Hillary has astounding 27 point lead in NY. 16 point lead in California

[piasabird]

If Hillary could not control her husband, why vote for her?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If Hillary could not control her husband, why vote for her?

I truly detest this type of mentality/statement.

Unless she (or anyone else for that matter) is willing to lock the other person up in a cage and control all outside access, no one is able to "control" another human being. There is a thing called free will and one person is not in charge of another person's free will to choose.

She is not to blame for Bill's lack of morality any more than you are to blame for anyone that you have ever been involved with doing something immoral.

The only unknown factor would be if she gave him permission to be a hound dog....then she is still not to blame because there is no immorality at all. After all, he was an adult and had a sexual encounter (according to the general definition of the word and not the strict one that he was given) with another consenting adult and had his spouse's permission and sex in and of itself is not immoral no matter what your religious teachings might have taught you.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp
The Clintons know how to run this country properly from a fiscal perspective. GOP creates huge deficits every time it's given the presidency.
Yes, taxes on the wealthy will go up under Hillary. Current taxes are too low, as evidenced by the structural deficits we are running.

Wrong, current spending is too high, as evidence by the structure deficites we are running.

Obviously the private sector is not taking care of the health care needs of a big chunk of the population,

A big chunk of the population is not taking care of the health care needs of a big chunk of the population. Look at all the fatties everywhere.

Typical right wing scare tactic that is not going to work in this campaign, mainly because the people paranoid about taxation are already republican voters, and taxes are pretty low on the list of national issues.

He is absolutely right. Taxes will go up for the middle class under Swillary.

Free market doesn't work in health care.

Working fine for me, you can have your universal system. Can I be exempt or am I expected to pay for yet more sh*t I don't want/need?

When I am exempt from paying for Iraq, and every other piece of spending that doesn't benefit me, then you can be exempt from paying for UHC. 😀

Just look at how much the Iraq occupation costs as a percentage of the total federal budget, and pay your taxes less that percentage. :thumbsup: That's what I'll be doing if UHC ever comes around.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp
The Clintons know how to run this country properly from a fiscal perspective. GOP creates huge deficits every time it's given the presidency.
Yes, taxes on the wealthy will go up under Hillary. Current taxes are too low, as evidenced by the structural deficits we are running.

Wrong, current spending is too high, as evidence by the structure deficites we are running.

Obviously the private sector is not taking care of the health care needs of a big chunk of the population,

A big chunk of the population is not taking care of the health care needs of a big chunk of the population. Look at all the fatties everywhere.

Typical right wing scare tactic that is not going to work in this campaign, mainly because the people paranoid about taxation are already republican voters, and taxes are pretty low on the list of national issues.

He is absolutely right. Taxes will go up for the middle class under Swillary.

Free market doesn't work in health care.

Working fine for me, you can have your universal system. Can I be exempt or am I expected to pay for yet more sh*t I don't want/need?

When I am exempt from paying for Iraq, and every other piece of spending that doesn't benefit me, then you can be exempt from paying for UHC. 😀

Just look at how much the Iraq occupation costs as a percentage of the total federal budget, and pay your taxes less that percentage. :thumbsup: That's what I'll be doing if UHC ever comes around.

Wesley Snipes, is that you? 😀

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
She is not to blame for Bill's lack of morality any more than you are to blame for anyone that you have ever been involved with doing something immoral.

No, but she is responsible for her lack of morality. Both of the Clintons are morally bankrupt and corrupt at their very cores.

 

[TallBill]

I've still never heard a good word about Hilary. It baffles me why anyone would want her as President?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If Hillary could not control her husband, why vote for her?

Which conservative news show did you hear that brilliant talking point from? :laugh:

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've still never heard a good word about Hilary. It baffles me why anyone would want her as President?

Because we need a Clinton to clean up mess left by a Bush. 😀

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've still never heard a good word about Hilary. It baffles me why anyone would want her as President?

