• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hillary compares herself to JFK

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112007/ne...maggie_haberman_post_correspondent.htm


because somehow being a charismatic Catholic (first and only one elected to office) is the same as being married to someone with charisma while being a woman. (in other words she has no charisma and thinks being a woman qualifies as a good comparison to being Catholic)


uh, put the moonjuice down lady. Besides Obama already claimed the JFK mantle.


edit: how come moon & bat gets turned into asteriks?
 
The Democratic party has a gold mine of people who will make decent Presidents. H is not my first choice, but she will be my choice if she wins. To vote for a Republican is to vote for the same emotional stupidity and intuitive blindness that got us into the war in Iraq. The Republicans appeal to what is the worst in us and not the best.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Democratic party has a gold mine of people who will make decent Presidents. H is not my first choice, but she will be my choice if she wins. To vote for a Republican is to vote for the same emotional stupidity and intuitive blindness that got us into the war in Iraq. The Republicans appeal to what is the worst in us and not the best.

Sadly, you are becoming what you loath.

To say that you would not vote for a person because they have an (R) after their name is the same stupidity that we have all faulted the sheeple for.

Vote for the best, most qualified person, be they black, white, male, female, straight, gay or even....gasp....Republican. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Democratic party has a gold mine of people who will make decent Presidents. H is not my first choice, but she will be my choice if she wins. To vote for a Republican is to vote for the same emotional stupidity and intuitive blindness that got us into the war in Iraq. The Republicans appeal to what is the worst in us and not the best.

Sweeping generalizations are always right.

 
It is really disgusting what American politics has turned into. Instead of people voting for who they think is best, they now vote anyone but him/them. They dont care who is elected just that someone else is not.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Democratic party has a gold mine of people who will make decent Presidents. H is not my first choice, but she will be my choice if she wins. To vote for a Republican is to vote for the same emotional stupidity and intuitive blindness that got us into the war in Iraq. The Republicans appeal to what is the worst in us and not the best.

Sweeping generalizations are always right.

He's very close, though. You have Iraq and climate change for starters. But the worst example of Republicanism is in Mississippi, where you have a governor who won't increase the tabacco tax and refuses to lower the grocery tax. As sad as it looks, I blame the people of Mississippi for voting in such an idiot. Now they must deal with him.

link

Powerful Governor Stands His Ground, Again, on Food Tax

JACKSON, Miss., March 1 ? The shoppers at the no-frills Brookshire?s supermarket ? plate lunches $4.49, food stamps gladly accepted ? have no doubt: swapping the nation?s highest state grocery tax for one of its lowest cigarette taxes is an excellent idea, and fie on the governor who opposes it.

?Oh, yeah, no doubt about it, they need to put it off the food,? said Reggie Funchess, a worker at the BASF plant. ?It?s something that will help the people. Politicians, they must have a treasure chest somewhere.?

Up at the stately domed Mississippi Capitol, Gov. Haley Barbour, a former tobacco lobbyist, has other ideas. Studies, polls, protests at the Capitol, legislative sentiment and America?s highest cardiovascular disease rate notwithstanding, the governor of the poorest state is not budging, for the second year in a row: no cut in the 7 percent grocery tax and no increase in the 18-cents-a-pack third-lowest-in-the-nation, cigarette tax.

Mr. Barbour, the former Republican National Committee chairman and big-time Washington lobbyist whose clients included the five major tobacco companies, is a busy man these days, and a powerful governor.

Basking at home in the reflection of his national image as the post-Hurricane Katrina success story among governors, having last week scored a giant automobile plant for his state and considered a shoo-in for re-election this year, Mr. Barbour faces few opponents, legislators say. He pushed through the Legislature hundreds of millions in subsidies for the plant, for Toyota S.U.V.s, three days after announcing it.

Mr. Barbour, the lawmakers say, is getting used to getting his way and is likely to do so on the doomed groceries-for-cigarettes tax swap.

?Can we talk about it some other time?? the governor asked as he bustled down a marble corridor to an appointment and as an aide cut in that ?the governor wasn?t going to be able to talk about this today.?

