What a choice...

[Qikdraw]

Click to play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpCKD9SOC9k)

Qikdraw

[nudeM]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

[nimrod]

I have felt that way about all the canidates lately. Which is the least evil?

[nudenwv]

just can't make up our minds http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nimrod:
I have felt that way about all the canidates lately. Which is the least evil?

When choosing between two evils, I like to go with the evil I haven't tried before.

But I can't decide if Hillary is the 'new evil' we've never tried before because she is a woman.

Or is she an evil we HAVE tried before because she is a Clinton?

[nimrod]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nimrod:
I have felt that way about all the canidates lately. Which is the least evil?

When choosing between two evils, I like to go with the evil I haven't tried before.

But I can't decide if Hillary is the 'new evil' we've never tried before because she is a woman.

Or is she an evil we HAVE tried before because she is a Clinton? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting question. Maybe an old evil with a new twist.

[bikerboy]

The title to this question really says it all now doesn't it. Between the two evils, I just don't know. I say we wait and see who else will be running and see what the two evils are then. LOL I enjoyed this one very much. I am emailing the link to friends now. Have a great day all. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif

[NudeAl]

I've had to hold my nose and vote plenty of times but I must confess voting for Hillery will take more than that. I may just need a few swigs outta the bottle jus' like them ol' redneck boys.

[hw]

For all the "Bush" hating, Clinton lovers in this forum, try thinking outside The cigar box.

I know I'm going to get a whole lot of crap on this one. Watch with an open mind and closed mouth. This is not a person I would vote for.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw


Here's part 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I

[Qikdraw]

Cigar box? Jeez try and let go of the past ok? The worst thing you Clinton haters found on the Clintons was that Bill got a BJ. After millions of taxpayer dollars, you found out he got a blow job. Wow.

As for the video... I didn't watch all of it, but I got the gist of it I think. Some capmaign contributer donated money so he could get to Bill. Yeah? So? We have Republican campaign contributers who get no bid contracts in Iraq and are either shooting up the civilian populace or ripping off the American taxpayer for billions of dollars, but its more important to go after the Clintons for piddly stuff. Wow.

I know I'm impressed.

Qikdraw

[hw]

(I knew this was going to happen) :rolleyes:

Didn't watch the whole thing, pity. Hillary is on trial for fundraiser contributions she says she knew nothing about, yet it is on tape. She found a "patsy" in Peter Paul.

Let's see, if she lies under oath and her husband lied under oath on National TV, and leopards can't change their spots....... :doh:

The way I see it Bill Clinton used the "Oval Office" as an Oral Office, lied about it, sent us to war in Bosnia to take the heat off of his little affair.

Who knows how many of her friends and associates have taken the heat for her White Water ? I still wonder about all those people she knew who have died under mysterious circumstances.

[Simon-new]

As for myself I will never vote for a Democrate. They always propose big plans that will take more money, and I don't want to pay more tax dollars for their "Great" plans. And I do not buy in to the Dem's are for the poor and the Repub's are for the rich. The Dem's flag around just as many big spenders during election time as the Repub's.

Now on the Repub. side I think Rudy and McCane are too well liked by the media. This makes me wonder how much "bad stuff" they already have on those two. I believe I saw Alan Keys was running again, he would be a great first black President. Romney has alot of business sense. And Washington could use someone that knows business. As a Christian Huckabee likes really good, he also runs marathons, that impresses me alittle.

As for cars I like Fords.

And current affairs, I hope they find the people that started the California Fires burnt somewhere.

[jon71]

As it turns out Republicans vote for more spending (and not just on the military like they want people to believe) and vote for more taxes as well. In both areas it's 50 something percent Republican to 40 something percent Democratic, ultimately only about a 7 or 8 percent difference. The whole thing about "tax and spend" liberals has been a myth for decades though.

[Qikdraw]

(I knew this was going to happen) :rolleyes:

Didn't watch the whole thing, pity. Hillary is on trial for fundraiser contributions she says she knew nothing about, yet it is on tape. She found a "patsy" in Peter Paul.

Hrmmm so this is a big issue yet you don't mention Romney's contributer... Alan Fabian was charged with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. It doesn't seem like you are being 'fair and balanced'.

Let's see, if she lies under oath and her husband lied under oath on National TV, and leopards can't change their spots....... :doh:

Have you gone after Bush for lying? Or any member of the Republican party for doing the same thing?

[The way I see it Bill Clinton used the "Oval Office" as an Oral Office, lied about it, sent us to war in Bosnia to take the heat off of his little affair.

One: Get over the blow job.
Two: How many American troops lost their lives in Bosnia? How many troops lost their lives in Iraq after this administration has constantly lied about Iraq from day one? Do the math, and figure out where your outrage should go.

Who knows how many of her friends and associates have taken the heat for her White Water ? I still wonder about all those people she knew who have died under mysterious circumstances.

There is more proof that this administration had something to do with 9/11 than what your are suggesting. So yeah...

Try thinking outside the fanyasy box the Republicans live in ok?

Am I making appologies for Hillary if she did do something illegal in campaign contributions? No. I think the whole system stinks and I think lobbyists should be illegal, and I think corporations should not have the ear of the government. Do I want Hillary to become president? No. Because she is to beholden to corporations. Personally I'd rather have Edwards.

