Iraq. In December, as Loria was about to be discharged from the Army, officials told the 27-year-old soldier from Middletown, N.Y. that he owed nearly $1,800 in expenses.

Loria, who was wounded last February, had expected to get a check for nearly $4,500.

...


But after Clinton's office received other similar complaints, she sent a letter to the Army on Jan. 19 asking what procedures were in place to avoid similar cases. She said the complaints she had heard "suggest serious systemic problems."



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050207/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/wounded_soldiers


MAN I hate that Hillary. Who does she think she is questioning the Army?!!

If it wasn't for the Army, she wouldn't have ANY freedoms at all. Including the freedom to question the ARMY!


MAN I HATE THAT B*** HILLARY!!! HILLARY HILLARY AAAAAAAUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!




/freeper

[Random]

I want to know why Republicans hate Hillary so much. It’s not as if she is really worse than any of the rest of the Democratic Party.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Random
I want to know why Republicans hate Hillary so much. It’s not as if she is really worse than any of the rest of the Democratic Party.

I love Hillary. She's gonna get Condi elected. :D

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jocko
I love Hillary. She's gonna get Condi elected. :D

*snicker* Yeah, and I bet the Bengals are gonna win the Super Bowl next year, too...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Random
I want to know why Republicans hate Hillary so much. It’s not as if she is really worse than any of the rest of the Democratic Party.

Some of us don't. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=349384&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending)

[hgc]

All hair the Army! Your civilian leaders are useless! The Army is fighting the war that gives you freedom, against Eurasia, er wait a minute, against Eastasia.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by hgc
All hair the Army!

I have no response. I just want to save that typo before you fix it. :D

[Moon-Spinner]

I'm still trying to figure out the Anti-Hillary flap. I live in New York State, and the Hillary hatred was widespread and senseless. During the Senatorial race, the Republican Party would send mail to people asking for money to “Help put that criminal Hillary in jail before she gets elected.� Obviously, they thought she stood a good chance of getting elected. Most people didn’t even care what the issues were, and they wouldn’t watch the debates between her and Rick Lazio, they just knew that Hillary was evil (because Rush Limbaugh told them so). When people were asked why they wouldn’t vote for Hillary, the most common answer was “Well, she’s not a native New Yorker!�, yet she did her homework, and had a better grasp of the issues than Rick Lazio.

I’m not trying to promote Hillary, but just wanted to point out some of the absurdities coming from the Anti-Hillary people.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Cleon
I have no response. I just want to save that typo before you fix it. :D
Given that his message is also possessed of an overall authoritative tone, I'd suggest that the "typo" is, to the contrary of what is typical of the definition of a typo, intentional and in fact a hint toward hgc's detection of the invocation of the dictatorial and arrogant spirit of Kim Jong-Il to be found in American foreign policy. :D

[hgc]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Given that his message is also possessed of an overall authoritative tone, I'd suggest that the "typo" is, to the contrary of what is typical of the definition of a typo, intentional and in fact a hint toward hgc's detection of the invocation of the dictatorial and arrogant spirit of Kim Jong-Il to be found in American foreign policy. :D I don't know what he said, but it smells like chocolate chip cookies.

[LeFevre]

Don't ask why republicans hate her, go to democratic underground and ask why so many over there hate one of their own.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cleon
*snicker* Yeah, and I bet the Bengals are gonna win the Super Bowl next year, too...

All depends on who the other team is, now doesn't it?

Seriously, if we learned anything these last few months, it that the DNC is considerably less stringent in its top-slot requirements than the NFC. With the possible exception of the Vikings. How the hell did they squeak in, anyway?

[corplinx]

Who is Hillary anyway? She's been on the national scene for around 14 years. I still have no idea who she is and what she's about.

She was a first lady for 8 years. She's been in the senate a few years and was put on select committees to fasttrack her presidential run.

I still ask, who is Hillary? I'm tired of watching this manufactured candidate getting shoved down our collective throats. The posturing she's doing now with prolife groups is really baffling me.

The Rush Limbaugh's of the world see sinister intentions behind everything she does. They see her bowel movements as signs of how her presidental run is shaping up. I think these guys are full of crap.

Its frankly apparent that Hillary is moving to the center and perhaps trying to adopt a populist moderate position. 75 percent of what I hear about her is just pure crap though.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Jocko
All depends on who the other team is, now doesn't it?

Seriously, if we learned anything these last few months, it that the DNC is considerably less stringent in its top-slot requirements than the NFC. With the possible exception of the Vikings. How the hell did they squeak in, anyway?

Because the pool the NFC had to draw from was sh...pectacularly loushy. Alsho, he meansh sha Brownsh. Weish ish now sha head coach.

Hey look, Sen. Clinton doesn't completely suck. What a surprise.[/sarcasm]

What exactly made her Satan's bride again? I forget. (The (D) next to her name not withstanding.)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by corplinx

Its frankly apparent that Hillary is moving to the center and perhaps trying to adopt a populist moderate position.

How is that frankly apparant when you said above that you don't know who she is?

Personally, I don't give a flip about her, because she's not my senator. I don't think there's anything pro or against her that I even know about, but I do think it's humorous that people seem to think she's making a big leap right when they couldn't even tell you where she was before that.


Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat. He brought us NAFTA, he cut the budget. He ushered in welfare reform. He signed (irony) the Defense of Marriage Act. He kept Greenspan in charge of the Fed. He headed the Centrist Democratic Leadership Council before winning the nomination.


I don't think it's crazy to assume that Hillary was then and possibly is now a centrist too.

[clk]

Originally posted by Jocko
I love Hillary. She's gonna get Condi elected. :D

Republicans are going to vote for an African American woman? Har-har! It will be a cold day in hell when that happens.


posted by Random

I want to know why Republicans hate Hillary so much.


Republicans do not like peace and prosperity. That is why they were miserable during the Clinton years but love it now.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by clk

Republicans do not like peace and prosperity. That is why they were miserable during the Clinton years but love it now.
From the 2001 State of the U(o)nion speech...

Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."



http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html

[clk]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
From the 2001 State of the U(o)nion speech...
Heh heh, great link.
Was that article really published by The Onion in January 2001? If so, they made some accurate predictions even though they weren't being serious:

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by clk


Was that article really published by The Onion in January 2001?
Yup. I remember that one.

Sometimes I miss living in Madison, Wisconsin, where the Onion was born. Still free on newstands everywhere there.

[Nasarius]

I don't think it's crazy to assume that Hillary was then and possibly is now a centrist too.

Indeed. Chuck Schumer is probably our more liberal senator, depending on whose ratings you judge by (see vote-smart.org), and he isn't exactly a raving liberal.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H2661103

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by corplinx

It's frankly apparent that Hillary is moving to the center...I agree. Back in 1964 Hillary was a Republican and a Goldwater supporter. It seems evident that in the years since then she has matured in her thinking and moved closer to the center.
Washington Post, Thursday, July 28, 1994 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm)

... Hillary Clinton ... was an ardent Goldwater supporter in 1964...(I recall reading this, in greater detail, back in 1992 during Clinton's first presidential campaign. I don't have time to dig out anything from then, but this 1994 item confirms my recollection.)

[Perforatu]

Originally posted by clk
Heh heh, great link.
Was that article really published by The Onion in January 2001? If so, they made some accurate predictions even though they weren't being serious:
Oh yeah. The Onion made a few remarkably accurate predictions about the Bush administration, simply by taking what they thought was the most cynical viewpoint imaginable. Check out this excerpt:

"I know my dad made a bundle off the Gulf War," Bush continued. "But I guess it wasn't through the job. I'll have to ask him just exactly how he did it. Maybe something like that would work again."
- Excerpt from Bush Horrified To Learn Presidential Salary, published sometime in 2000

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by corplinx
They see her bowel movements as signs of how her presidental run is shaping up. I think these guys are full of crap.

(...snip...)
75 percent of what I hear about her is just pure crap though.Do I detect an unusual fixation here?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Nova Land
I agree. Back in 1964 Hillary was a Republican and a Goldwater supporter. It seems evident that in the years since then she has matured in her thinking and moved closer to the center.

I said she was moving to the center based on older quotes I've heard her make about abortion and the conciliatory pro-choice in pro-life clothing stance she is taking now.

I could have her confused with someone else, I'll have to do a nexus search on her and abortion to be sure.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Nova Land
I agree. Back in 1964 Hillary was a Republican and a Goldwater supporter. It seems evident that in the years since then she has matured in her thinking and moved closer to the center.

The center being a woo believes in a vast right wing conspiracy? Sounds like she swung from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Of course, we only have words to judge her by and not deeds so its not conclusive.

[Random]

Originally posted by corplinx
The center being a woo believes in a vast right wing conspiracy? Sounds like she swung from one end of the spectrum to the other.


There was no vast right wing conspiracy. It only took three or four people.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Random
There was no vast right wing conspiracy. It only took three or four people.

Nonsense. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, G, Gordon Liddy, Bill O'Reilly, Colonel Sanders, Ken Star, a federal grand jury, and a federal judge were all getting their marching orders from Roger Ailes as part of the conspiracy.

[headscratcher4]

Who does she think she is questioning the Army?!!

A US Senator...one of the duties of that job is government oversight. Don't know the specifics, but if she thinks that there is a problem in how the Army is managing a program, system, budget, etc. I would expect her to ask the Army for an explaination. It is what members of Congress from both parties do...they all need to do more of it.

Would you ask a Republican Senator what business they have questioning the Army? Or, is it just because she's a woman?

BTW, conservative must "hate" America as well...otherwise, why would they be trying so hard to change it?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by clk
Republicans are going to vote for an African American woman? Har-har! It will be a cold day in hell when that happens.

I'll take that bet.


Republicans do not like peace and prosperity. That is why they were miserable during the Clinton years but love it now.

And apparently Democrats do not like winning, which is why they keep fielding hardcore leftie losers with mealy-mouthed agendas and zero vision.

And if you think Clinton had anything to do with the prosperity of the 90's *cough*interneteconomy*cough* then you're sure to be front and center to support Hillary. My hat goes off to you, but the gray matter beneath it will stay right here, thankyouverymuch.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by corplinx
Nonsense. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, G, Gordon Liddy, Bill O'Reilly, Colonel Sanders, Ken Star, a federal grand jury, and a federal judge were all getting their marching orders from Roger Ailes as part of the conspiracy.

Oh, how I hated the Colonel with his wee beady eyes... "Oh, you're gonna eat my chicken, ohhhh..."

A cookie to the first one to identify that movie! :D

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jocko
Oh, how I hated the Colonel with his wee beady eyes... "Oh, you're gonna eat my chicken, ohhhh..."

A cookie to the first one to identify that movie! :D

Let me be clear, all of these guys are woos to me. Clinton thought his presidency was divine providence. Bush doesn't believe in freedom because it works best, he believes in it because he thinks freedom is god's wish for man and the prosperity it brings is gods blessing.

I think Hillary's right wing conspiracy is kooky compared to the religious woo of her husband and Bush2 since their views are kinda commonplace for a country that still hasn't shed its puritan roots.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Jocko
Oh, how I hated the Colonel with his wee beady eyes... "Oh, you're gonna eat my chicken, ohhhh..."

A cookie to the first one to identify that movie! :D

Fat Bastard, in Austin Power's The Spy Who Shagged Me.


(Might be Goldmember, but I'm not going to cheat by googling.)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Furious
Fat Bastard, in Austin Power's The Spy Who Shagged Me.


(Might be Goldmember, but I'm not going to cheat by googling.)

Right actor, wrong flick. Same accent, though!

So I Married an Axe Murderer - hear the line here (http://sounds.wavcentral.com/movies/axemurderer/hatedcolonel.mp3)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by corplinx
Let me be clear, all of these guys are woos to me. Clinton thought his presidency was divine providence. Bush doesn't believe in freedom because it works best, he believes in it because he thinks freedom is god's wish for man and the prosperity it brings is gods blessing.

