| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"grinder" |
| Date: |
26 Mar 2007 10:53:55 AM |
| Object: |
Clinton won't get my vote. |
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is blowing
and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what we need!!!
Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of putting pride and
hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She reminds me of
"Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary. It doesn't play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global warming
hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't get along. But she
used the hearing to put it to him rather than stay on point about global
warming. She showed me she would sacrifice governing to further her
personal agenda.
.
|
|
| User: "ThePhisherKIng Locker@BusStation" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 11:46:11 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:n0SNh.17907$Jl.5875@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is
blowing and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what we
need!!! Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of
putting pride and hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She reminds
me of "Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary. It doesn't
play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global warming
hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't get along.
But she used the hearing to put it to him rather than stay on point
about global warming. She showed me she would sacrifice governing to
further her personal agenda.
Vote for Edwards. And that has nothing to do with his wife. I've
supported him before Kerry ran away with the nomination in '04. He's a
person that will garner a lot of Southern support plus many Independents.
Besides having "good looks", he's a smart and articulate man. The media
keeps hyping Mrs. C and Barrack because of their novelty. The substance
is in John Edwards.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 01:54:17 PM |
|
|
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF81A377360Gilliam@38.119.97.2...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:n0SNh.17907$Jl.5875@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is
blowing and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what we
need!!! Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of
putting pride and hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She reminds
me of "Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary. It doesn't
play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global warming
hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't get along.
But she used the hearing to put it to him rather than stay on point
about global warming. She showed me she would sacrifice governing to
further her personal agenda.
Vote for Edwards. And that has nothing to do with his wife. I've
supported him before Kerry ran away with the nomination in '04. He's a
person that will garner a lot of Southern support plus many Independents.
Besides having "good looks", he's a smart and articulate man. The media
keeps hyping Mrs. C and Barrack because of their novelty. The substance
is in John Edwards.
Richardson is better qualified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ThePhisherKIng Locker@BusStation" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 06:07:21 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:tFUNh.15390$PL.2253@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF81A377360Gilliam@38.119.97.2...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:n0SNh.17907$Jl.5875@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is
blowing and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what we
need!!! Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of
putting pride and hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She
reminds me of "Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary. It
doesn't play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global
warming hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't get
along. But she used the hearing to put it to him rather than stay on
point about global warming. She showed me she would sacrifice
governing to further her personal agenda.
Vote for Edwards. And that has nothing to do with his wife. I've
supported him before Kerry ran away with the nomination in '04. He's
a person that will garner a lot of Southern support plus many
Independents. Besides having "good looks", he's a smart and
articulate man. The media keeps hyping Mrs. C and Barrack because of
their novelty. The substance is in John Edwards.
Richardson is better qualified.
Yeah, I agree, but I do believe that Edwards has the public's ear more
than does Richardson. Now Richardson as VP with Edwards would be a dream
ticket for Democrats.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "WF Peifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 08:08:48 PM |
|
|
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns98FFC2420B287Gilliam@38.119.97.2...
Yeah, I agree, but I do believe that Edwards has the public's ear more
than does Richardson. Now Richardson as VP with Edwards would be a dream
ticket for Democrats.
It needs to be the other way around. Richardson's got more foreign policy
experience than Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain and Romney
COMBINED! And foreign policy experience is what this country needs more
than anything else right now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ThePhisherKIng Locker@BusStation" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 08:05:47 PM |
|
|
"WF Peifer" <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote in
news:k5qdnUoqW87C_ZXbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com:
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns98FFC2420B287Gilliam@38.119.97.2...
Yeah, I agree, but I do believe that Edwards has the public's ear
more than does Richardson. Now Richardson as VP with Edwards would
be a dream ticket for Democrats.
It needs to be the other way around. Richardson's got more foreign
policy experience than Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain and
Romney COMBINED! And foreign policy experience is what this country
needs more than anything else right now.