As for the republicans running I don't like any one of them because with the exception of Ron Paul, they are parroting the current administration. Paul should be considered a front runner considering he is coming at the top of most polls, but the media doesn't like him, so he is just ridiculed in the media. But I would not want him either, while he may get us out of Iraq, he will deregulate a lot of industry that has to have regulation. California found out what happened when the energy companies were deregulated. It cost CA taxpayers 9 billion.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

Hrmmm so this is a big issue yet you don't mention Romney's contributer... Alan Fabian was charged with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. It doesn't seem like you are being 'fair and balanced'.



Have you gone after Bush for lying? Or any member of the Republican party for doing the same thing?



One: Get over the blow job.
Two: How many American troops lost their lives in Bosnia? How many troops lost their lives in Iraq after this administration has constantly lied about Iraq from day one? Do the math, and figure out where your outrage should go.



There is more proof that this administration had something to do with 9/11 than what your are suggesting. So yeah...

Try thinking outside the fanyasy box the Republicans live in ok?

Am I making appologies for Hillary if she did do something illegal in campaign contributions? No. I think the whole system stinks and I think lobbyists should be illegal, and I think corporations should not have the ear of the government. Do I want Hillary to become president? No. Because she is to beholden to corporations. Personally I'd rather have Edwards.

As for the republicans running I don't like any one of them because with the exception of Ron Paul, they are parroting the current administration. Paul should be considered a front runner considering he is coming at the top of most polls, but the media doesn't like him, so he is just ridiculed in the media. But I would not want him either, while he may get us out of Iraq, he will deregulate a lot of industry that has to have regulation. California found out what happened when the energy companies were deregulated. It cost CA taxpayers 9 billion.

Qikdraw

Well said Qikdraw.

If the electorate has any semblance of a wit about them come November 2008, it will be John Edwards winning the presidency.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would be a good president; too, bad we scientists haven't figured out how to combine the two and leave out the chaff that each has separately and keep the kernel when we make the new whole.

So, that leaves Edwards.

[usmc1]

is her ability to nettle the right and to get the good old boys frothing!

Other than that, I'm still putting my money into the Edwards campaign..and because he's chosen public financing of his campaign, every dime you contribute to his campaign is matched by public funds, not vested interest dollars.

And don't believe all the polls, his grassroots organization is tremendously strong and he very well could take Iowa and enough others to eventually win the nomination.

Yeah, Senator Clinton seems inevitable right now, but that will change before next summer. Right now the corporate media of the right has dubbed her as the default candidate, but, do not count on it!

When push comes to shove, I'll vote for her, despite the fact that she is really Republican Lite. Simply because we can get more accomplished domestically with a Democrat with a marginal grip on sanity than with the megalomaniacs the GOP have trotted out.

[Qikdraw]

Well the scary thing about Hillary is that she said she isn't sure if she would get rid of all the executive powers that Bush gave himself. That scares me. I want those powers gone.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. 'We the people' are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free.
Ronald Reagan

Excellent words.

And why do I really not want Rudi in?

“Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”
Rudi Giulliani

Scary words. I prefer John Adams' take:

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.
John Adams

Qikdraw

[hw]

Have you gone after Bush for lying? Or any member of the Republican party for doing the same thing?

No the way I see it....just my opinion is it is perfectly ok for the democRATS to lie but not the republicans. (In the eyes of the democRATS). Yes I thought Nixon should have resigned much sooner than he did.

One: Get over the blow job.
I could care less about that....it was the fact he LIED about it on national television. What else did he lie about? It's pretty sad to watch main stream news media and see the push for democRATic, socialist policies thrust down our throats.

Two: How many American troops lost their lives in Bosnia?

One is too many in this case as Clinton was trying to take the eyes off his little affair.


How many troops lost their lives in Iraq after this administration has constantly lied about Iraq from day one? Do the math, and figure out where your outrage should go.

How many lost their lives in the World Trade Center on 9/11? Do you really think we should have sat back and watched that kind of thing happening more and more?



There is more proof that this administration had something to do with 9/11 than what your are suggesting. So yeah...

It seems the democRATS have been force feeding us this garbage on a daily basis so that people believe it is true. If you sit back, watch and listen to what the dims say.....their version of the "truth" is what they want everyone to believe. I suppose if it is said long enough and loud enough, everyone believes it sooner or later; and if you believe it, it must be true.

So if we blame Bush and republicans for all of the problems in America, if we vote the democRATS in power, they will change things for the better? Seems that was the dimocRAT promise in the last election.....and what have they accomplished by regaining power? Not a damn thing!

Try thinking outside the fanyasy box the Republicans live in ok?

I don't like Bush's policy on immigration. Our medical facilities and social services cannot keep up with the constant drain on the system. It will get worse if this isn't changed soon.




Qikdraw



As for who I'd vote for if the election was tomorrow? Toby Keith all the way. :cowboy:

[jon71]

Actually there were zero combat deaths in Bosnia during the Clinton administration. Because of his intelligent use of our military that conflict was contained. Otherwise it could have easily spilled over into Greece and beyond eventually dragging the U.S. in under far worse circumstances that when it was dealt with initially. We went in, did the job right, and left. That's how it should be.