And so it is that a bill to increase the cigarette tax to $1 a pack and cut the grocery tax in half overwhelmingly passed in the Mississippi House last month, remains bottled up in the State Senate Finance Committee, which is friendly to Mr. Barbour. Other poor states ? Arkansas, South Carolina and Utah ? have moved to cut their sales taxes on groceries. Not Mississippi.

?There?s no doubt he would veto this bill,? said the committee chairman, State Senator Tommy Robertson, a Republican. And he could do so without fearing an override, Mr. Robertson said.

That, to some, is a true measure of Mr. Barbour?s power. He need not worry about political fallout from rejecting what is, in most reckonings, a popular initiative.

?It?s an indication of how much influence he has, because he can take something we know is good ? the best bill passed in the Legislature in the last 30 years ? and he can say it?s bad,? said State Representative Percy W. Watson, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and a Democrat. ?Politics has entered the process, and there is some effort to protect the tobacco companies.?

Another Democrat, State Senator Hob Bryan, added, ?It would have been the law already were it not for the governor?s absolute determination not to raise the tax on tobacco.?

The governor?s aides and allies say Mr. Barbour is simply sticking to his no-new-taxes promise. ?The governor ran four years ago on, ?I?m not going to raise anybody?s taxes,? and he hasn?t,? Mr. Robertson said.

But others, including health officials, say the dichotomy is false. The governor?s no-tax pledge, they insist, is at odds with the public good, since most studies show that increasing the cost of cigarettes sharply diminishes the number of smokers.

?We have the worst health indices in almost every category of any state in the country,? said Dr. J. Edward Hill, the immediate past president of the American Medical Association and a physician in Tupelo. ?Reducing the percentage of citizens who smoke and increasing funding from cigarettes would have tremendous advantages.?

Dr. Hill said the issue had become entangled in political ideology. ?It?s political so-called principle ? ?I?m never going to raise taxes on anything? ? which is actually also relatively stupid,? Dr. Hill said.

Mississippi is the fourth-highest state in deaths attributed to smoking. And it is one of three states that give no grocery-tax break to lower-income families, according to a study by the John C. Stennis Institute of Government at the Mississippi State University.

In the Brookshire?s parking lot, in working-class southern Jackson, shoppers toting their few bags had no trouble coming up with uses for the extra hundreds of dollars from a tax cut. Most of the buying around here is done on the first of the month ? payday, explained a store official, and expenditures are made frugally.

?My children?s needs, household stuff,? said Shameka Bouie, a mother of four whose truck driver cigarette-smoking husband is ?always complaining? that his habit is more expensive outside Mississippi.

Howard McBound, a police officer with the Veterans Affairs Department, said: ?Groceries are what we live on. My light bill is going up. My gas bill is going up. You can raise the price of cigarettes, people will still smoke.?

Even some conservative Republicans disagree with Mr. Barbour. ?The cigarette tax and the grocery tax are both public health issues,? said one, State Senator Alan Nunnelee. And the tax on groceries, Mr. Nunnelee said, ?is just the most cruel tax any government can impose.?

 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Democratic party has a gold mine of people who will make decent Presidents. H is not my first choice, but she will be my choice if she wins. To vote for a Republican is to vote for the same emotional stupidity and intuitive blindness that got us into the war in Iraq. The Republicans appeal to what is the worst in us and not the best.

Sadly, you are becoming what you loath.

To say that you would not vote for a person because they have an (R) after their name is the same stupidity that we have all faulted the sheeple for.

Vote for the best, most qualified person, be they black, white, male, female, straight, gay or even....gasp....Republican. 😉

Do you know how to read? The Republican party represents a basic direction in political thinking. In order to be, run as, be elected as, a Republican you HAVE to espouse a Republican point of view. You have to react as Republicans do. Of course I would vote for a Republican who wants to lead Republicans to a Democratic point of view if his Democratic opponent were pushing Democrats to vote like Republicans, but when is that election going to occur.