Again, I agree. But I want to win this damn election this time!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "WF Peifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 10:09:16 PM |
|
|
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns98FFD655A67BFGilliam@38.119.97.2...
Again, I agree. But I want to win this damn election this time!
Richardson can win, if he can get the nomination. He's unbeatable when he's
working a crowd, and he's damn near unbeatable in a debate. His command of
facts and figures is phenomenal, and he's got just enough killer instinct to
see an opportunity to go for the jugular and rip it right out of his
opponent's neck. He needs to clean up his personal appearance somewhat, but
he's working on that. He's lost weight and I think he's finally letting his
wife pick out his clothes, because he's not looking nearly as "slovenly" as
he used to.
His half-Anglo/half-Hispanic background gives everyone around him the
feeling that "he's one of us". And the women voters seem to adore him,
although I can't understand why. Maybe it's the chubby cheeks. He'd be our
third President in a row who didn't serve in the military (discounting, of
course, Bush's weekend-warrior drills that he rarely showed up for), but
unlike Clinton, Cheney, Bush, Quayle, Limbaugh and the rest, he made no
serious effort to avoid it. And the military people in our state have
nothing but respect for him, and speak well of him. He's kept several of
our vital bases open that Bush wanted to close. From a serviceman's
standpoint, or a veteran's, he'd be the best Commander-in-Chief that we've
had since Kennedy.
He can get support from almost all the various factions . . . even
conservative Christians, because he's a devout Catholic, but doesn't "wear
his religion on his sleeve" like some hypocrites that we know. All and all,
he's a good guy, obscenely smart, and a great campaigner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ThePhisherKIng Locker@BusStation" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
27 Mar 2007 07:09:21 AM |
|
|
"WF Peifer" <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote in
news:d-WdnQvLgJ8B4ZXbnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@comcast.com:
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns98FFD655A67BFGilliam@38.119.97.2...
Again, I agree. But I want to win this damn election this time!
Richardson can win, if he can get the nomination. He's unbeatable
when he's working a crowd, and he's damn near unbeatable in a debate.
His command of facts and figures is phenomenal, and he's got just
enough killer instinct to see an opportunity to go for the jugular and
rip it right out of his opponent's neck. He needs to clean up his
personal appearance somewhat, but he's working on that. He's lost
weight and I think he's finally letting his wife pick out his clothes,
because he's not looking nearly as "slovenly" as he used to.
His half-Anglo/half-Hispanic background gives everyone around him the
feeling that "he's one of us". And the women voters seem to adore
him, although I can't understand why. Maybe it's the chubby cheeks.
He'd be our third President in a row who didn't serve in the military
(discounting, of course, Bush's weekend-warrior drills that he rarely
showed up for), but unlike Clinton, Cheney, Bush, Quayle, Limbaugh and
the rest, he made no serious effort to avoid it. And the military
people in our state have nothing but respect for him, and speak well
of him. He's kept several of our vital bases open that Bush wanted to
close. From a serviceman's standpoint, or a veteran's, he'd be the
best Commander-in-Chief that we've had since Kennedy.
He can get support from almost all the various factions . . . even
conservative Christians, because he's a devout Catholic, but doesn't
"wear his religion on his sleeve" like some hypocrites that we know.
All and all, he's a good guy, obscenely smart, and a great campaigner.
Don't get me wrong. I like Richardson very much. If it weren't for
Edwards in the race, he would be my next pick. He's experienced,
thoughtful, and very electable. But it's that quality of exciting a large
constituentcy that I think he lacks. The "charisma" factor. I hate to
say that Edwards has a "Kennedyesque" feel to him, but that what it is.
Youth, good looks, articulate, smart. He has no apparent skeletons in his
closet. Married to the same women. No affairs. No known drug use. And
the same can be said for Richardson, but with Edwards at the top of the
ticket, already a household name, it would bring a lot of voters out.