[Pete Knight]

'We the people' are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free.
Ronald ReaganClever words but flawed !!

The government is a taxi, the people are the passengers who pick the taxi to take them to their destination, a political party is the taxi driver who takes you on the route of his choice and if he can clock up a few extra dollars on the meter all the better for him.

The people are no more in control of the government than the passenger is in control of the taxi, their control ends the second the votes have been counted or the taxi has been hailed, you make your choice then you have to stay with it until the end of the journey.

Of course if you thought your taxi driver or political leader was cheating you there are ways to cut the journey short but they are not easy once the journey has begun, so you have to sit back and wait until the ride is over.

Strangely enough there are people who are cheated by a taxi driver but they still get in the same taxi for the return journey, and even get taken for a third ride,...... but Tony has gone now thank goodness!!


Pete Knight

[NudeTopher]

Simon, do you ever let the facts get in the way of your views? Do you get all of your political information by soundbites during campaigns?

[quote=Simon-new;173826]As for myself I will never vote for a Democrate. They always propose big plans that will take more money, and I don't want to pay more tax dollars for their "Great" plans. And I do not buy in to the Dem's are for the poor and the Repub's are for the rich. The Dem's flag around just as many big spenders during election time as the Repub's.

Do you realize that the largest surplus in history was achieved through Clinton's balanced budgets? Do you realize that this same surplus was spent on our way to the largest debt in the history of our nation under Bush? You parrot the term "tax and spend" Democrat (btw - there is no "e" at the end); but where has this happend? For the past Republican administrations Bush II x 2, Bush 1, Reagan this certainly hasn't been the case. Perhaps you should do some fact checking.

I saw Alan Keys was running again, he would be a great first black President. No doubt you believe in family values and family values are very important to you.

How do you feel about the fact that Alan K E Y E S (not Keys) disowned his daugther for being gay? Would you put your trust in a president that disowned his own daughter for her sexuality? Not even Dick Cheney did that - in fact, Cheney embraced his daughter, her lover, and their baby.


Romney has alot of business sense. And Washington could use someone that knows business. As a Christian Huckabee likes really good, he also runs marathons, that impresses me alittle.

I swear I'm not being facetous, but I just don't understand your logic here. How can being a "Good Christian" lead one to be a good president? Does prayer lead to good government? Since probably the most religious recent president was Jimmy Carter, would you say that Carter was an excellent president because he is a good Christian?
l
Since we look to the administration to set the course and to fund those things we need - would you rather have a president who supported scientific research that could help treat, if not cure, some of our worst diseases OR would you rather have a president that shunned science because it M I G H T be in conflict with creationistic beliefs? Lastly do you believe this to be a Christian nation or a pluralistic nation?

I look forward to your reply so that I can further understand where you are coming from.

[NudeTopher]

Wow HW!

I can't believe you really said How many troops lost their lives in Iraq after this administration has constantly lied about Iraq from day one? Do the math, and figure out where your outrage should go.

How many lost their lives in the World Trade Center on 9/11? Do you really think we should have sat back and watched that kind of thing happening more and more?


Even the White house has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with WTC-9/11. If we should invade a nation in response to 9/11, even if they didn't have anything to do with it, then we should have invaded either Canada or Mexico; the commute would have cost less money!

Seriously, you criticize Clinton for our having gone to Bosnia - and this is a valid position. But, then you can't support Bush for invading Iraq, where we have lost thousands of our troops (and been responsible for 10,000 civilian deaths) when instead of a single clear reason for the invasion he floated trail balloons after the invasion looking for a reason that would stick. You might even remember some of the trial balloons that were floated and then brought back: WMD, 9/11, a desire to stabalize the region and spread democracy...

[nacktman]

What is truly amazing is that the stupidity level of the myopic-tunnel vision of the right-wing is ever sinking to deeper and deeper depths of ridiculousness ... I mean as if starting out at minus twenty on a scale of one to ten wasn't bad enough!

I see a lot of these sorts whining about Bill Clinton 'lying' about getting a hummer on the side - get a clue - the odds are somewhere around 99 out of 100 would do the same thing should they be married as he is. Then a new chorus of "He lied" in court and said he did not have sex with 'that woman' which in itself is a lie. He responded to the question as it was phrased by the prosecutor and how 'sex' was defined by the court at the prosecutor's urging with the only truthful answer - NO.

As to the sending of troops to foreign lands ... OK, let's use the examples of Bosnia and Iraq they have brought up shall we!?

Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to separate waring factions and quell a burgeoning regional conflaguration and was invited to do so by those waring factions -troops who were killed - 0 - warring factions reach peace accord and regional conflict averted - we left and came home.
Oh, and this incursion did not take the rabid attention away from the "investigation" of the hummer ... in fact they still are whining about it.

the shrub sent and is sending more troops to Iraq to make himself and his cronies richer creating a unstable region out of a stable one, dividing a stable country into waring factions and lied and continues to lie as to why he sent troops there - troops who were killed 3840 (last count I read) so far with no end in sight - regional all out war is looming and the idiot is chomping at the bit to invade Iran.
Oh and this massive blunder has not taken the attention off the shrub's lies and illegal activities - usurping power, domestic spying, unlawful detainment, torture, total disregard for the nations citizens, excessive taxation of the poor and middle class, denial of health care for children ... and so on and so on.
We need a patriotic skank to perform a public service and give the shrub a hummer so we can oust him from office, after all turnabout is fair-play! How about it all you right-wing holier than thou's out there, one of you can actually save the world on your knees - and no not by 'praying' either!

