How do we beat the b*tch?

[Lemon law]

Since ole JOS is not an American citizen, no vote for you. But you are welcome to watch the Repubs get their clocks cleaned come 11/08.

But getting back to the thread question on how to beat Hillary, I can think of two possible ways.

A. The Repubs could come up with better candidates than the sad and sorry bunch they have now.

B. The repubs could demonstrate results on their policies. Straighten out the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, repay the 3 trillion in public debt run up, restore the damaged US international reputation, and avoid a coming financial meltdown. All before 11/08.

Which translates to way too late now and the repubs are doomed no matter who the dems run.

 

[palehorse]

what?! That's not her real first name?

WOOPS!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bamacre
Have you seen her approval ratings? Errr, rather, her unapproval ratings?

Half the country thinks, nah, knows she's a bitch.

A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE.

A majority of the US doesn't know their arse from a hole in the ground.

I'm writing in a vote for Bush in 2008.

sometimes I wonder if you're like some kind of extended parody

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Since ole JOS is not an American citizen, no vote for you. But you are welcome to watch the Repubs get their clocks cleaned come 11/08.

But getting back to the thread question on how to beat Hillary, I can think of two possible ways.

A. The Repubs could come up with better candidates than the sad and sorry bunch they have now.

B. The repubs could demonstrate results on their policies. Straighten out the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, repay the 3 trillion in public debt run up, restore the damaged US international reputation, and avoid a coming financial meltdown. All before 11/08.

Which translates to way too late now and the repubs are doomed no matter who the dems run.

Yup, way too late.

In a head-to-head match, they look really bad, pretty much a guaranteed loss. Throw Ron Paul in as a 3rd-party candidate, and they'll get slaughtered.

The sad thing is that after 8 years of a blundering Hillary, someone will run a Bush 2000 campaign, win, and we'll end up invading Iran.

 

[dualsmp]

:lips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kxl3RtKM-Q

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bamacre
Have you seen her approval ratings? Errr, rather, her unapproval ratings?

Half the country thinks, nah, knows she's a bitch.

A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE.

A majority of the US doesn't know their arse from a hole in the ground.

This must be corrected. Bush stole an election.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Since ole JOS is not an American citizen, no vote for you. But you are welcome to watch the Repubs get their clocks cleaned come 11/08.

But getting back to the thread question on how to beat Hillary, I can think of two possible ways.

A. The Repubs could come up with better candidates than the sad and sorry bunch they have now.

B. The repubs could demonstrate results on their policies. Straighten out the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, repay the 3 trillion in public debt run up, restore the damaged US international reputation, and avoid a coming financial meltdown. All before 11/08.

Which translates to way too late now and the repubs are doomed no matter who the dems run.

Yup, way too late.

In a head-to-head match, they look really bad, pretty much a guaranteed loss. Throw Ron Paul in as a 3rd-party candidate, and they'll get slaughtered.

The sad thing is that after 8 years of a blundering Hillary, someone will run a Bush 2000 campaign, win, and we'll end up invading Iran.

LMAO, no administration is going to invade Iran over the nuclear issue.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This must be corrected. Bush stole an election.

:roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bamacre
Have you seen her approval ratings? Errr, rather, her unapproval ratings?

Half the country thinks, nah, knows she's a bitch.

A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE.

A majority of the US doesn't know their arse from a hole in the ground.

Actually when Bush got elected in 2000 he lost the popular vote by more then a million votes if I'm not mistaken. Might have even been several million.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: techs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o

In case you haven't seen it, McCain was asked at a political event "How do we beat the b*tch" referring to Hilary.
McCain who has always said he has a good relationship with Hilary said "That's an excellent question"
Don't you think he should have said something that indicated his disdain for that remark?

No. As Obama put it so well way back when McCain shouldn't need to apologize for things other people say.

Then again he wanted the Democrats to apologize for things someone else said with that whole Moveon.org ad crap.

 

[dmcowen674]

This is awesome.

Should I still have a home leading up to the lection I will put signs in the yard:

"Bitch for President".

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bamacre
Have you seen her approval ratings? Errr, rather, her unapproval ratings?

Half the country thinks, nah, knows she's a bitch.

A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE.

A majority of the US doesn't know their arse from a hole in the ground.

Actually when Bush got elected in 2000 he lost the popular vote by more then a million votes if I'm not mistaken. Might have even been several million.

Hey don't be swinging those facts around in here, you might hurt someone.

As to McCain, he had a shot here to act Presidential. No surprise he whiffed.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Hey don't be swinging those facts around in here, you might hurt someone.

The "fact" is that Bush won the election, both in 2000 and 2004. Un-fucking-believable that some of you left-wing nutjobs are still throwing out conspiracy theories and trying to pretend that the election was "stolen". :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Hey don't be swinging those facts around in here, you might hurt someone.

The "fact" is that Bush won the election, both in 2000 and 2004. Un-fucking-believable that some of you left-wing nutjobs are still throwing out conspiracy theories and trying to pretend that the election was "stolen". :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

You seriously can't read dude, or maybe you just can't parse. The response was to this:
"A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE"

That is incorrect. Yes, Bush won the election. No, a majority did not vote for him.

Sorry stating history accurately offends you.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You seriously can't read dude, or maybe you just can't parse. The response was to this:
"A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE"

That is incorrect. Yes, Bush won the election. No, a majority did not vote for him.

Sorry stating history accurately offends you.

No, it IS correct. The votes are done by Electoral Votes, not Popular Votes. So the fact remains that a majority DID vote for Bush twice.

