Hi Wom,
Yes you may PM me. How nice of you to ask first. A real gentlemen. Monica
Printable View
Hi Wom,
Yes you may PM me. How nice of you to ask first. A real gentlemen. Monica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
How could she be elected to the New York Senate, if she did not manage to portray herself as a New York Resident? That's a basic requirement.
Also, she did suddenly reveal this Jewish grandmother (later, it was discovered it was actually a grandmother briefly married to a Jew) who gave her this rich heritage she was proud of, and still was a big part of her today.
It was all over flippin CNN when she was running for office. Hilary has been playing these games for a long time.
And one last point--- I am not down on 'The Clintons'. I love Bill.
You state aboveQuote:
Originally Posted by Sophist
Quote:
she suddenly became a long-term New Yorker
I am a resident of California...but that doesn't mean I represent myself as a long-term Californian!
Here is something else for the pro-Hillary crowd to chew on...
I often hear people say how "brave" she was with the whole Lewinski thing. How is it brave to allow your spouse to cheat on you? It would have been brave of her to stand by Bill as her President. But, if she truely had courage she would NOT have stood by him as her husband. Basically as I see it, she allowed herself to be embarrassed in a very public way, all in the name of politics.
She is fraud. Period. The way she treats those who would take a bullet for her says everything we should need to know about her. That and her obvious elitist and socialist ideals.
She is not as smart as the left thinks she is, nor is she as dumb as the right wants her to be.
Again, I have to ask, have any of the Hilary supporters researched her at all? I implore you to educate yourself on her senatorial campaign. Let her camp and her speeches show you just how false and manipulative this woman is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
It is just like now, when she says she's always been against the war, yet she voted for it!
It is a matter of record, but people either buy the lie, or overlook it.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophist
Hey, now! I am neither right-wing, nor do I think Hilary is smart! So there :p ! :D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Again...I am not pro-Hillary...simply pro-truth....Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
How brave was Bush when he ran and hide out after 9/11??????
or Cheney....hiding in an "undisclosed location!"
Anyway...who ever called her "brave"...other than you?
Chew away truth seeker!
Originally Posted by Sophist
Again, I have to ask, have any of the Hilary supporters researched her at all? I implore you to educate yourself on her senatorial campaign. Let her camp and her speeches show you just how false and manipulative this woman is.
Yes Sophist both my husband and I pay great attention to all the candidates running and to all the debates on TV. You see I am the mother of three. I had two sons in the military. My oldest has served now 10 proud years. Twice he was sent to the Middle East and twice he risked his life for long periods of time. Because of the nature of his job in the military we were not allowed ANY contact for over six months. For a mother that is a lifetime of worry and fear. I feared for him and prayed for him daily. Twice he made this trip and twice I sat home helpless. My younger son was sent to the Middle East once. I care a great deal about all the issues and take nothing for granted. As far as Bill and Hilary's love and sex life I could care less. I just don't want my son to have to go back. I want a world that is safe for all peope, clean water, clean air, food on the table, a steady income, retirement benefits, health care, college for my daughter. At this time I feel Hilary is the best candidate to make that happen. But the election is a ways off and I have a lot of research and thinking to do in that time. I hope that this post I started gets everyone thinking about who would be best for this job. Even though we might not argree on a candidate I think we all agree that we want a safe and happy world and this war to end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marigold2
Really, you can only learn so much from them reading prepared answers from their writers at the debates.
Study their actions, and their less high-profile words and promises. But most of all their actions--- like voting in favor of the war that sent your sons away, like Hilary did. She did not come out as against the war until Obama did so, and surged in the polls enough to frighten her. Now she claims she was always opposed to the war. But her vote is on record... this wonderful peacemonger DID vote for your sons to go to the middle east.
I have waited anxiously for two brothers who were sent to Iraq by Dubya, so I can sympathize somewhat with your position there. But you know what, waiting for a soldier is not the same thing as political awareness. I do not in any way mean that as an insult, and I do not claim to be a political genius. It's just... grr.
It is actually a pretty smart move for you to make, speaking from an objective debate stance. I mean, it is an emotional and volatile enough subject that it isn't really safe to respond to it, even if it really doesn't tie into or refute any of the arguments we've made against Hillary.
Also, you addressed the post to me, so please realize I have not said one word about The Clinton's sex/love life. Not a single word. Too cheap a shot so far, really. If the so-called Hillary haters are as backwards and silly as her fans seem to think, then we can be so on our own without putting such ridiculousness in my mouth for me.