Now, how many of you with a wit of sense cannot see the differences? Take your time.

The world will right itself - Karma can be a "be-otch" that way -and the election of a president of these United States is but one part in that. As it stands now only one person is truly electable and good for the country and the world and that is John Edwards, the rest are pale wannabe's to outright dangerous troglodytes ... and yes the troglodytes are on the right with only one half-way to being the type to be president - the rest well ...

[hw]

Well slap a Stupid Button on me and call me a convert !!!! :surprised:

No one ever explained to me the Good Ol Boy thinking of the Dims. :doh:






What is truly amazing is that the stupidity level of the myopic-tunnel vision of the right-wing is ever sinking to deeper and deeper depths of ridiculousness ... I mean as if starting out at minus twenty on a scale of one to ten wasn't bad enough!

I see a lot of these sorts whining about Bill Clinton 'lying' about getting a hummer on the side - get a clue - the odds are somewhere around 99 out of 100 would do the same thing should they be married as he is. Then a new chorus of "He lied" in court and said he did not have sex with 'that woman' which in itself is a lie. He responded to the question as it was phrased by the prosecutor and how 'sex' was defined by the court at the prosecutor's urging with the only truthful answer - NO.


99 out of 100? :thinking: So are you saying anyone married to Hillary is justified in taking up with another woman, or it is perfectly ok for any married man to have an affair?

As to the sending of troops to foreign lands ... OK, let's use the examples of Bosnia and Iraq they have brought up shall we!?

Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to separate waring factions and quell a burgeoning regional conflaguration and was invited to do so by those waring factions -troops who were killed - 0 - warring factions reach peace accord and regional conflict averted - we left and came home.
Oh, and this incursion did not take the rabid attention away from the "investigation" of the hummer ... in fact they still are whining about it.

Yes let's go into Bosnia and bomb them....forget all the attacks on American navy ships and embassies. Only a few hundred people were killed in those attacks. Clinton should have done something after each one of those attacks, but as a true dim, had a let's just wait and see attitude.

the shrub sent and is sending more troops to Iraq to make himself and his cronies richer creating a unstable region out of a stable one, dividing a stable country into waring factions and lied and continues to lie as to why he sent troops there - troops who were killed 3840 (last count I read) so far with no end in sight - regional all out war is looming and the idiot is chomping at the bit to invade Iran.

Yes and supported in this war by so many dims, until it started and then they back-peddled and said the war is wrong and Bush lied. How many of the supporters said during the Clinton years they just knew there were WDM's and would support an invaision by Clinton, did support Bush's war and then started the rumors of 9/11 being an inside job. :rolleyes:

Oh and this massive blunder has not taken the attention off the shrub's lies and illegal activities - usurping power, domestic spying, unlawful detainment, torture, total disregard for the nations citizens, excessive taxation of the poor and middle class, denial of health care for children ... and so on and so on.

Domestic spying has been around for years, just Google your address and see what the satalites see. Sorry to be the one to tell you but your phone conversations have been listened to for years. The "Net" makes it easier for the Govenrment to monitor everyone.

All citizens should have health care. It is a shame not one President could come up with a plan that is good for all citizens.





We need a patriotic skank to perform a public service and give the shrub a hummer so we can oust him from office, after all turnabout is fair-play! How about it all you right-wing holier than thou's out there, one of you can actually save the world on your knees - and no not by 'praying' either!


Unfortunatly Clinton wasn't ousted. So you are saying that Bush should do this and get in trouble but not Clinton? (Yep back to my theory, Dims can do anything they please, but Republicans are held to different set of rules).

Now, how many of you with a wit of sense cannot see the differences? Take your time.

I see the difference.. :rolleyes:

The world will right itself - Karma can be a "be-otch" that way -and the election of a president of these United States is but one part in that. As it stands now only one person is truly electable and good for the country and the world and that is John Edwards, the rest are pale wannabe's to outright dangerous troglodytes ... and yes the troglodytes are on the right with only one half-way to being the type to be president - the rest well ...[/quote]

[usmc1]

Yes let's go into Bosnia and bomb them....forget all the attacks on American navy ships and embassies. Only a few hundred people were killed in those attacks. Clinton should have done something after each one of those attacks, but as a true dim, had a let's just wait and see attitude. H.W., do you realize that by making this assertion you are underlining Bush's failure to prevent the attacks of 9/11? Here's how that extends out. You say Clinton failed to act aggressively enough in response to terror attacks during his administration. (In truth, that assertion has been disproved and well rebutted in other earlier threads.)