I know my 21 year daughter is in love with him. Put him up against Rudy
or McCain, who have five or six wives between them, and it would be a
blow out. I know the wives of candidates aren't running for any office,
but for First Lady, put Elizabeth Edwards up against Judith Giuliani and
see what you get. Judith is a nightmare.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "WF Peifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
27 Mar 2007 03:21:36 PM |
|
|
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns990052B75D839Gilliam@38.119.97.2...
Don't get me wrong. I like Richardson very much. If it weren't for
Edwards in the race, he would be my next pick. He's experienced,
thoughtful, and very electable. But it's that quality of exciting a large
constituentcy that I think he lacks. The "charisma" factor. I hate to
say that Edwards has a "Kennedyesque" feel to him, but that what it is.
Youth, good looks, articulate, smart. He has no apparent skeletons in his
closet. Married to the same women. No affairs. No known drug use. And
the same can be said for Richardson, but with Edwards at the top of the
ticket, already a household name, it would bring a lot of voters out.
And don't get ME wrong. I like Edwards a lot. But the country has just
been through six years . . . it'll be eight by the time the elections are in
the books . . . of a President/VP combination where the President was better
looking but inexperienced (and in that particular case, downright idiotic)
and all the experience . . . all the "gravitas", if you will . . . was in
the hands of the Vice President. Edwards looks great, as does Obama
(frankly, Hillary scares me), but six years in the Senate (much less than
that, in Obama's case) just isn't enough to handle the "big job". With
eight years as Richardson's VP, Edwards would be ready for anything that
came along, but the times we're living in call for far more than four
(Obama), six (Edwards) or eight (Clinton) years in the Senate. Charisma is
wonderful, and it might help win elections, but it's no substitute for the
experience that 15 years in Congress, plus several years of serving both as
U.N. Ambassador and an "Ambassador-at-large", serving as a Cabinet member
and a term-and-a-half as Governor.
As Governor, Richardson inherited a budget deficit from his Republican
predecessor and turned it into a surplus. He's created jobs in his state,
and has dealt effectively with leaders of both parties in his legislature.
He's dealt one-on-one with world leaders, and almost always has come out on
top in international negotiations. Edwards has done none of those things.
You describe Edwards as "Kennedyesque", and perhaps he is. But even Kennedy
had vastly more experience than Edwards when he ran for President . . . six
years in the House, followed by eight years in the Senate . . . and Kennedy
had been raised in a very political family. Edwards' six years in the
Senate is his complete political resumé. And, when you talk about the
ability to excite, I should point out that, at a recent candidates' forum,
Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Kucinich all received the expected
"polite applause", whereas Richardson received three standing ovations.
I know my 21 year daughter is in love with him. Put him up against Rudy
or McCain, who have five or six wives between them, and it would be a
blow out. I know the wives of candidates aren't running for any office,
but for First Lady, put Elizabeth Edwards up against Judith Giuliani and
see what you get. Judith is a nightmare.
The First Lady issue is probably the one area where Richardson is lacking.
Not that I have anything against Barbara Richardson . . . she's a genuinely
sweet lady. But she tends to try to stay out of the limelight. In that
respect she's more like Mamie Eisenhower than more recent First Ladies, but
she's a charming hostess and is basically just "real people". Either
Richardson or Edwards would be a far superior choice for the "family values"
crowd than any of the Republican candidates (with the exception of Romney),
if that crowd actually paid attention to what they claim to support.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ThePhisherKIng Locker@BusStation" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
27 Mar 2007 03:01:38 PM |
|
|
"WF Peifer" <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote in
news:Xbydnaz0eI0S85TbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com:
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns990052B75D839Gilliam@38.119.97.2...
Don't get me wrong. I like Richardson very much. If it weren't for
Edwards in the race, he would be my next pick. He's experienced,
thoughtful, and very electable. But it's that quality of exciting a
large constituentcy that I think he lacks. The "charisma" factor. I
hate to say that Edwards has a "Kennedyesque" feel to him, but that
what it is. Youth, good looks, articulate, smart. He has no apparent
skeletons in his closet. Married to the same women. No affairs. No
known drug use. And the same can be said for Richardson, but with
Edwards at the top of the ticket, already a household name, it would
bring a lot of voters out.