You think Bush and Cheney were "running and hiding" in the hours directly after the attacks? Puh-Lease. They were hidden, safe and in control. Just like protocol dictates when such an event occurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Who called her brave? Who DIDN'T? There were just so many soundbites I heard and so many articles I read just gushing praise on her for being so brave.
So, perhaps you might address the question now? I doubt it though, that is just not your style.
Ya know what? I do not want my children to have to fight this enemy either. But if we don not defeat then now, they will. Running away without victory will doom us to another generation having to fight them. Call it a curse, but I have seen this enemy face to face. I have been in the same room as some of them before. I understand what motivates them. Reasons why we are there beside (it is totally irrelevant now) we MUST win and not let the politicians turn this into another Vietnam, all in the name of gaining power.Quote:
....I just don't want my son to have to go back....
Sure, Hank might make YOUR Son safe, but she would make your grandchildren have to fight.
A world safe for all people? What exactly does this mean? But other than that... You don't have those things now? Who do you think should provide all the things you listed? The Government? Do you really think our Government should be responsible for those things?Quote:
I want a world that is safe for all peope, clean water, clean air, food on the table, a steady income, retirement benefits, health care, college for my daughter.....
You shouldn't be having a go at Monica old mate. I think you will find that this proud mother of a veteran would agree with every word that you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
I am also a veteran, and I believe that another loss because of politicians would be fatal to the western world.
As for provision of these things she asks for by the government, no, I think that is NOT what she meant. Marigold is quite aware of what it costs to be free, and probably more of a patriot than I have met in quite a while. I believe that she is aware of the lies and deceit put across to the public by prospective presidential candidates. So who is one to choose???
They are all after the power, the job, the bucks, the perks that go with it.
I suppose the best anyone can hope for is their own personal choice.
k ???
Wombat
My comments are not a stab at Monica. I could care less about her. Actually, I felt bad for her at the time. She was young, naive and got taken advantage of. My comments are simply about how Hillary handled the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Fair enough I suppose... Still, I would like to see Marigolds comments here. I just hope that her desire to end the conflict are not selfish ones. By that I mean the simple fact that she wants her son to be safe. Of course ANY mother wants their children to be safe. But how safe will our world be if we run in the face of this enemy?Quote:
I think you will find that this proud mother of a veteran would agree with every word that you say.
I am also a veteran, and I believe that another loss because of politicians would be fatal to the western world.
As for provision of these things she asks for by the government, no, I think that is NOT what she meant. Marigold is quite aware of what it costs to be free, and probably more of a patriot than I have met in quite a while. I believe that she is aware of the lies and deceit put across to the public by prospective presidential candidates. So who is one to choose???
They are all after the power, the job, the bucks, the perks that go with it.
I suppose the best anyone can hope for is their own personal choice.
k ???
Wombat
Also, just for the record, I am quite disappointed with the way the current administration has horribly mis-managed this conflict. I HATE it when politicians play politics with the lives of our soldiers. If a person REALLY 'supports the troops' they will want them to WIN.
They are an enemy in part because we attacked & bombed them withoutQuote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
truth that they had harmed us on 9/11.
Just wanted say that my children are not in the military, but if they were,
you would find me to be the most selfish woman on earth.I do understand
Marigolds comments very well. :)
Now let me start by saying.... I do not have children in the military.... for obvious reasons lol. And I think the worst pain in the world would be for a parent to outlive their child.... IMO, there is nothing that can compare.
BUT.... after knowing my mother in law and talking to her about my husbands past deployments I am of the frame of mind that if you aren't supporting their mission you aren't supporting them. She also went through the "not knowing where he was" the "not being able to speak with him" the "constant worry" but she has never and I don't think she would EVER say that she hated their cause or their mission. She was just proud and nothing else. She didn't tell him she was proud and then behind his back talk about how ridiculous it was that he was doing something she claimed she was proud of him for. She passed her time by making care packages for the troops.... writing letters and sending cookies. She was always nothing but supportive. I truly admire her strength and courage.
NOW ... before anyone gets their panties in a twist ... I am not in anyway attacking anyone who wants their children home.... to not want your children home would be a far worse thing. and as mismanaged as this war has been.... our problems with the middle east did not start after 9/11. it just came to a head after 9/11. Troops have been over in the middle east for YEARS before 9/11 was even a twinkle in anyone's eye. To blame the issues over there on one man is simply.... silly. he just decided to do something about it and screwed up. But the problems were there long before... the fighting was there long before... and if we just pull out.... the fighting will still be there long after.