But, never mind, lets go along with your assertion to its conclusion. This presupposes then that "terrorist attacks" were cause for specific actions which were not taken. Bush and the Republicans, when elected, had an opportunity to remedy that. They did not. Not only that, they criticized President's Clinton's attempts to deal with terror through military strikes and also ignored his warnings when they came to office. History and their own words show they were focused only on Iraq not Islamic terrorism.

This brief quote from the author of How Would A Patriot Act is applicable.

"It is rank, deceitful revisionism to attempt to blame the Clinton administration for failing to be sufficiently aggressive with regard to Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism generally. To make this argument with any plausibility, Bush supporters would have to be able to point to complaints made by Republicans at the time -- and especially during the 2000 election -- that the Clinton administration should have been more attentive or aggressive towards Islamic terrorists. The threat posed by Al Qaeda and bin Laden was well known throughout the 1990s. To pretend that Republicans wanted a more aggressive stance than Clinton took is blatant revisionism.

Prominent Republican elected officials were not criticizing Clinton for paying insufficient attention to Al Qaeda. George Bush barely said a word about Islamic terrorism during the entire presidential campaign -- throughout 1999 and then through all of 2000 -- and to the extent Republicans spoke about Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts at all, it was to criticize them for being too bellicose, too militaristic, and just unnecessary.

The 2000 Republican Party Platform contains 13 specific criticisms (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#45) of the Clinton Administration's foreign and military policies. Not a single one mentions or refers in any way to Al Qaeda or terrorism generally. After that, there is an entire section (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#53) entitled "The Middle East and Persian Gulf" that deals extensively with Iraq and the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but it does not say a word -- not a single word -- about Islamic extremism, Al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden.

Even the section (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#57) of the Platform entitled "Terrorism, International Crime, and Cyber Threats" makes not one reference to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or Islamic extremism. It does not contain a single claim that the Clinton administration was insufficiently aggressive towards Islamic terrorists, nor does it advocate increased militarism in the Middle East or against terrorists. In fact, to the extent Republicans advocated a new approach at all, it was to emphasize the need for the very "law enforcement" and "domestic preparedness" approaches which they now claim to disdain:<o></o>

George Bush's 2000 Republican National Convention acceptance speech (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/transcripts/bush.html) contained a slew of specific criticisms of the Clinton administration, along with a series of specific foreign policy goals. He never mentioned or even alluded to the threat of terrorism, Islamic extremism, or the need for increased aggression against Middle Eastern supporters of terrorism. In fact, to the extent Bush criticized the use of military force at all, it was to imply that it was not used sparingly or discriminatingly enough:"

Here is what was said, "…the current administration has casually sent American armed forces on dozens of missions without clear goals, realizable objectives, favorable rules of engagement, or defined exit strategies. Over the past seven years, a shrunken American military has been run ragged by a deployment tempo that has eroded its military readiness. Many units have seen their operational requirements increased four-fold, wearing out both people and equipment.”

So it does not sound to me as though Bush and the Republicans were worried about terror or lack of response to terror, sounds as though they were complaining about too much. And, did you catch that prescient description of today's military?

You ask for a Stupid Button? Well, here's your button. Wear it proudly, you've earned it.:rofl:

[nacktman]

As requested here is your stupid button!

[hw]

As requested here is your stupid button!

I'll wear mine if you wear yours. :p



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by nacktman http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=173937#post173937)


I see a lot of these sorts whining about Bill Clinton 'lying' about getting a hummer on the side - get a clue - the odds are somewhere around 99 out of 100 would do the same thing should they be married as he is.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

99 out of 100? :thinking: So are you saying anyone married to Hillary is justified in taking up with another woman, or it is perfectly ok for any married man to have an affair?




We need a patriotic skank to perform a public service and give the shrub a hummer so we can oust him from office, after all turnabout is fair-play! How about it all you right-wing holier than thou's out there, one of you can actually save the world on your knees - and no not by 'praying' either!


Unfortunatly Clinton wasn't ousted. So you are saying that Bush should do this and get in trouble but not Clinton? (Yep back to my theory, Dims can do anything they please, but Republicans are held to different set of rules).


Now, how many of you with a wit of sense cannot see the differences? Take your time.

I see the difference.. :rolleyes:


Waffling nack... :shrug:

[nacktman]

I'll wear mine if you wear yours. :p

Sorry don't have one.

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

99 out of 100? :thinking: So are you saying anyone married to Hillary is justified in taking up with another woman, or it is perfectly ok for any married man to have an affair?

99 out of 100 married men will not admit to an affair from the get go - married to Hillary or not.

Unfortunatly Clinton wasn't ousted. So you are saying that Bush should do this and get in trouble but not Clinton? (Yep back to my theory, Dims can do anything they please, but Republicans are held to different set of rules).

Fortunately Clinton was not ousted from office - he hadn't committed a crime for which impeachment was warranted and the repugnican attempt to circumvent the legal system and do so anyway failed. Consensual oral sex between two of majority age is not an impeachable offense - no matter how hard you try and make it.

The shrub on the other hand ...

There is no different standard for any of any 'party' except maybe the other way around from your view ... what with the repugnicans falling out of restroom stalls or refusing to pay the male prostitute whom had just performed their 'service' for them or sending lurid love notes to minor boys, etc., and not being impeached for those offenses. Ya just gotta wonder about that 'different' set of rules!