 

[theeedude]

How do you beat the bitch? You don't.
The people won't trust Republicans to run this country for a long time with the mess their current leader has left.
Republican base, like that woman, are losing their cool for a reason. They see the writing on the wall, Hillary is the one to beat.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You seriously can't read dude, or maybe you just can't parse. The response was to this:
"A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE"

That is incorrect. Yes, Bush won the election. No, a majority did not vote for him.

Sorry stating history accurately offends you.

No, it IS correct. The votes are done by Electoral Votes, not Popular Votes. So the fact remains that a majority DID vote for Bush twice.

Stop this right now, I beg of you.

Not only are you trying to use semantics to argue, but you're still wrong. Bush lost the majority vote. THE MAJORITY OF THE US did not vote for Bush. Whether he won fair and square with the electoral system by getting the majority of the electoral votes is beside the point.

Please admit it, can you? It will be so empowering, I'm sure of it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You seriously can't read dude, or maybe you just can't parse. The response was to this:
"A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE"

That is incorrect. Yes, Bush won the election. No, a majority did not vote for him.

Sorry stating history accurately offends you.

No, it IS correct. The votes are done by Electoral Votes, not Popular Votes. So the fact remains that a majority DID vote for Bush twice.

This is breathtakingly inane even for you man.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: techs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o

In case you haven't seen it, McCain was asked at a political event "How do we beat the b*tch" referring to Hilary.
McCain who has always said he has a good relationship with Hilary said "That's an excellent question"
Don't you think he should have said something that indicated his disdain for that remark?

No. As Obama put it so well way back when McCain shouldn't need to apologize for things other people say.

Then again he wanted the Democrats to apologize for things someone else said with that whole Moveon.org ad crap.

True, but I think this is a little different. Democrats weren't offering support for the MoveOn ad. John McCain says "That's an excellent question." That phrase, to me, indicates explicit approval of the premise of the question, which includes, among other things, that Hillary Clinton is a bitch. The correct response to the question would be, "Well, I disagree with the nomenclature, but you have an excellent question there." You distance yourself from the insult, but the question remains intact. That's simple politics.

 

[Lemon law]

The other distressing thing for the GOP is that Hillary may not be the strongest democratic candidate. After what amounts to almost two decades of non stop attacks from the Republican smear machine, Hillary has some rather high negatives among many republicans and some democrats. And Hillary's pandering to the early parts of the Iraq war also alienates a good part of the left wing of the democratic party.

Meaning any democratic centrists candidate might better unite the democratic party and not carry such high negatives with GOP moderates. Should Hillary not be the democratic nominee, the democratic party has a plethora of other moderates likely to get more aggregate votes and electoral college votes in the general election of 11/4/2008.

Since no consensus democratic alternate to Hillary has emerged yet, early polling of head to head match ups with other Republicans is likely to be inaccurate. As the primary process reaches a solid middle by February of March/08, I expect the picture will become clearer.

But as long as GOP policies continue to flop, the democrats will have a winning platform in merely saying we are not Republicans. And sad to say, I think the only GOP chance will be seen as kicking their smear machine into high gear.

 

[alchemize]

I don't think it's ever appropriate to refer to her (or any other female politician) in such derogatory terms, or accept it. You sound as stupid as the moonbats with their chimp and traitor comments.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You seriously can't read dude, or maybe you just can't parse. The response was to this:
"A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE"

That is incorrect. Yes, Bush won the election. No, a majority did not vote for him.

Sorry stating history accurately offends you.

No, it IS correct. The votes are done by Electoral Votes, not Popular Votes. So the fact remains that a majority DID vote for Bush twice.

Stop this right now, I beg of you.

Not only are you trying to use semantics to argue, but you're still wrong. Bush lost the majority vote. THE MAJORITY OF THE US did not vote for Bush. Whether he won fair and square with the electoral system by getting the majority of the electoral votes is beside the point.

Please admit it, can you? It will be so empowering, I'm sure of it.

Pabst had to be laughing as he typed that. I laughed reading it.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Stop this right now, I beg of you.

Not only are you trying to use semantics to argue, but you're still wrong. Bush lost the majority vote. THE MAJORITY OF THE US did not vote for Bush. Whether he won fair and square with the electoral system by getting the majority of the electoral votes is beside the point.

Please admit it, can you? It will be so empowering, I'm sure of it.

No semantics here, just clearing the record. I will admit it -- Bush won, fair and square. Twice.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bamacre
Have you seen her approval ratings? Errr, rather, her unapproval ratings?

Half the country thinks, nah, knows she's a bitch.

A majority of the US voted for Bush TWICE.

A majority of the US doesn't know their arse from a hole in the ground.

agreed... except for the first part. a majority of the us didn't vote, PERIOD. i think only about 22% of americans voted, and of those times, bush had the popular vote only the 2nd time around. so, a majority of the minority of americans voted for bush only once.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Skoorb
McCain, he was a POW and tortured, he doesn't have time to bitch and moan over minutiae like that; takes it in stride.

McCain has been a bend over and fuck me candidate since almost four years back, i don't care what he's done in the military but if he's sold out since then and it's a damn shame.

Now he's not even fit to lick the sweat off of Wesley Clarkes balls.

Man i wish Wesley would run, that is a man who could restore honor to the White House and have support, he also wouldn't have listened to political advisors regarding military issues because he knows them better than most everyone.

----

Are you 100% British--why do you follow US politics so much (not an insult; genuinely wondering..._?

maybe because what we do matters around the world... we effect pretty much everything.