I think Hillary's right wing conspiracy is kooky compared to the religious woo of her husband and Bush2 since their views are kinda commonplace for a country that still hasn't shed its puritan roots.

A point well taken. No one can definitively prove that God didn't/doesn't guide Clinton or Bush, but I think the vast right-wing conspiracy nonsense has been pretty well retired as anything but irrational paranoia.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jocko
A point well taken. No one can definitively prove that God didn't/doesn't guide Clinton or Bush

That's the point, the skeptic says the burden of proof is on them. Their claims don't seem sensational since their beliefs are so entwined in the culture but they are extraordinary claims nonetheless.

[jj]

Why is there no special persecutor regarding the national guard paperwork?

Really!

As to Hillary, I wasn't aware she had the brains to support Goldwater. That's a big step up for her in my book.

Don't forget, Republicans, you threw Barry Goldwater out of the Republican party a few years ago!

That's right, you threw out the man who was "too conservative to be president" as too liberal.

Shows you how far into right-wing extremism this country has gone, doesn't it?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by clk
Republicans are going to vote for an African American woman? Har-har! It will be a cold day in hell when that happens.


Hmmmm...Republicans have been voting blacks and women into office for quite some time now...are you sure it is they who has the problem with a black woman as President?

[clk]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Hmmmm...Republicans have been voting blacks and women into office for quite some time now...are you sure it is they who has the problem with a black woman as President?

I have a hard time believing that alot of hardcore right wing Southern voters will vote for Condi. I mean, Strom Thurmond was practically a hero to Republicans, despite some of the controversial things he said:

"And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n*gger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches."
Thurmond in 1948


So it seems clear that some racial tensions still exist, since Thurmond was embraced right up until he died.
As for me, I wouldn't mind having a black President. In fact, I would like to see Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) run in the future. I would vote for him.

[clk]

Originally posted by Jocko


And apparently Democrats do not like winning, which is why they keep fielding hardcore leftie losers with mealy-mouthed agendas and zero vision.


If Kerry was such a 'hardcore leftie', then why did he want McCain to be his VP? And if the Democrats are so fond of running 'hardcore leftie' candidates, why didn't they choose Dean over Kerry?


And if you think Clinton had anything to do with the prosperity of the 90's *cough*interneteconomy*cough*


Yeah, Clinton had nothing to do with the tech boom. In fact, this report written in 1993 outines how Clinton hurt tech development in the US. He kept putting money into technology research, which of course is completely useless.


The Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP), launched in March to stimulate the transition to a "growing, integrated, national industrial capability," is devoting over 85 percent of its $472 million budget to technology development and deployment activities. Managed by the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in cooperation with five other Federal agencies, the TRP elicited 2,850 proposals of projects seeking a total of $8.5 billion in Federal matching funds. The majority of proposals nearly 2,000 were in the category of technology development for creating new technologies with the potential for commercialization in 5 years. In late October, the President approved the first projects selected for funding.


Clinton and Gore also had these crazy visions in the early nineties.


Facilitating the development of a National Information Infrastructure (NII) is a top Administration priority, a necessity for economic growth in the 21st century. A web of advanced communications networks that will put vast amounts of information in all its forms at users' fingertips, the NII will spawn a range of benefits and contribute directly to economic growth, U.S. technological strength, and the creation of productive jobs. As explained on pages 41 to 47, the Administration released in September an agenda for action that assigns to the private sector the lead role in developing and deploying the NII. The Federal Government's role will be to complement and enhance private-sector activities by creating a favorable regulatory and policy environment, supporting advanced research, developing applications that improve access to government services, and procuring leading-edge NII hardware and software.


A 'web of advanced networks'?? WTF is that? Clinton must have been smoking crack or something.
http://www.ibiblio.org/darlene/tech/report3.html

[clk]

After a bit of research, I found out that the National Information Infrastructure (NII) was nothing but a crazy pipe dream. Here is the executive summary of the NII agenda, created in the early 1990s by Clinton:

All Americans have a stake in the construction of an advanced National Information Infrastructure (NII), a seamless web of communications networks, computers, databases, and consumer electronics that will put vast amounts of information at users' fingertips. Development of the NII can help unleash an information revolution that will change forever the way people live, work, and interact with each other:

* People could live almost anywhere they wanted, without foregoing opportunities for useful and fulfilling employment, by "telecommuting" to their offices through an electronic highway;


An 'electronic highway'? 'Telecommuting'? WTF is that sh*t? Man, Clinton and Gore shouldn't have wasted money on this crap. I think the whole NII Agenda, drafted by Clinton, was a huge waste of money and resources, wouldn't you agree, Jocko?
http://www.ibiblio.org/nii/toc.html

[Jocko]

Originally posted by clk
If Kerry was such a 'hardcore leftie', then why did he want McCain to be his VP? And if the Democrats are so fond of running 'hardcore leftie' candidates, why didn't they choose Dean over Kerry?

McCain: a desperate attempt to get a non-corpse on the ticket.
Dean: Too outsider. The Clintons still ran the DNC through McAuliffe.


Yeah, Clinton had nothing to do with the tech boom. In fact, this report written in 1993 outines how Clinton hurt tech development in the US. He kept putting money into technology research, which of course is completely useless.

He had the brains to keep his mitts off, tax-wise, but that's all. If someone discovers a whole new economic segment every 10 years, we'll never have another recession ever again. Sadly, it just doesn't work that way. Come on, you're starting to sound like Al Gore inventing the internet here.

Clinton and Gore also had these crazy visions in the early nineties.



A 'web of advanced networks'?? WTF is that? Clinton must have been smoking crack or something.
http://www.ibiblio.org/darlene/tech/report3.html

The US MILITARY invented the internet. Their budget decision 10-20 years earlier would have strangled it in its cradle. Your point? Mine was that Dems have had a habitual trend lately of fiedling hardcore lefty losers.

