Hillary won't get the nomination

Superfreak said:
I didn't say Bradley would have won TN darla. I said Gore should have won.

Bradley would have been a far better candidate than Gore on the whole.
Click to expand...

Hey, I would have been as happy as BB down at the bar on payday, if Bradley had been president for the past 7 years, but the fact remains he was to the left of Gore, and in 2000 (though I do not believe this holds true today), a candidate to the left of the then moderate, Gore, could not have won. That is just an opinion. That bradely was left of Gore, is fact.
 
Topspin said:
dems need to make sure they don't bar themselves from the presidencey with these moronic attitudes.
Click to expand...

Top the day you learn to read a freaking poll and discover that everyone running beats the R candidates by more points than Hillary, then you can talk.

Until then, you are out of consideration, sorry.
 
Darla said:
Top the day you learn to read a freaking poll and discover that everyone running beats the R candidates by more points than Hillary, then you can talk.

Until then, you are out of consideration, sorry.
Click to expand...


Republicans are thrilled about a Hillary candidacy. Absolutely thrilled.

Not sure what tops misses on that one...
 
Onceler said:
"the fact that I have said time and again that I thought it was inevitable that we go in"

Again - something that disqualifies you from any discussion regarding national security going forward....
Click to expand...

You are so full of shit. Because I have a different opinion than you somehow THAT disqualifies me? Pull your head out of your ass or whatever Dems ass it is in. 12 years of failure in Iraq by the UN. 8 by Clinton. The situation in Iraq was getting worse each year due to the sanctions. But I know, to you everything would have been far better had we just continued on for another 12 years so that you and your kind could bury your heads in the sand ignoring the problems and finding absolution from any responsibility.

Out of the two of us, you are the one that should be disqualified from any discussion regarding national security. Perhaps you should stick to discussing the Academy awards.... seems to be more your level.
 
Darla said:
Hey, I would have been as happy as BB down at the bar on payday, if Bradley had been president for the past 7 years, but the fact remains he was to the left of Gore, and in 2000 (though I do not believe this holds true today), a candidate to the left of the then moderate, Gore, could not have won. That is just an opinion. That bradely was left of Gore, is fact.
Click to expand...

That is where you are kidding yourself. Gore was not and is not a moderate. Bradley would have done a far better job against Bush and he would have won.
 
duhla you need to use your junior college degree to read more than the local rag. The real polls have Hillary crushing Rudy and second tier cons as well.
Face the facts castro dems Hillary is YOUR NOMINEE!!!!
 
"12 years of failure in Iraq by the UN. 8 by Clinton."

Did Saddam have WMD's?

Do you know something I don't?

If he didn't, what is your definition of failure?

History is on my side, freak. You're one of the idiots who stubbornly sticks to the original story...
 
Superfreak said:
That is where you are kidding yourself. Gore was not and is not a moderate. Bradley would have done a far better job against Bush and he would have won.
Click to expand...

He's not a moderate now, maybe wasn't then, but ran as one then. And won.

I don't see how you can claim that someone running to the left of Gore could have won in 2000, when the American people weren't yet punch drunk from getting the shit beat out of them by 7 years of conservative economic policy.
 
Darla said:
SF here is the problem with your theory: History has now unfolded. There is now no doubt, Saddam did not have wmd's.

Therefore, the UN and Bill Clinton DID handle the situation.

Though, also not in the manner I would have preferred.
Click to expand...

Such a poor leap of logic.

1) They were supposed to verify it, had they done so, the sanctions that were starving the Iraqi people and benefitting Saddam would have been removed.

2) History has indeed unfolded, but you do not know it would have unfolded in the same manner had Gore been President. Had Gore been President, would he have escalated the number of troops in Saudi if he wasn't planning to invade?... NO, because as you mentioned he wasn't likely going to invade Iraq and thus would not have had the need to do so. So if the troop buildup had not occured... would Saddam have become as cooperative with the UN? Would the UN have even cared?

Most likely.... the UN and Gore would have kept the sanctions and no fly zones in place and let the Iraqi people starve. They did not care in Rwanda... so why should they care now?
 
Superfreak said:
Such a poor leap of logic.

1) They were supposed to verify it, had they done so, the sanctions that were starving the Iraqi people and benefitting Saddam would have been removed.

2) History has indeed unfolded, but you do not know it would have unfolded in the same manner had Gore been President. Had Gore been President, would he have escalated the number of troops in Saudi if he wasn't planning to invade?... NO, because as you mentioned he wasn't likely going to invade Iraq and thus would not have had the need to do so. So if the troop buildup had not occured... would Saddam have become as cooperative with the UN? Would the UN have even cared?

Most likely.... the UN and Gore would have kept the sanctions and no fly zones in place and let the Iraqi people starve. They did not care in Rwanda... so why should they care now?
Click to expand...


The sanctions should have been dropped, because they were aimed at the people. It's true that the Clinton administration didn't care about that, which Madeline Albright admitted, just as Colin Powell admitted that the number of dead Iraqis in Gulf war I was not a number that "interest me very much".

But what we know now is not in debate. Saddam had no wmds, no invasion was needed.
 