I see the difference.. :rolleyes:

Nope, ya don't.

Waffling nack... :shrug:

Naw, I prefer pancakes.

[hw]

I'll wear mine if you wear yours. :p

Sorry don't have one.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

99 out of 100? :thinking: So are you saying anyone married to Hillary is justified in taking up with another woman, or it is perfectly ok for any married man to have an affair?

99 out of 100 married men will not admit to an affair from the get go - married to Hillary or not.

Unfortunatly Clinton wasn't ousted. So you are saying that Bush should do this and get in trouble but not Clinton? (Yep back to my theory, Dims can do anything they please, but Republicans are held to different set of rules).

Fortunately Clinton was not ousted from office - he hadn't committed a crime for which impeachment was warranted and the repugnican attempt to circumvent the legal system and do so anyway failed. Consensual oral sex between two of majority age is not an impeachable offense - no matter how hard you try and make it.

The shrub on the other hand ...

There is no different standard for any of any 'party' except maybe the other way around from your view ... what with the repugnicans falling out of restroom stalls or refusing to pay the male prostitute whom had just performed their 'service' for them or sending lurid love notes to minor boys, etc., and not being impeached for those offenses. Ya just gotta wonder about that 'different' set of rules!


I see the difference.. :rolleyes:

Nope, ya don't.

Waffling nack... :shrug:

Naw, I prefer pancakes.


Thanks for the answer. You'll never believe it but I actually agree with you on the "restroom stalls, male prostitue, and notes to minors". :surprised: I think they should all resign immediately!


And remember.....if you lean too far left, you'll never be all right !!! :laugh:

[nudebushwalker]

HW, you are a fool...

not just an idiot, but an illiterate and ignorant moron who just keeps bouncing back to cop more and more abusive home truths..

People like you are the reason that Americans these days have such a low reputation on the international stage - recently the USA was listed #38 for education among OECD countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK can usually be trusted to be somewhere in the top 10..).

{now, wonder if this earns me another black mark on here - what's wrong with voicing opinions ??}

[nacktman]

HW, you are a fool...

not just an idiot, but an illiterate and ignorant moron who just keeps bouncing back to cop more and more abusive home truths..

People like you are the reason that Americans these days have such a low reputation on the international stage - recently the USA was listed #38 for education among OECD countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK can usually be trusted to be somewhere in the top 10..).

{now, wonder if this earns me another black mark on here - what's wrong with voicing opinions??}

Nothing wrong with voicing opinions.

What is problematic with some is that they cannot defend their opinions and as we have stated before have attacked, ridiculed, reviled, outright lied, parsed and snipped among other things and then have the temerity to accuse any who stand up to say "whoa buddy" of the very things they are doing and whine and complain they are 'victims' of which they inflict upon others.

These also tend to be low-brow and non-thinking individuals as well which in turn amplifies the problems with them and their preconceived dogma and mass herd mentality.

Responding with a finger wagging no-no or an all out artillery barrage or anything in between does not do any good with these types as evidenced by their total denial of anything save their dogmatic tunnel vision mindset we have witnessed herein until they wither and die on the vine as it where and slither away onto some other unlucky forum.

They are known as trolls, idiots, nut-jobs, etc., and do tend to slither onto forums in bunches - create havoc for a time and then fade away.
However there always seems to be a couple who lay in waiting until the rest of their kindred have begun to disappear to come out and keep the moronic blathering up until the next mass incursion.

Due to these types exchange of ideas and dialog is next to impossible for others who may have strong opinions but can express them in a civil manner and respect the opinions of others even through exchanges that can become somewhat warm.

Which in turn on these forums have caused the general feeling of fear to express opinion other than the dogma of the trolls for in doing so one may incur their ire and become the next victim of their attacks or earn a 'black mark' from the moderators.

Such a fear is well grounded for one will incur their ire and be subject to their attacks - I could name at least five people who have posted in the last month other than myself and their other main target who have been so attacked for expressing their opinion - all of whom are of the 'right' religion and political party in the view of the trolls. However, I do not have their permission to name them, so I will not. As to the 'black mark' from the moderators, that is up to them.

Qikdraw's original post of a video clip illustrating the moronic process of the idiotic mind was quite funny and so on the mark it wasn't funny all at the same time. We can hope that those of us with working brains and an educated one to boot can show the world that not all are morons here - granted it will be a herculean task given the last 7 years but we have done more before.

[EricNY]

{now, wonder if this earns me another black mark on here - what's wrong with voicing opinions ??}


Yep it sure did! Voicing your opinions is certainly acceptable. Insulting and name calling is NOT....Learn the difference, please

[nimrod]

I believe him to be yet another evil, one worse than Mrs. Clinton. I wish now I can remember what he said, but his religious views seem to be that of a fundamentalist, after I heard him I was scared that he was actually running for Pres., and after reading some of these post even more so because he might make it. If you are thinking Edwards think again, please.

Once again I do not know where to go because I do not feel any of the canidates, Dem or Rep are worthy of my vote, and realistically it will be either of those parties who have a chance of becoming Pres, not unless a great Indy canidate comes around.