At least the Repubs learned after the Dole fiasco.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by clk
After a bit of research, I found out that the National Information Infrastructure (NII) was nothing but a crazy pipe dream. Here is the executive summary of the NII agenda, created in the early 1990s by Clinton:


An 'electronic highway'? 'Telecommuting'? WTF is that sh*t? Man, Clinton and Gore shouldn't have wasted money on this crap. I think the whole NII Agenda, drafted by Clinton, was a huge waste of money and resources, wouldn't you agree, Jocko?
http://www.ibiblio.org/nii/toc.html

It's up there with the flying cars and meals in a pill. Pipe dreams that will occur someday, but funding the utopian while ignoring the practical gets you... well, not much.

I must repeat I admire Clinton for keeping his hands off the private sector's exploitation of a military advancement. But that's where his involvement ended.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by clk
Republicans are going to vote for an African American woman? Har-har! It will be a cold day in hell when that happens.


Wake up and smell reality, jerk. This isn't the 1950's anymore. Racist Republicans are a very small minority. Probably even smaller than racist Democrats. As evidence, I site the careers of Colin Powell and Condolesa Rice. Short sighted, dill-hole.

Duh, har-har, a Republican president appointing a black man to the secretary of state? That'll be the day. Or a black woman? That's even better!

By the way, did you know that most of the southern states were Democrats during the 1950's?

Tool. :p

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Bruce


By the way, did you know that most of the southern states were Democrats during the 1950's?

Tool. :p



Yes, and then the Lotts and the Helmses started going over to the Republicans, sometime during the sixties and seventies. There was a reason for that.

[clk]

Originally posted by Bruce
Wake up and smell reality, jerk. This isn't the 1950's anymore. Racist Republicans are a very small minority. Probably even smaller than racist Democrats. As evidence, I site the careers of Colin Powell and Condolesa Rice. Short sighted, dill-hole.


Rice and Powell were both nominated to their current positions, they were not elected. There's a big difference. There is not a single black Republican congressman. There are over 40 black Democratic congressmen. One of the reasons that Democrats always get a large majority of the black vote is because LBJ, a Democrat, was the one to push through several civil rights bills.
If Republicans have trouble nominating a black congressman, what makes you think they will be able to get a black woman elected President?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by clk

One of the reasons that Democrats always get a large majority of the black vote is because LBJ, a Democrat, was the one to push through several civil rights bills.
If Republicans have trouble nominating a black congressman, what makes you think they will be able to get a black woman elected President? [/B]

What the hell are you talking about?

The First Black Congressman (http://ipoaa.com/1st_black_congressmen.htm)


All the early Black congressmen (and senators) were members of the Republican party. This is because the Republicans, exemplified by President Abraham Lincoln, were the party in office during the Civil War and many abolitionists belonged to the Republican Party. The Democrats were opposed to all attempts to banish slavery.


Do you honestly believe all the BS and propaganda that the Democrats spew? I don't believe all the BS and propaganda from the Republicans either, but I'll chew off my right arm before I believe that the Democratic party was the forerunner in bringing civil rights to the blacks.

[clk]

Originally posted by Jocko
McCain: a desperate attempt to get a non-corpse on the ticket.

I thought that Kerry was 'hardcore leftie'. What kind of a 'hardcore leftie' would want to have a Republican run as his VP? Not only that, but Kerry reportedly offered McCain the role of VP and Defense Secretary. That doesn't sound like a 'hardcore leftie' to me. If Kerry was a 'hardcore leftie', he would have picked Dean or Ted Kennedy to be his VP.


Dean: Too outsider. The Clintons still ran the DNC through McAuliffe.
Nice conspiracy theory. So did the Clintons rig the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries by working with McAullife?



I must repeat I admire Clinton for keeping his hands off the private sector's exploitation of a military advancement. But that's where his involvement ended.


I've already shown that Clinton invested an enormous amount of money on technology research. You have yet to address that fact. From the same document I linked to:

The Promise of the NII

Imagine you had a device that combined a telephone, a TV, a camcorder, and a personal computer. No matter where you went or what time it was, your child could see you and talk to you, you could watch a replay of your team's last game, you could browse the latest additions to the library, or you could find the best prices in town on groceries, furniture, clothes -- whatever you needed.

Imagine further the dramatic changes in your life if:

* The vast resources of art, literature, and science were available everywhere, not just in large institutions or big-city libraries and museums;

* You could live in many places without foregoing opportunities for useful and fulfilling employment, by "telecommuting" to your office through an electronic highway instead of by automobile, bus or train;

* Small manufacturers could get orders from all over the world electronically -- with detailed specifications -- in a form that the machines could use to produce the necessary items;

* You could see the latest movies, play the hottest video games, or bank and shop from the comfort of your home whenever you chose;

* You could obtain government information directly or through local organizations like libraries, apply for and receive government benefits electronically, and get in touch with government officials easily; and

* Individual government agencies, businesses and other entities all could exchange information electronically -- reducing paperwork and improving service.

In an era of global markets and global competition, the technologies to create, manipulate, manage and use information are of strategic importance for the United States. Those technologies will help U.S. businesses remain competitive and create challenging, high- paying jobs. They also will fuel economic growth which, in turn, will generate a steadily-increasing standard of living for all Americans.


So it is clear that in the early 90s, the Clinton administration had a vision for an advanced communications network. They invested a large amount of money to research technology to make such a network viable. I'm not saying they invented the Internet, I'm just saying it's dishonest to claim they had absolutely nothing to do with it. The private sector obviously was a key. In fact, this was part of the NII agenda:

While the private sector will build and run virtually all of the National Information Infrastructure (NII), the President and the Vice President have stated clearly that the Federal government has a key leadership role to play in its development.