And don't get ME wrong. I like Edwards a lot. But the country has
just been through six years . . . it'll be eight by the time the
elections are in the books . . . of a President/VP combination where
the President was better looking but inexperienced (and in that
particular case, downright idiotic) and all the experience . . . all
the "gravitas", if you will . . . was in the hands of the Vice
President. Edwards looks great, as does Obama (frankly, Hillary
scares me), but six years in the Senate (much less than that, in
Obama's case) just isn't enough to handle the "big job". With eight
years as Richardson's VP, Edwards would be ready for anything that
came along, but the times we're living in call for far more than four
(Obama), six (Edwards) or eight (Clinton) years in the Senate.
Charisma is wonderful, and it might help win elections, but it's no
substitute for the experience that 15 years in Congress, plus several
years of serving both as U.N. Ambassador and an "Ambassador-at-large",
serving as a Cabinet member and a term-and-a-half as Governor.
As Governor, Richardson inherited a budget deficit from his Republican
predecessor and turned it into a surplus. He's created jobs in his
state, and has dealt effectively with leaders of both parties in his
legislature. He's dealt one-on-one with world leaders, and almost
always has come out on top in international negotiations. Edwards has
done none of those things. You describe Edwards as "Kennedyesque", and
perhaps he is. But even Kennedy had vastly more experience than
Edwards when he ran for President . . . six years in the House,
followed by eight years in the Senate . . . and Kennedy had been
raised in a very political family. Edwards' six years in the Senate
is his complete political resumé. And, when you talk about the
ability to excite, I should point out that, at a recent candidates'
forum, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Kucinich all received the
expected "polite applause", whereas Richardson received three standing
ovations.
I know my 21 year daughter is in love with him. Put him up against
Rudy or McCain, who have five or six wives between them, and it would
be a blow out. I know the wives of candidates aren't running for any
office, but for First Lady, put Elizabeth Edwards up against Judith
Giuliani and see what you get. Judith is a nightmare.
The First Lady issue is probably the one area where Richardson is
lacking. Not that I have anything against Barbara Richardson . . .
she's a genuinely sweet lady. But she tends to try to stay out of the
limelight. In that respect she's more like Mamie Eisenhower than more
recent First Ladies, but she's a charming hostess and is basically
just "real people". Either Richardson or Edwards would be a far
superior choice for the "family values" crowd than any of the
Republican candidates (with the exception of Romney), if that crowd
actually paid attention to what they claim to support.
However it goes, I'm sure that we'll be on the same page on election day
in Novemeber of next year!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "WF Peifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
27 Mar 2007 06:47:37 PM |
|
|
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns9900A2C8024DBGilliam@38.119.97.2...
However it goes, I'm sure that we'll be on the same page on election day
in Novemeber of next year!
Oh, I'm sure we will be. I'm looking forward to the convention next summer.
I'm also looking forward to McCain and Giuliani debating each other. Both
are known for the short fuses on their volatile tempers. It would warm my
heart to see those two in an honest-to-god physical schoolyard brawl in
front of a national audience, over some petty name-calling incident. If
that happens, the GOP can kiss their hopes good-bye, as the voters will get
to see what the GOP is REALLY offering them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
27 Mar 2007 05:27:49 PM |
|
|
"WF Peifer" <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:Xbydnaz0eI0S85TbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com...
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns990052B75D839Gilliam@38.119.97.2...
Don't get me wrong. I like Richardson very much. If it weren't for
Edwards in the race, he would be my next pick. He's experienced,
thoughtful, and very electable. But it's that quality of exciting a large
constituentcy that I think he lacks. The "charisma" factor. I hate to
say that Edwards has a "Kennedyesque" feel to him, but that what it is.