Superfreak said:
Well now genius, given the fact that I have said time and again that I thought it was inevitable that we go in.... I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that particular part of it. Now would I?

But I do love how people like you do so enjoy calling everyone who doesn't share your view an "apologist". I am not apologizing for anything or anyone. I didn't like the timing or how it was managed. That does not change the fact that I thought it needed to be done. As it had for 8 years previously that your beloved leader did nothing. But please, continue to be a UN and Clinton apologist for their failure to handle the situation for 8 straight years. I understand how embarassing that is for you.
Click to expand...

I didn't like the timing or how it was managed. That does not change the fact that I thought it needed to be done.


Incredible. I haven't seen someone argue for the neccessity of the Iraq war since Dixie left. Amazing.

Hey superfreak, since you're always saying how dems need to nominate more moderates, can you explain why you would have voted for Bill Bradley - who was to the left of Gore - in 2000, if the Dems had nominated Bradley? Seems like a contradiction to me.

thanks.
 
Superfreak said:
Such a poor leap of logic.

1) They were supposed to verify it, had they done so, the sanctions that were starving the Iraqi people and benefitting Saddam would have been removed.

2) History has indeed unfolded, but you do not know it would have unfolded in the same manner had Gore been President. Had Gore been President, would he have escalated the number of troops in Saudi if he wasn't planning to invade?... NO, because as you mentioned he wasn't likely going to invade Iraq and thus would not have had the need to do so. So if the troop buildup had not occured... would Saddam have become as cooperative with the UN? Would the UN have even cared?

Most likely.... the UN and Gore would have kept the sanctions and no fly zones in place and let the Iraqi people starve. They did not care in Rwanda... so why should they care now?
Click to expand...


Oh please. The crocodile tears are flooding the place. I never heard one single con, ever cry about the sanctions, and its affect on iraqis, until 2003...when cons were shopping for reasons to continue to justify there war.

Ask Darla. Any con we ever talked to prior to 2003 said we needed the sanctions, even if it hurt the iraqi people. Afterall, it was saddams fault...don't blame the US!
 
Darla said:
He's not a moderate now, maybe wasn't then, but ran as one then. And won.

I don't see how you can claim that someone running to the left of Gore could have won in 2000, when the American people weren't yet punch drunk from getting the shit beat out of them by 7 years of conservative economic policy.
Click to expand...

He definitely wasn't a moderate then either. No matter how hard he pretended to be. His economic policy gave him away. As for Bradley, his proposed changes to the tax code, his proposals to reduce deficit spending, his proposals for campaign finance reform.... ALL of those would have played out well on the national stage. His mistake was that he thought he had to act left of Gore to get the nomination. So the lefty Gore acted like a moderate and the moderate Bradley acted like a lefty. Talk about backfiring on the country. To bad the dems couldn't see the advantages Bradley would have had.
 
Superfreak said:
He definitely wasn't a moderate then either. No matter how hard he pretended to be. His economic policy gave him away. As for Bradley, his proposed changes to the tax code, his proposals to reduce deficit spending, his proposals for campaign finance reform.... ALL of those would have played out well on the national stage. His mistake was that he thought he had to act left of Gore to get the nomination. So the lefty Gore acted like a moderate and the moderate Bradley acted like a lefty. Talk about backfiring on the country. To bad the dems couldn't see the advantages Bradley would have had.
Click to expand...

LOL

SF, I think that this post really makes clear that you are the one who sees what you want to see.
 
Superfreak said:
He definitely wasn't a moderate then either. No matter how hard he pretended to be. His economic policy gave him away. As for Bradley, his proposed changes to the tax code, his proposals to reduce deficit spending, his proposals for campaign finance reform.... ALL of those would have played out well on the national stage. His mistake was that he thought he had to act left of Gore to get the nomination. So the lefty Gore acted like a moderate and the moderate Bradley acted like a lefty. Talk about backfiring on the country. To bad the dems couldn't see the advantages Bradley would have had.
Click to expand...

Wow.

You've certainly "exposed" a lot of Democrats, who have had elaborate and complex plans to fake being moderate, or liberal, or whatever (regardless of their actual public voting records) , as the case may suit your argument du jour.
 
Darla said:
The sanctions should have been dropped, because they were aimed at the people. It's true that the Clinton administration didn't care about that, which Madeline Albright admitted, just as Colin Powell admitted that the number of dead Iraqis in Gulf war I was not a number that "interest me very much".

But what we know now is not in debate. Saddam had no wmds, no invasion was needed.
Click to expand...

But that is just it Darla... they should have been dropped because you are right, sanction do not hurt the governments... they hurt the people represented by the governments. But the point is... WOULD they have been dropped or would they have maintained the status quo and watched as another Rwanda occurred?

Saying no invasion was needed is being overly simplistic. But since we are not going to change each others minds on this, I am going to drop this part of the discussion.

bottom line is this... we have no way of knowing what "might have happened". When one event takes place it has a ripple effect on subsequent events. Had Bush left the Iraqi army intact things would likely have gone a lot differently... but that too we will never know and is nothing more than conjecture. THAT was the point. We do not know and thus none of us should act as though we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top