And that's exactly what happened. The private sector built the Internet while the Clinton administration funded their research of the technology and created an environment conducive to new technology startups.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by clk
If Republicans have trouble nominating a black congressman, what makes you think they will be able to get a black woman elected President? I don't think the Republican leadership has any race issues and will embrace anyone if they toe the party line (no different then Democrats). I also think mainstream Republicans don't have race issues. Where the problem lies is convincing minorities to accept the Republican agenda. Republican leadership will give us all kind of excuses regarding why they can't get their message through to minorities, I suspect it's not the delivery but the content.

I'm very familiar with fundamentalist churches and that's where Condi will have a problem. Many fundies believe the Bible tells them that women shouldn't be put in power over men. In an earlier life I attended two such churches and as I still keep in touch with friends, I know they haven't changed. Since the members are almost exclusively Republican, I would love to see their brains explode trying to decide what to do if presented a Republican women as presidential candidate.

[clk]

Originally posted by Bruce
What the hell are you talking about?

The First Black Congressman (http://ipoaa.com/1st_black_congressmen.htm)


Go back and read my post. I said there is not a black Republican congressman. There may have been a few in the past, but as far as I know, there are none currently. I never said there was never a black congressman.

[clk]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I don't think the Republican leadership has any race issues and will embrace anyone if they toe the party line (no different then Democrats).

I agree. I don't think Republican leadership has any race issues.



I'm very familiar with fundamentalist churches and that's where Condi will have a problem. Many fundies believe the Bible tells them that women shouldn't be put in power over men. In an earlier life I attended two such churches and as I still keep in touch with friends, I know they haven't changed. Since the members are almost exclusively Republican, I would love to see their brains explode trying to decide what to do if presented a Republican women as presidential candidate.

That's one reason I didn't think Condi would have a good chance at the Rep. nomination. I hope I am proved wrong and that a female that is a minority is elected to a high office. But I am quite pessimistic and believe we still need to make progress.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Since the members are almost exclusively Republican, I would love to see their brains explode trying to decide what to do if presented a Republican women as presidential candidate.

Several years ago, I had a political discussion with many of the Republicans at my former job. All of them hated Hillary, and all of them said they would nominate and vote for Rice in a heartbeat. We all thought it would be really interesting to see Hillary vs. Rice in 2008. That's looking more likely every day. I agree with the notion that Hillary will get Rice elected. Many Christains would have a problem with having a woman as president, but you can bet that if given a choice between Rice and Clinton, Rice would get the vote.

If this happens, it would shut the Democrats up forever concerning the idea that Republicans are all racists. You might even see a mass exodus of black voters from the Democratic party.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Bruce
I agree with the notion that Hillary will get Rice elected. Many Christains would have a problem with having a woman as president, but you can bet that if given a choice between Rice and Clinton, Rice would get the vote. I'm not sure about that bet, I think many may well sit it out. I agree though that, if nothing changes, Rice would win. Hillary is a lighting rod of Republican hatred and would mobilize fence sitting conservatives in a big way.

If this happens, it would shut the Democrats up forever concerning the idea that Republicans are all racists. sorry, huge strawman, unless of course, you can back it up with facts. I give the minorities credit for recognizing which party platform they agree with.


You might even see a mass exodus of black voters from the Democratic party. Not, IMO, until they change their focus. Leonard Pitts had a nice editorial about this yesterday (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/10834892.htm?1c)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by clk
Go back and read my post. I said there is not a black Republican congressman. There may have been a few in the past, but as far as I know, there are none currently. I never said there was never a black congressman.

Which doesn't change the fact that the Republican party had no trouble getting enough Republicans to vote J.C.Watts into office recently.

Now...how many black people, or women, have the Democrats ***ever*** gotten elected to the White House?

Because right now, the score seems tied on which party is ready, willing, and able, for that to happen.


Hey, if we want to speculate, speculate on this...
How many of the women and minority voters who 'defected' to Bush this time around, might have voted for a different Democratic Party candidate...say a ticket with minorities and females?

[Jocko]

clk:

Again, I'll take your bet. How about putting your money where your mouth is, in the finest tradition of the American entrepeneurial spirit? I think Condi's a serious contender in '08. You seem to presume the same of Hillary. I'll give you Hillary with a 20 electoral vote spread. What do you say?

BTW, Clinton's "vision" of the internet has already been debunked by other posters here on this thread, so I'll refer you to them.

Also, I agree with Bruce that you are indeed a tool.

PM me with your stakes.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I'm not sure about that bet, I think many may well sit it out. I agree though that, if nothing changes, Rice would win. Hillary is a lighting rod of Republican hatred and would mobilize fence sitting conservatives in a big way.

Also, she is a tremendous - and obvious - phony. A lot like your boy Kerry.

sorry, huge strawman, unless of course, you can back it up with facts. I give the minorities credit for recognizing which party platform they agree with.

Well, that puts you up one on the DNC. Can it penetrate your skull that there may be considerations beyond a person's color or gender? Like, oh I don't know.... intelligence and integrity?

Look those up. I'll wait.

BTW, it's been 2 years since Ferraro. Not much of a progressive resume, is it now?

Not, IMO, until they change their focus. Leonard Pitts had a nice editorial about this yesterday (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/10834892.htm?1c)

Wake up, it's already happening. Compare black republican votes in '00 to '04 and then tell me how solid a Democrat constituency they really are.

Nothing succeeds like success, DJ. I guess you'll have to take mey word on that one.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, that puts you up one on the DNC. Can it penetrate your skull that there may be considerations beyond a person's color or gender? Like, oh I don't know.... intelligence and integrity?


If there is ineed something to politics that goes beyond color, race, and gender, then we would expect to see the same ratios of these people in both parties. The Democrats have been pounding minorities, women, and the poor for decades with false propaganda, relying on their ignorance, gullibility, and inability to corroborate. It's the same rhretoric and propaganda that they've using for decades. The Democrats don't really care about blacks, women, and the poor as much as those groups assume the do. Democrats only want votes. Their voice is "Republicans don't care about you." If they send that message enough, then people start to believe that in turn, the Democrats do. False! Have these groups prospered while the Democrats have been in power? Hell no! Read some history books!