I did vote for a Republican in the last election, and one who could be a monster, but I would not vote for the Incumbent Democrat because he voted for the war. Better to have the real thing than a phony, no? 😉

As for 'generalizations', the whole point and purpose of a two party system is to generalize those who generally lean left on one side and those who generally lean right on the other. It is a fact that parties are generalizations. It is not me who is doing that. I merely point to objective fact.

Edit: forget the do you know how to read thingi,,,,I don't seem to know what thread I am in. Thought this one was the one about would I vote for a person in the opposite party and was refering to my post there.
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Democratic party has a gold mine of people who will make decent Presidents. H is not my first choice, but she will be my choice if she wins. To vote for a Republican is to vote for the same emotional stupidity and intuitive blindness that got us into the war in Iraq. The Republicans appeal to what is the worst in us and not the best.

Sweeping generalizations are always right.

He's very close, though. You have Iraq and climate change for starters. But the worst example of Republicanism is in Mississippi, where you have a governor who won't increase the tabacco tax and refuses to lower the grocery tax. As sad as it looks, I blame the people of Mississippi for voting in such an idiot. Now they must deal with him.

link

Powerful Governor Stands His Ground, Again, on Food Tax

Yep, Church is a powerful force, proof they would eat there own to further their agenda.
 
"He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, 'America will never elect a Catholic as president,' " the White House hopeful told the New Hampshire Democrats' 100 Club fund-raiser here. "But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better," she said. "They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history."

It is a shame that some people don't read the actual quotes.

The comparision in both the Obama and Hillary cases is valid. Just as it maybe for Mitt Romney.

 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Democratic party has a gold mine of people who will make decent Presidents. H is not my first choice, but she will be my choice if she wins. To vote for a Republican is to vote for the same emotional stupidity and intuitive blindness that got us into the war in Iraq. The Republicans appeal to what is the worst in us and not the best.

Sadly, you are becoming what you loath.

To say that you would not vote for a person because they have an (R) after their name is the same stupidity that we have all faulted the sheeple for.

Vote for the best, most qualified person, be they black, white, male, female, straight, gay or even....gasp....Republican. 😉

Do you know how to read? The Republican party represents a basic direction in political thinking. In order to be, run as, be elected as, a Republican you HAVE to espouse a Republican point of view. You have to react as Republicans do. Of course I would vote for a Republican who wants to lead Republicans to a Democratic point of view if his Democratic opponent were pushing Democrats to vote like Republicans, but when is that election going to occur.

I did vote for a Republican in the last election, and one who could be a monster, but I would not vote for the Incumbent Democrat because he voted for the war. Better to have the real thing than a phony, no? 😉

As for 'generalizations', the whole point and purpose of a two party system is to generalize those who generally lean left on one side and those who generally lean right on the other. It is a fact that parties are generalizations. It is not me who is doing that. I merely point to objective fact.

Edit: forget the do you know how to read thingi,,,,I don't seem to know what thread I am in. Thought this one was the one about would I vote for a person in the opposite party and was refering to my post there.

Didn't H vote for the war?
 
Hillary's public speaking skills are almost non-existant. She has absolutely no chance of becoming President. She should quit and throw her support behind Obama. It won't happen, she's too selfish, but it's what she should do.
 
Originally posted by: wizboy11
I think that Obama more closely resembles JFK.
A young, energetic president.

I think the comparisons made to JFK are about charisma and the celebrity quality or "star" power of a candidate. The Camelot thing.

I don't see any other valid comparison to JFK other than Obama.

Personally, I wouldn't vigorously seek comparisons to JFK, his infidelity and prescription drug problems are all well publicized etc.

Fern
 
Ugh. If Hillary wants any chance of winning the general election, she needs to prove she's got a spine and some cajones like Margaret Thatcher did.

Right now it seems like she's trying to win the election as a "mom", and no one wants to elect their mother to the presidency.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: wizboy11
I think that Obama more closely resembles JFK.
A young, energetic president.

I think the comparisons made to JFK are about charisma and the celebrity quality or "star" power of a candidate. The Camelot thing.

I don't see any other valid comparison to JFK other than Obama.

Personally, I wouldn't vigorously seek comparisons to JFK, his infidelity and prescription drug problems are all well publicized etc.

