Hillary for President

[xyzer]

Huh? granpa

This argument might have made a difference if it had any truth. Nothing about the US government has represented my interests or has provided personal security from terrorism. In fact, when it is not provoking terrorism and aiding terrorists abroad, this country is directly engaged in terror campaigns in my name, which only puts me at risk.

Please list the number of terrorist attacks we have had in the USA since 9/11? Threats to your personal security youve experienced?
Please list the inconveniences you have suffered due to the operation in Iraq? Have your taxes gone up? Have you suffered some inconveniences? Has government action threatened your job or source of income? Has your phone been tapped?
Do you realize the "changes your two political icons propose include raising our taxes, e.g. Obama proposes we raise the tax on investment income to 65+%. Can you imagine the effect of stifling investments the prime source of our economic growth? Can you imagine the effect on the general economy if we cances trade agreements and try to isolate ourselves?
Surely you jest! This is not a campaign against Bush. He is a lame duck. It's not a campaaign against the Iraq war either. Listen carefully to the promises these two socialists make and then try to figure out who is going to pay for them?

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer granpa Please list the number of terrorist attacks we have had in the USA since 9/11?

I didn't say there were any major attacks since 9/11. I said the United States government has put its population at risk before, during and after 9/11. Since the "war on terrorism" began, terrorism has increased in the world. So I didn't say anything bizarre.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I may be safer because of heightened awareness and even because of security measures, but while Al quaida seems weakened, there are not less terrorists than there were, the world, and the future are not safer places because of the way our middle eastern wars operations have been handled.

[xyzer]

Hey gandpa,

I didn't say there were any major attacks since 9/11. I said the United States government has put its population at risk before, during and after 9/11. Since the "war on terrorism" began, terrorism has increased in the world.

You didn't answer my question? List the hardships the war has caused you personally?
How do you know terrorism wouldn't have increased more or less without the Iraq caper? It built up in the decades before 03? How do you hanky wavers know that pulling all our troops our of Iraq will diminish terrorism? Logic tells me and the terrorists that would tell the terrorists they have won?

At what risk has our population been put that are greater than pre 03?
By the way I don't know what the USA did during the 9/11 attack that could have possibly put the US population at more risk?

To me it sounds like you are just throwing out nonsense in defense of your scurrilous accustaions against your country. the Clinton Admin(which which sat and watched the buildup) were just as, if not more, complicit in the 9/11 fiasco?

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Hey gandpa, You didn't answer my question? List the hardships the war has caused you personally?

Actually, I did address your question. The longer the US stays involved in Iraq and elsewhere, the greater the risk of terrorism becomes, as well as the tax burden on the general population. Is that personal enough?

Furthermore, why do you accuse me of being a fan of Hillary or Obama? I don't recall saying anything to that effect, either here or in my personal life.

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

Mercenary..Agree the war has not been properly handled.I would add that though the cause was noble, I felt it worthless. Why? Because the Iraqis are saddled with an Islamic and tribal mentality of revenge and hatered! Their sectarian jealousies (typical in the middle east) lock then into a primitive existence. The only reedeemer is their oil reserves without which they would still be riding on camels.
A better course for Bush would have been to invade, conquer, hang Saddam and his evil cadre and then leave!

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Agree the war has not been properly handled.

I don't see how it could have been "properly handled."

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: xyzer Mercenary..Agree the war has not been properly handled.I would add that though the cause was noble, I felt it worthless. Why? Because the Iraqis are saddled with an Islamic and tribal mentality of revenge and hatered! Their sectarian jealousies (typical in the middle east) lock then into a primitive existence. The only reedeemer is their oil reserves without which they would still be riding on camels. A better course for Bush would have been to invade, conquer, hang Saddam and his evil cadre and then leave!

Ah, yes, causing a bloody conflagration and then turning and running is so much more wise and noble than at least trying to take rsponsibility.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Ah, yes, causing a bloody conflagration and then turning and running is so much more wise and noble than at least trying to take rsponsibility.

America can take responsibility by leaving and offering some form of reparations.

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

America can take responsibility by leaving and offering some form of reparations.

Why? You were just complaining of the cost? Plus abruptly pulling out woud cause a sectarian... civil war?

Mercenary

Ah, yes, causing a bloody conflagration and then turning and running is so much more wise and noble than at least trying to take rsponsibility.

Who is denying responsibility? Certainly not me! I stated and did back then I thought it was a foolhardy cause to invade and then try to set up a Democracy in that area? But Bush and Congress did it.. My suggestion is based on the fact that hitting Saddam who was causing most of the problems in the oil rich middle east was a good idea & might warn off others like "ahwannjihad" in Iraq. Clinton tried it in Bosnia! It may just be the only way to deal with these people is a missile or two just to keep them awake!

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer You were just complaining of the cost?