I view the change in voting as a positive sign. Blacks, women, and the poor are better educated now than in decades past and hold higher social positions than before. The internet is becoming increasingly available, making it possible for these folks to check the facts. The false propaganda spewed by the Democrats is no longer working and the ratios of minorities, genders, and social class in both parties are beginning to distribute evenly. Hooray for progress!

If the Democrats want to attract voters and win the '08 election, they need to cut the BS, re-think their agenda, and get with the times. Their voter base doesn't believe the BS anymore.

[corplinx]

While Hillary is sitting on choice committees and making sound bites, great democrat governers are actually doing work and earning a white house bid.

There is something called "paying your dues". Bill Richardson, he's paid his dues. Phil Bredesen, he's paid his dues. Hillary? She bucked all the politicians paying their dues in NY and took that senate nod. Look's like she might do the same for their presidential bid.

Let me once again toot my horn about Tennessee governer Phil Bredesen. We are once again running a surplus in this state and instead of spending it like tech boom governers, he is putting our surpluses away to spend during bad tax revenue years.

He's a southerner who stands a chance of flipping a few Bush states along with getting states democrats already have a lock on. I think Bredesen or an equally well performing democrat governer could very well be president in 2008 if Hillary doesn't strongarm everyone out.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by corplinx
There is something called "paying your dues".

(chuckle)



When I was in college, "paying your dues" was a slang phrase for men to perform oral sex on women. It was a phrase used almost exclusively by the ladies amongst each other. "What's your problem with your boyfriend this time?". "He hasn't been paying his dues." (knowing nods to each other while the men ask each other what the hell that means)

Lesbian friends make excellent moles for cracking such female codes. Guys, make at least one Lesbian friend and be nice to her. ;)



Back to serious political debate.

[clk]

Originally posted by Jocko
clk:

Again, I'll take your bet. How about putting your money where your mouth is, in the finest tradition of the American entrepeneurial spirit? I think Condi's a serious contender in '08. You seem to presume the same of Hillary. I'll give you Hillary with a 20 electoral vote spread. What do you say?


You want to make a bet over the internet about an event that will happen 3 years from now? That's kind of pointless.



BTW, Clinton's "vision" of the internet has already been debunked by other posters here on this thread, so I'll refer you to them.



Where are these posts? Are there some invisible posts that I happen to be missing? Nobody has debunked me, Jocko. So far all you have done is ignored the various Clinton technology initiatives, such as the NII. Don't try to squirm away from the argument by claiming that other posters have debunked my claims when it is clear that has not happened.

[Regnad Kcin]

With Hill you get Bill. With Con you get... non?

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Jocko
Also, she is a tremendous - and obvious - phony. A lot like your boy Kerry.Can you give me some examples, ones that are uniquely hers and not typical of politicians in general.

Well, that puts you up one on the DNC. Can it penetrate your skull that there may be considerations beyond a person's color or gender? Like, oh I don't know.... intelligence and integrity?I have no idea how this relates to my comment you quoted, lets review:
Originally posted by Bruce
If this happens, it would shut the Democrats up forever concerning the idea that Republicans are all racists. I responded with Originally posted by DavidJames
sorry, huge strawman, unless of course, you can back it up with facts. I give the minorities credit for recognizing which party platform they agree with. You responded to my comment with Well, that puts you up one on the DNC. Can it penetrate your skull that there may be considerations beyond a person's color or gender? Like, oh I don't know.... intelligence and integrity?So, would you like to try and respond to what I said? Oh, and if you plan on doing so with more childish insults, don't bother.

[jj]

Originally posted by clk
Go back and read my post. I said there is not a black Republican congressman. There may have been a few in the past, but as far as I know, there are none currently. I never said there was never a black congressman.

You have to read how people attack others here a bit more carefully. What somebody cited back at you was 150 year old (give or take) history from a time when the parties had enormously different constituancies.

What the republican party did 150 years ago may be noble, but it doesn't justify what they did 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 5 years ago ...

[jj]

Originally posted by DavidJames
[B]Can you give me some examples, ones that are uniquely hers and not typical of politicians in general.


It's the "big lie" propaganda technique. If they repeat the same accusation enough times, enough people will be foolish enough to believe it to act on it come voting time. Heck, look at the last election, where we had the draft dodger vs. the war hero, and look which one got most of the defense vote.

Remember the phrase "keep on message", never mind there were no WMD, "keep on message". Never mind there was no evidence in the Starr Chamber, "keep on message". Never mind that the records from the guard shouldn't be missing, "keep on message", never mind that the swifties were thorougly debunked and exposed as false, "keep on message".

That's what it's all about, keep lying until people believe it.

Look at what the shrub said, he thinks that it's admirable for a single mom to work 3 jobs. I think he's telling the truth, he thinks that all of us peasants should have to work 3 jobs to survive.

[Silicon]

The only way Rice would win the presidency is if she was running against Hillary.


Period.



And Hillary can win even if Rice doesn't run.


Republican racism isn't absolute, but it still exists in numbers large enough to make a difference.

But their hatred for the villified Democrat-du-jour knows no bounds.

Most Republicans would vote for Saddam if he was running against Hillary or Teddy Kennedy or Barbara Boxer.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Silicon

Most Republicans would vote for Saddam if he was running against Hillary or Teddy Kennedy or Barbara Boxer.

I know you were being facetious, at least I hope you were, but I don't see that happening. If given the choice between a bad Republican candidate and a bad Democratic candidate, most Republicans would vote for the Democrat, let them screw everything up, and then charge back into office four years later as the saviors and heros. Nothing makes the Republican party look better than a lousy past Democratic president to burn as an effigy. ;)

[Silicon]

No they wouldn't.

If they hated the Republican candidate, even if that candidate was David Duke, G Gordon Liddy or Kenneth Lay, they still wouldn't vote for Hillary. They'd just stay home.