Fern
That would only matter to Swifties, Freepers, Fundies or some other whackos looking to run a smear campaign

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: wizboy11
I think that Obama more closely resembles JFK.
A young, energetic president.

I think the comparisons made to JFK are about charisma and the celebrity quality or "star" power of a candidate. The Camelot thing.

I don't see any other valid comparison to JFK other than Obama.

Personally, I wouldn't vigorously seek comparisons to JFK, his infidelity and prescription drug problems are all well publicized etc.

Fern
That would only matter to Swifties, Freepers, Fundies or some other whackos looking to run a smear campaign

You cannot smear the truth, hence being swiftboated means being pummeled with your past 🙂


Kennedy did one thing right, got us into the space race. He got very lucky with Cuba, he could have ended up being the worst President we ever had if that had gone wrong.


 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Democratic party has a gold mine of people who will make decent Presidents. H is not my first choice, but she will be my choice if she wins. To vote for a Republican is to vote for the same emotional stupidity and intuitive blindness that got us into the war in Iraq. The Republicans appeal to what is the worst in us and not the best.

Sadly, you are becoming what you loath.

To say that you would not vote for a person because they have an (R) after their name is the same stupidity that we have all faulted the sheeple for.

Vote for the best, most qualified person, be they black, white, male, female, straight, gay or even....gasp....Republican. 😉

Yeah vote for the best most qualified even if it means breaking ranks and voting 3'rd party!!!! 🙂

I am SOOOO tired of this two party system. It reeks with burning money and no sense of direction.

Edit:

I could care less what Hillary links herself with... It's nice to have a vision!
 
Originally posted by: Freeper
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: wizboy11
I think that Obama more closely resembles JFK.
A young, energetic president.

I think the comparisons made to JFK are about charisma and the celebrity quality or "star" power of a candidate. The Camelot thing.

I don't see any other valid comparison to JFK other than Obama.

Personally, I wouldn't vigorously seek comparisons to JFK, his infidelity and prescription drug problems are all well publicized etc.

Fern
That would only matter to Swifties, Freepers, Fundies or some other whackos looking to run a smear campaign

You cannot smear the truth, hence being swiftboated means being pummeled with your past 🙂


Kennedy did one thing right, got us into the space race. He got very lucky with Cuba, he could have ended up being the worst President we ever had if that had gone wrong.
I'd prefer my chances with him rather than someone like Reagan or '''shudder''' Bush.

 
If Billary...err I mean Hillary wins the Democratic Nomination, I'm definitely voting Republican no matter who the Republican candidate is. Hillary is too liberal, too wishy washy , has non-Christian values and carries a lot of excess baggage (Namely her husband). However, I have a feeling she'll will still be elected for there are a bunch of bleeding heart liberals out there that have no courage to stand up against threats made towards the United States and this I'm afraid will be the downfall of the United States. I can see it now, a couple of years into her Presidency a major terrorist act occurs and all these bleeding heart liberals will be crying and hiding under a table and the conservatives (I'm one of them) will be saying I told you so.
 
So, Gimli I guess your voting for mccain?

Did you come up with all this by yourself or did your church decide for you?
 
Originally posted by: Gimli
If Billary...err I mean Hillary wins the Democratic Nomination, I'm definitely voting Republican no matter who the Republican candidate is. Hillary is too liberal, too wishy washy , has non-Christian values and carries a lot of excess baggage (Namely her husband). However, I have a feeling she'll will still be elected for there are a bunch of bleeding heart liberals out there that have no courage to stand up against threats made towards the United States and this I'm afraid will be the downfall of the United States. I can see it now, a couple of years into her Presidency a major terrorist act occurs and all these bleeding heart liberals will be crying and hiding under a table and the conservatives (I'm one of them) will be saying I told you so.
Good job with Bush he hasn't fscked us over big time..yeah not much. I can't see how she can be any worse than the current assholes running this country into the ground and making us less secure. That said I think there are better candidates than her from both parties. Gulianni and Obam/Biden/Richardson are 4 that come to mind.

