Hillary, America's Thatcher!

Darla said:
We want different things. I don't want a balanced budget amendment because i know where those cuts are coming from. I'd like some fiscal responsibility yes, but not what you want.

There isn't a Democrat alive who could gain your support for President.
Click to expand...
Because none of them want a balanced budget amendment? Why would you say this?

If they promised no Undeclared wars, closed the borders to illegal entry, worked to actual immigration rather than migration...

I'd be for them regardless of a D next to their name. Instead we have both parties advocating an amnesty before we do something about the border, neither party advocating a balanced budget, not either party talking about Undeclared Wars being debacles.... Not even one little bit of it.

Both parties do not get my vote at this time.
 
Damocles said:
I'd say that if there is no improvement in Iraq by that time. It is always possible, though improbable, that improvements could be gained and this would not be the same as it is right now.

Honestly, what Bills has Hillary put forward? What is she other than the "blessed aristocracy" that brings "the intelligence of Bill"? What you want is Bill back, well he can't run.

I want somebody who really understands the Constitution, who would never lead us into an Undeclared War, who would actually protect the borders from intrusion. Who would pass an Amendment for a balanced budget...

I want somebody better than, so far, everybody who has been suggested. But they aren't there. I know one thing that I don't want. The same families for generations to come running the nation into the ground and ignoring National interest to benefit the "vote"...

Seriously, there has never been a time when both parties are further from my interests than now. I may have no choice whatsoever than to vote third party this time. Luckily the Internet will give such people more voice nowadays.
Click to expand...

BTW Damo, if you want to find out "what Bills Hillary has put forward" you can go here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton
 
Damocles said:
Because none of them want a balanced budget amendment? Why would you say this?

If they promised no Undeclared wars, closed the borders to illegal entry, worked to actual immigration rather than migration...

I'd be for them regardless of a D next to their name. Instead we have both parties advocating an amnesty before we do something about the border, neither party advocating a balanced budget, not either party talking about Undeclared Wars being debacles.... Not even one little bit of it.

Both parties do not get my vote at this time.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm with you on the undeclared wars.

Some Democrats (liberal ones too) have advocated "pay as you go" legislation, which does not to my knowledge currently enjoy republican support. And that is as close to a balanced budget Amendment as you are ever going to get from either party.
 
Because none of them want a balanced budget amendment? Why would you say this? If they promised no Undeclared wars, closed the borders to illegal entry, worked to actual immigration rather than migration...

If these are really the top issues you care about, I think the Constitution Party is a good fit for you.
 
Cypress said:
Because none of them want a balanced budget amendment? Why would you say this? If they promised no Undeclared wars, closed the borders to illegal entry, worked to actual immigration rather than migration...

If these are really the top issues you care about, I think the Constitution Party is a good fit for you.
Click to expand...

Well, undeclared wars is a good top issue if you ask me. We really need to knock this shit off, we haven't had a declared war since WWII, isn't that right? Korea was never Congressionally declared either, was it?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with that. But how someone could look at this country, and this world today, and think that Immigration, legal, illegal, whatever, is our top problem is totally beyond me. That's the kind of crazy thinking that ends with you stuck with some facist crazy like Tancredo.
 
Darla said:
Well, I'm with you on the undeclared wars.

Some Democrats (liberal ones too) have advocated "pay as you go" legislation, which does not to my knowledge currently enjoy republican support. And that is as close to a balanced budget Amendment as you are ever going to get from either party.
Click to expand...
Then you are right, they don't get my support. Especially when "pay as you go" means passing unfunded legislation right after making that promise and promoting it as the greatest legislation since sliced bread.
 
Darla said:
Well, undeclared wars is a good top issue if you ask me. We really need to knock this shit off, we haven't had a declared war since WWII, isn't that right? Korea was never Congressionally declared either, was it?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with that. But how someone could look at this country, and this world today, and think that Immigration, legal, illegal, whatever, is our top problem is totally beyond me. That's the kind of crazy thinking that ends with you stuck with some facist crazy like Tancredo.
Click to expand...
No, Korea was never a Declared War. Each undeclared war has created a major boondoggle. People run around promoting weak arguments that they voted for something just to give a boost to the President in negotiating a peace, etc. It gets tired. If they couldn't run around and pretend on their vote, if it was a vote for war and nothing else there would be none of this inane excusing... Nor would we have ever gone into Iraq.

I agree with you, that is my top issue.

I never said immigration was our "top problem" that's simply an attempt to build a strawman.

I believe that legal immigration is the answer. Close the border to illegal immigration, open it to legal immigration. Request people who want to become American... That is my answer.
 
Darla said:
Well, undeclared wars is a good top issue if you ask me. We really need to knock this shit off, we haven't had a declared war since WWII, isn't that right? Korea was never Congressionally declared either, was it?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with that. But how someone could look at this country, and this world today, and think that Immigration, legal, illegal, whatever, is our top problem is totally beyond me. That's the kind of crazy thinking that ends with you stuck with some facist crazy like Tancredo.
Click to expand...