The best thing about her is that she's not Bush.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've still never heard a good word about Hilary. It baffles me why anyone would want her as President?

The best thing about her is that she's not Bush.

A tactic that already failed for the Dems in 2004.

One of these days the far left will realize that saying "We're the good guys" is not enough to get votes.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
She is not to blame for Bill's lack of morality any more than you are to blame for anyone that you have ever been involved with doing something immoral.

No, but she is responsible for her lack of morality. Both of the Clintons are morally bankrupt and corrupt at their very cores.

I think that the only thing with this that I can't agree with is that they are "morally bankrupt and corrupt at their very cores". Only because there is very little way of actually proving that they haven't helped someone somewhere which would technically negate that statement. 😉

I agree that she is completely responsible for her own actions though and was only responding to the implication that she is somehow responsible for his.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've still never heard a good word about Hilary. It baffles me why anyone would want her as President?

The best thing about her is that she's not Bush.

A tactic that already failed for the Dems in 2004.

One of these days the far left will realize that saying "We're the good guys" is not enough to get votes.

Worked fine in 2006 😀

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The best thing about her is that she's not Bush.

A tactic that already failed for the Dems in 2004.

It was during a war, and wartime presidents don't lose, and it still came a hair away from working. This time around it might actually simply be enough to just not be a republican. That's no reason to take the election lightly but it probably is why in projections Hillary, Obama and Edwards handily defeat all the Reps except McCain.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've still never heard a good word about Hilary. It baffles me why anyone would want her as President?

The best thing about her is that she's not Bush.

A tactic that already failed for the Dems in 2004.

One of these days the far left will realize that saying "We're the good guys" is not enough to get votes.

Worked fine in 2006 😀

No, it didn't. The Dems won seats in 2006 because they actually promised to do something. Which, I am forced to point out, they haven't done yet.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but I'm a lot more concerned that the Dems actually win this year than I am about your ability to be an ass on internet forums. And it's you and your ilk who are more concerned about being asses who tend to hurt the Dems more than help. Case in point: the Dems have the opportunity this year to capitalize on the GW debacle and reach across party lines to unite the whole country, and you're blocking that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
She is not to blame for Bill's lack of morality any more than you are to blame for anyone that you have ever been involved with doing something immoral.

No, but she is responsible for her lack of morality. Both of the Clintons are morally bankrupt and corrupt at their very cores.

More vague allusions to moral bankruptcy based on nothing. An affair? Lying about an affair? (Only about 70% of the population) A real estate scandal investigation that went nowhere? (Ask Obama if he has anything on this topic he'd like to discuss.) Competetive and occasionally slimy campaign tactics? (Par.) Politicians are people, not saints. Let's put everyone in the country's life under a microscope and see how they fare.

Having grown up in a morally bankrupt house it's amazing their daughter isn't a raving psychobitch, isn't it?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Hillary = Financial Disaster

Fixed for accuracy. 😀

Yeah, because when her husband was President we had the first surplus in 50 years.
And Bush bankrupted us into finacial disaster...
Oops.

not because of Bill..it was because of the ground work laid in the prior administration.
Bill just was able to reap the benefits!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The best thing about her is that she's not Bush.

A tactic that already failed for the Dems in 2004.

It was during a war, and wartime presidents don't lose, and it still came a hair away from working. This time around it might actually simply be enough to just not be a republican. That's no reason to take the election lightly but it probably is why in projections Hillary, Obama and Edwards handily defeat all the Reps except McCain.

So are you comparing GW to Madison, Lincoln, FDR, or Nixon? Those are the only "wartime presidents" in history who didn't lose, and none of them except Madison finished out the following term.
And before you go searching: LBJ didn't run in '68, Truman didn't run in '52, the US hadn't yet entered WWI in '16, the Spanish-American War was over by the election of 1898, the Mexican-American War was over before the election of 1848 (and Polk wasn't re-elected).

So tell ya what... make another sweeping generalization to justify trying the same hackery, eh?