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: wizboy11
I think that Obama more closely resembles JFK.
A young, energetic president.

I think the comparisons made to JFK are about charisma and the celebrity quality or "star" power of a candidate. The Camelot thing.

I don't see any other valid comparison to JFK other than Obama.

Personally, I wouldn't vigorously seek comparisons to JFK, his infidelity and prescription drug problems are all well publicized etc.

Fern
That would only matter to Swifties, Freepers, Fundies or some other whackos looking to run a smear campaign

Yep, I'm saying I wouldn't wanna open the door to that.

Or, "Senator, I knew JFK and you're no JFK" kind of devastating sound bite.

IIRC, JFK also held a few veiws that by today's standard are rather conservative.

Overall, I still think Hillary has a political "tin ear" and is politically clumsy. She's a lawyer, not a former military hero. She's old, he was young. He was handsome and dashing, she's not. He was very masculine (playing football etc), she's not. It strikes me as an absurd claim, I just don't get it? I don't even understand what she hope to gain by making the claim.

All I see is her giving her opponets an opportunity to (humerously) deride her for making such claims.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112007/ne...maggie_haberman_post_correspondent.htm


because somehow being a charismatic Catholic (first and only one elected to office) is the same as being married to someone with charisma while being a woman. (in other words she has no charisma and thinks being a woman qualifies as a good comparison to being Catholic)


uh, put the moonjuice down lady. Besides Obama already claimed the JFK mantle.


edit: how come moon & bat gets turned into asteriks?

Did you actually read the article you posted?
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: wizboy11
I think that Obama more closely resembles JFK.
A young, energetic president.

I think the comparisons made to JFK are about charisma and the celebrity quality or "star" power of a candidate. The Camelot thing.

I don't see any other valid comparison to JFK other than Obama.

Personally, I wouldn't vigorously seek comparisons to JFK, his infidelity and prescription drug problems are all well publicized etc.

Fern
That would only matter to Swifties, Freepers, Fundies or some other whackos looking to run a smear campaign

Yep, I'm saying I wouldn't wanna open the door to that.

Or, "Senator, I knew JFK and you're no JFK" kind of devastating sound bite.

IIRC, JFK also held a few veiws that by today's standard are rather conservative.

Overall, I still think Hillary has a political "tin ear" and is politically clumsy. She's a lawyer, not a former military hero. She's old, he was young. He was handsome and dashing, she's not. He was very masculine (playing football etc), she's not. It strikes me as an absurd claim, I just don't get it? I don't even understand what she hope to gain by making the claim.

All I see is her giving her opponets an opportunity to (humerously) deride her for making such claims.

Fern
Good point, why give the enemy ammunition if you don't have too!

 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: wizboy11
I think that Obama more closely resembles JFK.
A young, energetic president.

I think the comparisons made to JFK are about charisma and the celebrity quality or "star" power of a candidate. The Camelot thing.

I don't see any other valid comparison to JFK other than Obama.

Personally, I wouldn't vigorously seek comparisons to JFK, his infidelity and prescription drug problems are all well publicized etc.

Fern
That would only matter to Swifties, Freepers, Fundies or some other whackos looking to run a smear campaign

Yep, I'm saying I wouldn't wanna open the door to that.

Or, "Senator, I knew JFK and you're no JFK" kind of devastating sound bite.

IIRC, JFK also held a few veiws that by today's standard are rather conservative.

Overall, I still think Hillary has a political "tin ear" and is politically clumsy. She's a lawyer, not a former military hero. She's old, he was young. He was handsome and dashing, she's not. He was very masculine (playing football etc), she's not. It strikes me as an absurd claim, I just don't get it? I don't even understand what she hope to gain by making the claim.

All I see is her giving her opponets an opportunity to (humerously) deride her for making such claims.

Fern

Did you read the article? She never said she was the next JFK, she merely stated that back then many people believed "America will never elect a Catholic as president," just as many feel the same way about a woman president. This had nothing to do with her personality compared to JFK's.

Edit: Although of course in today's world with reading comprehension so poor, she has to account for the NY POST and their misleading titles.
 
Back
Top