I mentioned it as a possibility. And pf course I'm willing to criticize the cost, both in terms of human lives, the environment and pure economics. However, there is a such thing as prioritizing things within a budget, and reparations could porribly be a priority. Of course, so could be adhering to the wishes of Iraqis.

We're losing the war anyway (though I wonder what average people ever could have won from it), and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Americans "cutting and running":

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/wo...ll&oref=slogin BAGHDAD — A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias. The retreat left a crucial stretch of road on the front lines undefended for hours and led to a tense series of exchanges between American soldiers and about 50 Iraqi troops who were fleeing.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: xyzer Hey techno, who pays the bills for the national healthcare program(which we really don't need)? Who gives up income as the Bush taxcuts are rescinded? Are you a taxpayer or are you a freeloader? McCain isn't the best but he might at least be a check against the runaway socialism espoused by both Democrats? What real change do you think Hillary is going to make in the Legislative agenda? A Democrat President amidst a Democrat Congress can cost us tax payers our shirts, maybe even our socks? Who will carry the hankies, and white feathers into the international war against terrorism? Who will pay for losing "face" internationally if we abruptly give up in Iraq before the terrorist tide is turned? Should we wave like a flag in the breezes with every foreign expression of disfavor and bow before some weird sort of foreign disapproval? Is our foreign policy in our own interests or is it in the interests of some forein dicatator? Just what is this "change" that Clinton and Obama promise? Have either defined it? Who confronts the environmental lobby and allows research and development of new and cheaper domestic oil sources? Who will seriously address the illegal immigrant problem? Not Hillary or Barack I fear.

National Health Care. It simpley means that health care insurance will be affordable for everyone without a reduction in the quality of coverage.

Therefore people will be buying that insurance based on income and so forth, the math is that you have millions paying into the insurance and a far less amount of people needing health care and so the you get a balance. The main difference between the governmental plan and totally private insurance is that the gov one does not need to make a hugh profit and can operate more of less as a non-profit idenity, to reduce the middle-man costs (as a non-profit indentity) which we now pay for, ( both insurance and medical care as needed ).

Paying for it does not mean we must raise taxes as Republicans try to misslead people into thinking. Any extra money needed would be paid for by taxes but the budget would be reconstructed as well as the way taxes are collected to balance things out. By removing the loopholes so that the wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes instead of it all being paid for by the middle and lower income groups would solve the problem without any new taxes being added to fund that program, plus we would be reducing the amount of budget money now used to fight the war in Iraq so that it can be used for domestic things like health care which is more useful for Americans here at home. Bottom line, this is about creating a new national budget that is affordable as well as making taxes fair for everyone who must pay their fair share under law. Using a standard that we all pay taxes based on our total income.

The Republicans under Bush mandated thousands of new governmental jobs and so you cannot blame things on runnaway socialism, otherwise we would not have education and other things so deeply underfunded.
The only way to reduce socialism is to let everything go to pot, to allow for a poor education system, a poor interstucture for transportation needs (highways, etc.), a miss-managed system for affordable energy power, and a spread in poverty that would turn our nation into a 3rd world country, not to mention a non-abilty to control the spread of diseases here. ( a very short list ). A reduction in emergency rescue and fire departments, police, national parks, and so forth.

The war on terrorism is made worse by the Bush war on Saddam (which war reached it's goal a long time ago), or mission is to capture or to kill the actural individuals responsible for 9-11. Common belief is they are in an area close to or within Afganistan. Bin Laden outfoxed Bush by pretending he is fighting us in Iraq so that we will concentrate on that country as a distraction form concentrating our efforts on flushing him out where he is located, far away from Irag. Our military is stupid if they would fall for that deception (oldest trick in the book). Our other effort is about intelligence collecting to prevent any plots that might be directed at our homeland soil.

The war and the occupation of Iraq is not favored by most all of the democratic governments of the world, this has nothing to do with dictators. It was not favored by the U.N. from the get-go. It is not even favored by the Pope who has influence in many "free" countries around the globe. To think otherwise only means you are out of touch with the rest of the world. We should not use our miltiary to become the dictators of the world. That gives our Commander and Chief way too much power. We must get over this "one person rulership idea" and take a more humble seat among the people of our nation and the world.

The change recomended by Hillary Clinton who was the first to set the the agenda for the Democratic platform for change is about changing how we deal with the terrorist problem, our occupation of Irag, and how we deal with domestic problems such as the downturn in the economy, as well as trade agreements. Plus a change so that the government gets more in touch with what voters are saying rather then "going it alone" within a small circle of people in the White House staff. The change is about making things better instead of the current trends where things are getting worse. Obama agrees in large part with the Hillary plan and has grabbed ahold of her shirtails but is attempting to suggest he is the better person, with better judgement, to put into effect the Hillary perspective. He is a smart cookie and knows the plan well, but has the disadvantage of miss-speaking and is trying to overcome his lack of communicating his ideas clearly.