[nacktman]

nimrod,

Not sure what you think you heard Edwards say to make you think he was any sort of fundamentalist but I can assure you he is not.
I know him and have for years - even when he was a child.
Yes, he does have a strong religious faith and he does speak of it.
He however does not force or attempt to foist his religion on anyone as those that ARE fundamentalists do.

He is almost in the center politically ... just to the left - exactly what we need after the disaster of the last 7 years.
He is one of us who can have our personal opinions and beliefs and do what is best for all and not cow-tow to narrow mindedness and the ills it brings.

He is hated by the Big Business/Corporate types who are enjoying their current lacky and the gluttony of obscene profits they are experiencing because he fought them and won - that alone is good reason to elect him.

He is well liked and respected world wide - a commodity we have in extremely short supply right now.

He is extremely well liked and respected by the majority of his fellow Americans - again a commodity we have in extremely short supply right now.

He scares the bejesus out of the other party because they know they stand no chance of winning against Hillary let alone even less of a chance of winning against him so they rant and rave and froth at the mouth about Hillary to draw attention away from Edwards ... it has worked for the most part with the domestic media who regurgitate their 'press releases' verbatum.

The World media has no such knee jerk compulsion and Edwards is the front runner in polls conducted by them of American voters by a large margin (by an even larger margin among Non-Americans).

So I ask you to rethink your position on Edwards - he is the only candidate that is the most complete package we have.

[usmc1]

Nimrod, Edwards is as close to being true populist and man of the people that you will find in this race.

I am politcally more in tune with Kucinich but the radical religious right, neo-conservative polticians, and neoliberal economists have pulled the center so far to the right that Kucinich seriously stands no chance. Would it were otherwise.

But, Edwards is sound and close enough to center that he can help pull the body politic back to its liberal roots.

The truth is that America has had a gut full of Gingrich's scorched earth, no negotiation, no compromise, and winner take all approach to governance. That political model has had its day. And, you know what, not all people of faith buy into the radical religious right and ought not be lumped into that group.

Edwards is a tremendous candidate and very liklely to stun everyone when he takes Iowa.

So, I'm wondering, beyond that, specifically what is it about Edwards that frightens you?

[jon71]

I think well of Edwards. Most likely our nominee will be either Clinton or Obama. Assuming that Edwards isn't the running mate I think he would be a PERFECT choice for Attorney General. He obviously has the legal knowledge and I believe his priorities are very valid. While I'm thinking about our next cabinet lets not forget Max Cleland for Defense secretary.

[hw]

HW, you are a fool...

not just an idiot, but an illiterate and ignorant moron who just keeps bouncing back to cop more and more abusive home truths..

People like you are the reason that Americans these days have such a low reputation on the international stage - recently the USA was listed #38 for education among OECD countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK can usually be trusted to be somewhere in the top 10..).

{now, wonder if this earns me another black mark on here - what's wrong with voicing opinions ??}

Yes...what is wrong with voicing MY opinions? :shrug:

Anger management.

[nimrod]

For those that responded to my post on Edwards, I do see his strong points, and if it were not for what he had said I could and would suport him. If I remember correctly it was something to do with bringing church and state together, I cannot remember the exact wording but my first thought was "this is a dangerous man.". Also, there was something about a need for more conservitive christian values in this country, and that brings to mind fundi thinking.

[Baron Lake]

Crikey! Bushwacker, ya got a pack of dingos nipping at your butt?

HW may be not have a firm understanding of the real world :) at least politics. but she is very much a lady of charm and wit, characteristics which you seem to lack.

b.l.

[usmc1]

Yes...what is wrong with voicing MY opinions? :shrug:

Anger management.

Absolutely nothing. Write (voice?) them as you wish.

Your opinions are welcome and provide an opportunity for debate--but, I think, you should be prepared to accept the consequences when you post an opinion which you should know will stimulate heated response. I don't think you are so naive not to know that, a bit disingenuous maybe, but not naive.

But, let's turn that around. Let's ask what is wrong with nudebushwalker's expressing his opinion of you and your opinion? Seriously, do you really expect to throw things out and not be challenged or to make outlandish assertions without someone questioning your motives or mental facilities?

Certainly when one comes into a public forum and expresses some provocative statement one can expect some heat, now can't one? Especially when that opinion is known to be utterly wrong--even Bush has acknowledged that Iraq had no role in 9/11.

And, I do want to remind you that I put forth a very sincere and serious question to you regarding your assertion concerning President Clinton and terrorism. I believe I deserve a response.

[Naturist Mark]

For those that responded to my post on Edwards, I do see his strong points, and if it were not for what he had said I could and would suport him. If I remember correctly it was something to do with bringing church and state together, I cannot remember the exact wording but my first thought was "this is a dangerous man.". Also, there was something about a need for more conservitive christian values in this country, and that brings to mind fundi thinking.

Look through these Google links to see what Edwards says about Church and State:

http://tinyurl.com/3yanum

-Mark

[nacktman]

For those that responded to my post on Edwards, I do see his strong points, and if it were not for what he had said I could and would suport him. If I remember correctly it was something to do with bringing church and state together, I cannot remember the exact wording but my first thought was "this is a dangerous man.". Also, there was something about a need for more conservitive christian values in this country, and that brings to mind fundi thinking.

nimrod here is the actual quote from John I think you might be referring to:

"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."