Frankly, Hillary's resolution for this war scares the crap out of me. To simply pull out would be detrimental IMO. Call me selfish but I would rather the war be fought over there.... than to be brought over here because someone thought retreating would just stop it all.
I am married to a VietNam Veteran - 2 tours over there. I am the mother of a Navy pilot - retired.
The VietNam War was a mistake, and this present conflict is even worse. We had no business invading Iraq - they had nothing to do with 9/11. This war has been about money, oil, power and ego from the beginning. I call it George's Folly, and the sooner we are out of there, the safer we will be.
The sooner he is out of office, the safer we will be.
IMHO.
My father had 3 tours. What is your point? Even better how about you spell Vietnam correctly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
How do you think we will be safer if we leave Iraq? Also, yes Iraq probably had nothing to do with 9/11, directly. But that was not the reason we went anyway. Granted, the reasons touted by the administration where wrong and stupid from the start. Too bad nobody had the guts to call it like it was. But now the reason WHY we are there does not matter anymore. We ARE there.
I cannot wait to see your answer as to how we will be safe if we leave defeated? 10 to 1 you show just how ignorant most Americans are as to just how serious this is. This is about WAY more than George W. Bush. Curse him for screwing this up so bad.
Look at things without your prism of hate for the President.
You must watch to much TV. You obviously do not know anything about this enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
What is your freedom worth to you then? What would you pay? Think about it a second before you answer. Think about what our freedom really is.Quote:
Just wanted say that my children are not in the military, but if they were,
you would find me to be the most selfish woman on earth.I do understand
Marigolds comments very well. :)
Would YOU die for it? Or is it better to be a slave?
As I said, I was stating my own opinion - just as everyone else here has stated theirs. Why are you so defensive? And why do you not respect that we all may differ? I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
The VietNam War was a mistake, and this present conflict is even worse. We had no business invading Iraq - they had nothing to do with 9/11. This war has been about money, oil, power and ego from the beginning. I call it George's Folly, and the sooner we are out of there, the safer we will be.
The sooner he is out of office, the safer we will be.
I totally agree with you Grace.
Everyone knows now that George Bush and his pals lied to us about the WMD. We were led into this war on false pretenses. Our own president lied to us. Our friends around the world do not support us, they have no respect for Bush. Laying to us and endangering our people is not being a good leader, or a good man. If someone such as Hilary voted for the war it was because Bush gave false statements. She like most people belived him, that was her mistake. I sure she won't make it again.
I totally support every military personal. That does not mean I have to support the war. I pray for their safety and do what I can to help them all come home safe. If I am being selfish wanting my son safe, well then be it so. Every sane mom wants that. There are mothers in the Middle East that encourge their sons and daughters to strap bombs on themselves and blow up as many innocent victims as possible. I do not can not understand this.
If you knew me you would know how proud of my son I am. He has so many talents, he is such a good man. He served his country proudly and in fact still does. I am behind him 100% but I don't want him to have to go overseas and suffer both physically and mentally for a lie. People don't understand war, they think it is over for you when you return, it is not. The things you see, hear, smell are with you a lifetime. People talk about the stress of 9/11 well if you are in a war zone 9/11 is EVERYDAY and everyday you are in the Towers watching people you love die. That is war. We as a nation suffered and wept for our people on 9/11, more soldiers have died overseas for this war then died in the towers. It was a horrible thing that happened that day. And it is a horrible thing that is happening to our children and husbands now. One of my best friend's husband just came back after serving a year. He is a different man. Gone is the sweet, loving father and husband, in his place is an angry, bitter, frightened shell of a man. I don't know if their marriage will surive. That is war. No man or woman who serves is ever the same. No family is ever like it was. As the strongest country on this planet we should be the peacemakers. Instead we have a president that lied to us and led us into a war, killing our people, damaging families and leading to disrespect through out the world.
As for the question what is freedom worth to me? Freedom does not have to come by war, it can come by kindness as well.
Puckstop wrote: "10 to 1 you show just how ignorant most Americans are as to just how serious this is. This is about WAY more than George W. Bush. Curse him for screwing this up so bad."
Yup...I gotta agree with that one. Too many heads in the sand.