I think this sealing the border crap, and balanced budget amendment are what the Constitution Party is all about.

And its pure fantasy, of course. Show me a twenty foot wall, and I'll show you a twenty one foot ladder. The solution is to remove the incentive for people to come here illegally, by going after the businesses that hire them.

And the balanced budget amendment is foolish, IMO. Presidents like Eisenhower and Clinton could balance the budget. And in the case of war, or something like Katrina, or a national emergency, we may need to deficit spend.

I'm cool with legitimate war authorizations. In fact, since Bush now wants to fight in the middle of an Iraqi civil war, I think he needs to go back for another authorization.
 
Damocles said:
I'm done voting for people with the same names as those who won before. America is not supposed to have an aristocracy... These families keep getting a blessing because of the other members... I'm tired of it.
Click to expand...

I agree this should be a factor and Im not likely to vote for her, but if she is the better canidate and or I am afraid of the other canidate (another social conservative) Ill vote for Senator Clinton.

Edwards still has my primary vote!
 
Damocles said:
Because he says to give it a chance? Honestly. He's result oriented, he's willing to see the results before judging.
Click to expand...

I think he is too attached to this war to win the presidency unless the war turns around now. Now because he says lets give this "surge" a chance, but because he has supported Bush too much in this war.

I think America, unless there is a BIG shift, will support someone for president who was against this war from early on, or who has at least admited it was a mistake to support it!
 
Jarod said:
I think he is too attached to this war to win the presidency unless the war turns around now. Now because he says lets give this "surge" a chance, but because he has supported Bush too much in this war.

I think America, unless there is a BIG shift, will support someone for president who was against this war from early on, or who has at least admited it was a mistake to support it!
Click to expand...
Oh, I think if the surge doesn't work at all he'll happily inform people of how he thinks it is a mistake...

Not that I think he'll win, at this point there is no way to coronate anybody, but I think he'll likely have as much chance as any other to win the nomination...
 
Damocles said:
Oh, I think if the surge doesn't work at all he'll happily inform people of how he thinks it is a mistake...

Not that I think he'll win, at this point there is no way to coronate anybody, but I think he'll likely have as much chance as any other to win the nomination...
Click to expand...

I dont, I think the American people are smarter than that. McCain supported Bush throught this war, even now he is supporting him. The rest of the oppertnuistic crowd knows whats good for them, politically and they are running from Bush. McCain is stuck supporting this sinking ship.

The best canidate, for me, would be someone who was against this war from the begining, that will be hard to find, other than Obama. Second best is someone who realized the mistake early on, before it was politically popular to admit the war was a mistake, that is Edwards.
 
"I mean seriously, the far right wingnuts and talk radio drive the republican base - who are the ones that turn out to vote in primaries.

What's Rush Limbaugh and Hannity going to do come December 2007: start saying that "You know, I think Bush was wrong all along, and I think Hagel had it right! Everyone, go out and support Hagel!"

ain't gonna happen."

Just reverse the above and you will find that the far left wingnuts are going to nominate another far left candidate like Gore or Hillary.... and they will lose again. The reps will go with a moderate... in my opinion we are going to see McCain vs Hillary. McCain wins.
 
As to the original post.... Hillary is another Thatcher? seriously, it took me about 20 minutes to stop laughing at the ignorance of that comment.
 
Superfreak said:
"I mean seriously, the far right wingnuts and talk radio drive the republican base - who are the ones that turn out to vote in primaries.

What's Rush Limbaugh and Hannity going to do come December 2007: start saying that "You know, I think Bush was wrong all along, and I think Hagel had it right! Everyone, go out and support Hagel!"

ain't gonna happen."

Just reverse the above and you will find that the far left wingnuts are going to nominate another far left candidate like Gore or Hillary.... and they will lose again. The reps will go with a moderate... in my opinion we are going to see McCain vs Hillary. McCain wins.
Click to expand...



You are flat out wrong about Senator Clinton being a far left canidate. Obama is much further left than Senator Clinton. You cant see past your hate for her. You have had a long standing aversion to Senator Clinton and you are letting it affect your perspective.
 
Jarod said:
You are flat out wrong about Senator Clinton being a far left canidate. Obama is much further left than Senator Clinton. You cant see past your hate for her. You have had a long standing aversion to Senator Clinton and you are letting it affect your perspective.
Click to expand...

I won't say Hillary is far left, Pelosi-left, Feingold-left, but she is left nonetheless, and not a moderate by any stretch of the imagination.
 
"You are flat out wrong about Senator Clinton being a far left canidate. Obama is much further left than Senator Clinton. "

No, I am not. Just because Obama might be further left doesn't mean Hillary isn't also far left of the mainstream.

"You cant see past your hate for her."

yes, I can. I just don't like anything I see.

"You have had a long standing aversion to Senator Clinton and you are letting it affect your perspective."

True to an extent. But that aversion is due to her public stances on healthcare, welfare, socialized government programs and the fact that she pissed my mom off. But you are correct in that I let my experiences affect my perspective.... as most people do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top