Actually it does, and he and I have discussed this point several times over the years but he sees it as he stated. He also has stated - and I know he is dead set on this - that he "would not under, any circumstances, try to impose [his] personal faith and beliefs on the rest of the country."

He has referred to a return to actual traditional "christian" values (you might have thought of the fundamentalist angle here as well) - which wouldn't be a bad thing at all because they are really traditional values that far pre-date christianity ... those being:

respect others,
care about others,
treat others as you want to be treated,
help others.




What's more funny is that those four basic 'values' are universal among humankind's more progressive cultures and are in no way 'fundamentalist values' (a misnomer if there ever was one), as fundamentalism is naught save totalitarianism wrapped in faulty dogma.

In summation, Edwards is the best choice we have to return us to what made us a great nation and not the popping-jays and laughing stocks we are now with all the fake 'patriots' howling and braying at the moon while dragging our nation through the muck and mire.

[nimrod]

It is times like these that I wish my memory was better. Thank you both Mark and Nacktman for the information.

Nacktman, it may have been something along the lines you have given, but I really cannot remember. It might have been him saying how his faith, and or his religious views, will affect the way he reacts to situations that might arise as President. It could have to do with how I feel about the chruch in general, and most of the hypocrits that call themselves christains, all I know whatever it is, it was enough to scare me away from him. You bring a good case for him, but I have to go with what I know and how I feel. There should be a seperation from church and state, and I think that means to even seperate yourself from your own religious beliefs when you enter into the realm of public office, if you cannot then there is no true seperation because you are making decisions based on what one learned in chruch and not what might be best for the country.

[usmc1]

I don't think you can completely separate an individual's faith from their (we need to make this collective possessive inclusive of singularity to achieve gender neutrality) deeds and actions. However, in our system, secular law ought to trump religious faith when one is in public office.

It doesn't always, as we well know, which is why it is important to ask this question of candidates for public office. Many of us are very flinchy from the effects of the radical religious right's efforts to change law and modify culture.

We've endured a long patch now of having those with narrow religious perspectives and rigidly reactive, misinformed, naive and conservative religious beliefs imposing their half-baked ideas on the entire nation through their support of megalomaniac and sociopathic politicians carrying out the policies of neo-con advisers and neoliberal economists.

I do not entirely agree with nimrod, but he is right to question Edwards' public avowals of faith. We do need to know and understand what that would imply for his administration if that faith is true and deep. On the other hand, we would want to know whether his expressions of religiousness is mere pandering.

I would be more comfortable with an Atheist, Agnostic, secular-humanist, or self-avowed Deist rather than a Theist of any ilk, but I don't think that is to be. So for me, out of the whole gaggle, Kucincih, Edwards and Clinton provide the best options.

But, it is a troubling issue the amount of power the religions have regained in the political process. I don't think it is going away again for awhile.

[Daveinct]

When choosing between two evils, I like to go with the evil I haven't tried before.

But I can't decide if Hillary is the 'new evil' we've never tried before because she is a woman.

Or is she an evil we HAVE tried before because she is a Clinton?

Remember that genetically she is not a Clinton, she is only a Clinton by marriage. Wait a minute, she chose to be a Clinton? Could that be more evil than being a Clinton by birth?

Dave

[nudebushwalker]

Crikey! Bushwacker, ya got a pack of dingos nipping at your butt?

HW may be not have a firm understanding of the real world :) at least politics. but she is very much a lady of charm and wit, characteristics which you seem to lack.

b.l.


Oh, Barren, Barren, Barren ...
how can I take you seriously when you can't even spell your own first name correctly ?

After a long and fruitless search through these forums failed to find any evidence to support your claims, I only have to accept your word that HW is a "lady of charm and wit", and trust that you know her personally..

Better to be honest to myself; honest, upright and straightforward in what I say and do; intelligent, educated, eloquent and erudite (and obviously very modest, to boot..); rather than fitting your low brow and ignorant apparent definition of ".. charm and wit".

[Baron Lake]

Well NBW, apparently you missed the 800 pound gorilla of threads on this forum. I refer you to "Are My Voices Offending You?". (Fun and Humor section); a thread started by HW who has remained IMHO its most important contributor.

Oh. No we have not (yet) met though she does live just down the road a piece, 30 miles or so. I just need to figure out how to keep Mike out of the way for awhile :).

b.l.

[usmc1]

Well NBW, apparently you missed the 800 pound gorilla of threads on this forum. I refer you to "Are My Voices Offending You?". (Fun and Humor section); a thread started by HW who has remained IMHO its most important contributor.

Oh. No we have not (yet) met though she does live just down the road a piece, 30 miles or so. I just need to figure out how to keep Mike out of the way for awhile :).

b.l.

When you do, please ask her to please answer my question. Thank you.

[Baron Lake]

Will do US; er would ya mind runnin' that question by us one more time? Just to refresh our memory a bit. Course, I don't wanna get your hopes up... I believe I did mention HW's perception of (political) truth is suspect at best. Please remember much of California's Central Valley is populated by folks who make Rush Limburger seem like a flaming liberal.

b.l.