Who confronts the oil lobby so that we can have a decent environment to live in?

The developement of domestic oil and to make that source productive will cost three times as much as buying cheaper oil from other countries, due to union wages and so forth. It would take about 20 years to do that and then the supply would only last for about 40 to 60 years tops, and then we would be dry. It would be wiser to wait until everyone else goes dry and then we would have the last of the un-tapped resources. Meanwhile we can develope bio-fuels and other alternative energies which would also create thousands of new jobs to boost our local ecnomony. That would also reward us with cleaner air, and less polluted soil and water.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Whatssnew Why do you think Hillary should be president.

I don't!

What are her relevant qualifacations in your view?

She has qualifications? Well, she did serve at least one term in the Senate (even if she is a damned carpetbagger).

Do you think she has weaknesses that could cost her the election?

Yes. John Edwards is more of a woman than she is (okay, that may be a plus for her). She's a carpetbagger. She doesn't keep her campaign promises (well, okay, that one won't cost her the election because I don't know of any President in my lifetime that has kept his campaign promises).

Do you think she can win?

If Jimmy Carter, a then-unknown Governor of Georgia, could do it, so can Hillary.

[Technosoul]

I think some people are giving too much focus on the canadate and how they interpret their personality.

What is important in this election is not about which canidate has the most baggage but rather, the election is about you the voter.

Who is listening to the voters? Who has made the best efforts to get in touch with the voters and try and comprehend what they want. I think Hillary Clinton is that person, over other leading canadates.

[GHook93]

I don't think Clinton should be President. Reasons:
(1) Most importantly she is s socialist. With her at the helm we would being spending more and taxes would surpass our European counter-parts. She would inflate even more business going overseas.
(2) She is inexperience - regardless of what she claims as first lady
(3) She is a proven liar. The sniper bit was bad.

She also lacks the main thing that her current opponent (Obama) has, Charisma and likability!

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 I don't think Clinton should be President. Reasons: (1) Most importantly she is s socialist.

Socialism, in the most general sense of the word, is far from what Hillary represents.
She is a state capitalist, through and through, just like her husband (though she doesn't even have his pizzazz and the sizzle).

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

The republicans like to toss out that myth that Democrats will raise taxes and turn the USA into another Cuba.

The real danger is to vote for Bushism which is far worse the socialism and more expensive.

And that is what we will get with McCain.

Of course Hillary is a poltically wise person and comprehends how to deal with things when the going gets tough.

It comes down to this.

Obama could win but he might not win, his past is only starting to creap up on him and he just wants to fluff it off with a joke or two.

Hillary will win in a showdown with McCain. So why take a chance on someone who is just popular, because we must remember that a lot of popular people took a big nose dive right after they reached a peak in the limelight. Shooting stars vanish as quickly as they appear, look what happened to Disco singer M. Jackson. or Ozzie Osborne.

Why take a chance on a flash in the pants fad. Better to go for Hillary Clinton and make sure that McCain does not get White House.

Just this week we are finding out about his friendship with William Ayers who used to set off bombs in govermental buildings to protest the Nam war. What else is in his closet? Why did he not inform the Democratic party about such things before making his self so popular?

Why does he seem to hitch up with those anti-American radicals?

Here was McCain suffering as a POW while that Ayers fellow was a local terrorist attacking our own government. How is that going to play out when McCain makes his advertisments. And why did William Ayers fund Obama's election race to become a Senator?

Obama Had A Pattern Of Contacts With Weathermen Terrorists - Say Anything

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul The republicans like to toss out that myth that Democrats will raise taxes and turn the USA into another Cuba. The real danger is to vote for Bushism which is far worse the socialism and more expensive.

If anything, the Republicans are more likely to take away some of our social/political liberty. And I say that not as a Democrat apologist. Of course, Democrats rarely live up to their promises of not looking like Republicans. We should oppose both parties.

The funny thing is: Hostile international relations (like those of the Bush Administration) will heighteen hostile atmospheres, much like those which were significantly sequestered in Cuba. The more America invades, the more likely it will be despised.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Hillary Clinton will be interviewd by Larry King (CNN) on Monday which is the eve of the Penn primary.

All the nay-sayers should tune in.

Also, a large number of Democrat have not yet made up their minds about which D - canidate they prefer, and they could sway elections in many states.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: ghook (1) Most importantly she is s socialist. With her at the helm we would being spending more and taxes would surpass our European counter-parts. She would inflate even more business going overseas. (2) She is inexperience - regardless of what she claims as first lady (3) She is a proven liar. The sniper bit was bad.

1) she isn't a socialist. She doesn't advocate government control of all industries, or even many of them.

2) She was a senator from New York which is a pretty critical state. Also, she was a pretty politically active first lady. She knows her way around washington.

3) Which politician hasn't lied at least once? Or even what person hasn't lied?