You loose your bellyaching rights if you actually voted FOR Hillary.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Jocko
clk:

Again, I'll take your bet. How about putting your money where your mouth is, in the finest tradition of the American entrepeneurial spirit? I think Condi's a serious contender in '08. You seem to presume the same of Hillary. I'll give you Hillary with a 20 electoral vote spread. What do you say?

BTW, Clinton's "vision" of the internet has already been debunked by other posters here on this thread, so I'll refer you to them.

Also, I agree with Bruce that you are indeed a tool.

PM me with your stakes.

If clk doesn't, I'll lay $20 on that neither Hillary nor Condi even get their respective party nominations.

I don't have strong feelings about either's capability or ethnicity/gender, but they are both large figureheads of their respective administrations. Past history (Bush 1 excluded) indicates that people with long political records don't get elected, and usually not even nominated.

Call me a pessimist, but it is a bet I'd actually be happy to lose.

You willing to take?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
But their hatred for the villified Democrat-du-jour knows no bounds. Rich...

How about villified politician-du-jour? You may have noticed that Hillary is not the most villified of politicians and it certainly isn't the Republicans who are doing most of the villifying and hating of late.

I guess one person's villification is another's well reasoned stance in the defense of democracy and all that is holy.

Give me a break.

[Silicon]

Except that GWBush is the leader of the free world.

Hillary has nowhere NEAR that power. But she's without a doubt the second most hated politician in America.

If you can give me ONE reason related to her voting record, I can give you a hundred direct policy decisions by Bush.


If you compute the ratio of hate to power, Hillary is hated for no particular reason.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
Except that GWBush is the leader of the free world.

Hillary has nowhere NEAR that power. But she's without a doubt the second most hated politician in America.

If you can give me ONE reason related to her voting record, I can give you a hundred direct policy decisions by Bush.


If you compute the ratio of hate to power, Hillary is hated for no particular reason. How about using un-elected power to meet in secret with hand selected "experts" but refusing to talk to Doctors and health care providers in a bid to socialize our health care system?

Bush was hated long before he ever took office. His detractors have cited his perceived lack of intelligence and malapropos from the very beginning. The level of vitriol has changed little since the day he took office.

[clk]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Which doesn't change the fact that the Republican party had no trouble getting enough Republicans to vote J.C.Watts into office recently.


Uh, thanks for proving my point. You cited Watts because that is the only person you could cite. There is not a single African American Republican congressman currently. Watts was a black Republican congressman, but he retired over 3 years ago. So let's take a look at the statistics:
Republicans hold around 288 seats of Congress.
The percentage of black Republican congressmen is: 0%

Democrats hold around 250 seats of Congress.
The percentage of black Democratic congressmen is: 17%

Blacks make up around 14 percent of the general US population.


Let's take a look at women:
The percentage of Female Republican congress members: 9.7%

The percentage of Female Democratic congress members: 21.6%


Are you honestly going to sit there and claim that the Republicans have no problems electing blacks or women to Congress when the statistics say otherwise?

And to all those who say that Rice is going to be the Republican nominee, I ask again: What makes you think that Republicans will elect an African American woman to the Presidency when there are 0 black Republican congressmen and women only make up 10% of all Republican congress members?

Source: www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS22007.pdf

[Silicon]

Originally posted by RandFan
How about using un-elected power to meet in secret with hand selected "experts" but refusing to talk to Doctors and health care providers in a bid to socialize our health care system?


If that's the best you could do, you just made my point.

(Psst, she's useing duely elected power now, but you still hate her for holding a meeting that led to zero public policy changes twelve years ago.)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
If that's the best you could do, you just made my point. Really? I couldn't possibly see how.

(Psst, she's useing duely elected power now... ?

...but you still hate her...You should be careful about your assumptions.

...for holding a meeting that led to zero public policy changes twelve years ago.) I find your argument odd. You suggest that folks should ignore her attempt because it failed and time should somehow be a factor. I don't see why. It certainly doesn't make your argument. Her attempt clearly shows her ideology and there is no reason to assume that she would not continue to hold such ideology and try again to make other such changes. I don't think she has done anything to suggest she wouldn't try and do it again. And if she was willing to make such sweeping changes with un-elected power what would she do with elected power?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by RandFan
Bush was hated long before he ever took office.Ridiculed? Yes. Chastised? Yup. But hated? Hardly.His detractors have cited his perceived lack of intelligence and malapropos from the very beginning.You say that like it's a bad thing. ;)

[clk]

Originally posted by RandFan

Bush was hated long before he ever took office. His detractors have cited his perceived lack of intelligence and malapropos from the very beginning. The level of vitriol has changed little since the day he took office.

I don't know if 'hate' is the right word. He was despised because he clearly was not qualified to be President. The Republicans prefer to have unqualified people in the highest offices, and I think it is legitimate to despise them for that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by clk
I don't know if 'hate' is the right word. He was despised because he clearly was not qualified to be President. The Republicans prefer to have unqualified people in the highest offices, and I think it is legitimate to despise them for that. We'll I'm sure no one "hates" Hillary, just lots of folks dispise her.

I love the straw man. As if we believe George Bush is unqualified. Good one.

[clk]

Originally posted by RandFan

I love the straw man. As if we believe George Bush is unqualified. Good one.

Uh, how was he qualified? He didn't even hold the most powerful office in the state. Texas has a weak Governor compared to other states, and the Lieutenant Governor along with the Speaker of the House hold more power than the Governor. Would you vote for the Speaker of the House of Florida if he ran for President? I sure as hell wouldn't. Bush wasn't even qualifed to be Governor of Texas. I bet that if his name weren't "George Bush", he would have lost the Governor's race.

Also, Republicans elected Arnold to be Governor of California, so my point still stands. How does being a movie star qualify you to govern the largest state in the country?

First the Republicans support Bush to be Texas Governor. Was he qualified? No.

Next they support Bush over McCain to be US President. Was Bush qualified to be President? No. Was he more qualifed than McCain? Hell no. The Republicans chose Bush over someone who was smarter, had more experience, had better character and was clearly the better candidate to be President.