Wombat
I am going out on a limb here with a statement with which many will not agree. I personally don't think Bush lied to the American people. Just think about it for a minute. If he knew beforehand that there were no WMD how long did he think he could keep up the charade? Wouldn't he have realized that the minute we invaded them the truth would come to light and he'd look like a fool or, worse yet, a liar. Come on, I don't know anyone who would put themselves in that position. I believe he was given inaccurate information and acted upon it. Of course then the blame for that can be leveled at him for choosing those people in the first place. His fault, in my opinion, was having no exit strategy. I hope that the next president can bring this to a close (hopefully before then). I just don't see Hillary being that president.
Since this thread has really derailed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marigold2
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
EVERYBODY was duped by Saddam Hussein.
While a nice thought to have, both human nature and history disagree with you. Freedom always has a high cost.Quote:
As for the question what is freedom worth to me? Freedom does not have to come by war, it can come by kindness as well.
I agree with you Pam, you are so very right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam
Wombat
[QUOTE=Puckstop31]Since this thread has really derailed...
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
EVERYBODY was duped by Saddam Hussein.
Too late now folks.
You opened the door and let em into home. Just like we have done here in Aussieland. I'll give it say........2 generations. By then there will be so many of them that they'll start being in politics.
You think you know what corruption is ???? You all ain't seen nuthin yet !!!!
Wom
Puckstop31- statistically speaking, you cannot be right 100% of the time, on everything. Would you mind backing up a bit, and allowing others to freely express their views, even when they might differ from yours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataholic
I don't see him not allowing others to freely express their views. They are perfectly free to do so.... BUT (what a wonderful thing free speech is) he is ALSO free to disagree and state exactly why he disagrees. He is allowed to question their reasons for feeling the way they do.... just as others have questioned him for feeling and believing what he does. It's a wonderful two way street :D Obviously he is not the only one that feels this way.
PAM, EXCELLENT point. It sucks being the president I would imagine LOL. You get your intel from others but you and you alone must take the blame or the praise for it. it's a tough job to have and it is not a job I would want. Everyone wants to place blame but the fact is.... the blame CANNOT be put on one person alone.
Ummm, No. Others are freely exppressing their views and I am arguing my position against theirs. It is called debate. Sorry if my views are not in synch with most people here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataholic
Also, where did I ever say I am right 100% of the time? I believe very strongly in my opinions and I like to think I am good at backing them up. That does not make me right all of the time.
That silly freedom of speech thing, ya know?
Is that it? That's all you have to say? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
Me thinks you must have stopped too many pucks with your noggin fella. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Such is life being a goaltender. Take it from someone who knows.... it takes a "special" kinda person to be a goalie. LOL not only am I married to one... but I have two brothers who are also goalies. LOL BUT after saying that.... it takes a special kind of woman to understand them :D But I wouldn't trade him for anything in the world.
Well, it is clear you do not understand the threat we face. It is not uncommon either these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
So, knowing that... Why bother going farther?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparks19
Well, his condition has it's advantages I imagine. he can have "senior moments" without getting any older. :D
:) Well I dont try to Spin Doc. to any politics.. However Lets See If a Woman can Handle this job.. For pete-sake we have already seen what the Men can-Not do..
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvpets2002
I just don't want to vote for someone just because they are a woman and we have seen what men do so let's give a woman a chance.... to me that is a scary way to guage your vote.
I vote for the candidate that has ideas and goals that I believe in. I don't vote for a particular party, I don't vote for the best looking candidate and I certainly won't vote for someone just because they are a woman.... Her ideas, so far, are not in my most important issues list and frankly I don't agree with half of what she wants to do.... I'm not even sure she believes in what she wants to do. Being a woman doesn't override my concerns that is for sure.
Exactly how I do it. I've never voted a straight party ticket in my life. I like to say that the art of ticket splitting was taught in kindergarten when I was growing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparks19
Anybody remember when George I picked the incredibly unqualifed Dan Quayle for his running mate because he was good looking and resembled Robert Redford? Figured that would get the female vote. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
But then...no one has ever gone broke underestimating the gullibility of the American public! Especially if your last name is Bush!
He got into office, didn't he?
Sophist wanders away from her keyboard to stare dreamily at the life-size cardboard cut-out of Danny Quayle she keeps in her bedroom.
Ugh.... //shudders.
YA just look at HollywoodQuote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
You might be on to something there... LOL I mean, I stand in in front of a 6 ounce frozen piece of rubber, going 90mph... On purpose... For FUN.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
:D