Then the Republicans supported Arnold to be Governor of California. Was Arnold qualified to be Governor? No.

Sure, you could argue that this all depends on what you believe qualifies a person to hold high office. But you have to have mighty low standards if you believe Bush was more competent than McCain and if you think Arnold was the most qualifed person in California to be governor.

I'm sure there have been some unqualified Democrats in high office in the past, but hardly on this scale.

[RandFan]

Sure, you could argue that this all depends on what you believe qualifies a person to hold high office.Yeah, duh.

But you have to have mighty low standards if you believe Bush was more competent than McCain...By that logic most people had mighty low standards to elect Clinton the governor of Arkansas to president over George H. W. Bush who had been President, Vice President, head of the CIA, ambassador to China, etc.

I'm sure there have been some unqualified Democrats in high office in the past, but hardly on this scale. Oh get real. Clinton leads the pack of a long list of unqulified pols from both sides.

[clk]

Originally posted by RandFan

Oh get real. Clinton leads the pack of a long list of unqulified pols from both sides.

Clinton had served 5 terms as Governor and 1 term as Arkansas Attorney General. Also, he was clearly smart enough for the job. That's why I don't mind Arnold so much as Bush, because even though he doesn't have much experience, he seems to be pretty smart. But Bush didn't have either of the two.
Example:

President George W. Bush met with the Congressional Black Caucus Wednesday for the first time as a group in nearly four years, but what CBC members said stood out the most was the president's declaration that he was "unfamiliar" with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in the history of the United States.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-1st) said he recalled the president saying he was "unfamiliar" with the Voting Rights Act.

"I was surprised and astounded," Rush told the Defender.

http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/local.cfm?ArticleID=381


So Bush, who was a History major at Yale, didn't know what the Voting Rights Act was. I suppose that's probably why he got a C.



Also, what's the topic of this thread again? :confused:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by clk
Clinton had served 5 terms as Governor Big deal. 49th state in the union in per capit income and 48th in education. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on this?

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by RandFan
I find your argument odd. You suggest that folks should ignore her attempt because it failed... I would suggest your example should be ignored because you failed to meet the criteria in the question...Originally posted by Silicon
If you can give me ONE reason related to her voting record, I can give you a hundred direct policy decisions by Bush.I happen to agree it was wrong to give her that responsibility and wrong the way she pursued it. Much as I think Cheney should be hammered for the way he pursued the energy summit and subsequent policy. Would you agree?

edit add a difference between Hillary's mess and Cheney's.

The Clinton's were smart enough to recognize (after getting beat over the head enough) their mistake and canned the idea. No such recognition from the 100% perfect Bush team, stay on message, never admit a mistake.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I would suggest your example should be ignored because you failed to meet the criteria in the question Let's see...

If you can give me ONE reason related to her voting record, I can give you a hundred direct policy decisions by Bush.

If you compute the ratio of hate to power, Hillary is hated for no particular reason. Translation: If you eliminate all other reasons why someone might hate Hillary besides her voting record then she is hated for no particular reason.

Gotta love that logic. :D

Thanks Dvid, JREF never fails to entertain.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by RandFan
Let's see...

Translation...Thanks Dvid, JREF never fails to entertain. physician heal thyself ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Silicon
MAN I hate that Hillary. Who does she think she is questioning the Army?!!

If it wasn't for the Army, she wouldn't have ANY freedoms at all. Including the freedom to question the ARMY!I apologize if this has already been discussed and I just missed it, but how does questioning the Army, or even the current administration, equate to hating America? America is not its military force, nor is it necessarily the actions that the people in the military perform. The idea of having a standing army at all was completely undesirable and seen as a slippery slope to corruption. Obviously, our feelings about that have changed, if we now consider our standing army the same thing as the US itself.

On a slightly side issue, I do find the use of someone's freedom to speak out as a reason for why they should not speak out an interesting approach.

(Granted, I realize this is a rant and the wording was probably not very carefully considered.)

[crimresearch]

"I apologize if this has already been discussed and I just missed it, but how does questioning the Army, or even the current administration, equate to hating America? "

Because the range of all possible subsets of the 'hating America' category may overlap with the categories known as 'questioning the military', and 'questioning the current administration'?
:p

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by crimresearch

Because the range of all possible subsets of the 'hating America' category may overlap with the categories known as 'questioning the military', and 'questioning the current administration'?
:p While they may occasionally overlap, they may also overlap with 'loving America' and 'defending America' as well. It does not answer the question of how does one equates to the other.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
physician heal thyself ;) So true. :)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
While they may occasionally overlap, they may also overlap with 'loving America' and 'defending America' as well. It does not answer the question of how does one equates to the other.

They equate when enough factors are present to tip the balance to the 'Hate America' side...someone can claim to be loving America while selling defense secrets to the enemy, but it is a hollow claim.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by crimresearch
...someone can claim to be loving America while selling defense secrets to the enemy, but it is a hollow claim.

I disagree. I am convinced that Dick Cheney loves America despite his being responsible for giving credence and security clearance to A. Chalabi who later informed axis-of-evil member Iran that the U.S. had broken their inteligence service codes. Just because Mr. Cheney helped a person who was later accused of passing U.S. troop locations to Iran does not mean that he doesn't love his country.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I disagree. I am convinced that Dick Cheney loves America despite his being responsible for giving credence and security clearance to A. Chalabi who later informed axis-of-evil member Iran that the U.S. had broken their inteligence service codes. Just because Mr. Cheney helped a person who was later accused of passing U.S. troop locations to Iran does not mean that he doesn't love his country.

You misspelled Geraldo.
;)

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by clk
:


So Bush, who was a History major at Yale, didn't know what the Voting Rights Act was. I suppose that's probably why he got a C.



Also, what's the topic of this thread again? :confused:

In that meeting, probably wanted to forget that his father ran for Senate in Texas and campaigned on opposition to the voiting rights act...a proud moment in Bush history, no doubt. (I think George Sr. may have even voted against it in his term in Congress...but I could be wrong on that one).