Youth, good looks, articulate, smart. He has no apparent skeletons in his
closet. Married to the same women. No affairs. No known drug use. And
the same can be said for Richardson, but with Edwards at the top of the
ticket, already a household name, it would bring a lot of voters out.
And don't get ME wrong. I like Edwards a lot. But the country has just
been through six years . . . it'll be eight by the time the elections are
in
the books . . . of a President/VP combination where the President was
better
looking but inexperienced (and in that particular case, downright idiotic)
and all the experience . . . all the "gravitas", if you will . . . was in
the hands of the Vice President.
Intelligence plays a major part. Edwards came from nothing and made it as a
trial lawyer. Junior came from something and couldn't make it without Dad's
money and influence. All it took was for a forceful VP to make junior look
like a child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 08:12:23 PM |
|
|
ThePhisherKIng wrote:
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:tFUNh.15390$PL.2253@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF81A377360Gilliam@38.119.97.2...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:n0SNh.17907$Jl.5875@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is
blowing and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what we
need!!! Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of
putting pride and hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She
reminds me of "Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary. It
doesn't play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global
warming hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't get
along. But she used the hearing to put it to him rather than stay on
point about global warming. She showed me she would sacrifice
governing to further her personal agenda.
Vote for Edwards. And that has nothing to do with his wife. I've
supported him before Kerry ran away with the nomination in '04. He's
a person that will garner a lot of Southern support plus many
Independents. Besides having "good looks", he's a smart and
articulate man. The media keeps hyping Mrs. C and Barrack because of
their novelty. The substance is in John Edwards.
Richardson is better qualified.
Yeah, I agree, but I do believe that Edwards has the public's ear more
than does Richardson. Now Richardson as VP with Edwards would be a dream
ticket for Democrats.
I like the way you think, sir!
:-)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WF Peifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 06:55:02 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:tFUNh.15390$PL.2253@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Richardson is better qualified.
Agree, 100%!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 11:00:51 AM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:n0SNh.17907$Jl.5875@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is
blowing and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what we
need!!! Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of
putting pride and hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She reminds
me of "Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary. It doesn't
play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global warming
hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't get along.
But she used the hearing to put it to him rather than stay on point
about global warming. She showed me she would sacrifice governing to
further her personal agenda.
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing another
Republican, I'll have vote for her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XTS" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 10:35:27 PM |
|
|
"Joe Steel" <NoSpam@dot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF700A99856aa10021highstreamnet@216.168.3.50...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:n0SNh.17907$Jl.5875@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is
blowing and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what we
need!!! Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of
putting pride and hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She reminds
me of "Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary. It doesn't
play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global warming
hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't get along.
But she used the hearing to put it to him rather than stay on point
about global warming. She showed me she would sacrifice governing to
further her personal agenda.
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing another
Republican, I'll have vote for her.
I'll vote for her for one good reason. Senator Clinton, if she is ever
president will, pick a Veep from a field of well educated and well seasoned
democrats, and without a doubt assemble a top notch cabinet. There will be
no more, *****'s, Condi's and Gonzo's who are totally incompetent, but only
there only as loyalty appointments, just like good old "Brownie" was.
Senator Clinton, like all politicians is not by any stretch perfect, but
light years better than any thing the corrupt, criminal republican party has
to offer. I will never forget the congressional crimewave we voted out just
last November, and I will always keep that bunch of lying, child molesting
sons of bitches in mind when I am voting. If you want the same ***** we
have been putting up with for the last 6 years vote republican, and mortgage
your great-grandchild future, and commit them to endless war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
27 Mar 2007 10:15:38 AM |
|
|
"XTS" <xts@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:460882e7$0$5200$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
"Joe Steel" <NoSpam@dot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98FF700A99856aa10021highstreamnet@216.168.3.50...
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in
news:n0SNh.17907$Jl.5875@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is
blowing and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what
we need!!! Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of
putting pride and hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She
reminds me of "Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary. It
doesn't play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global
warming hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't
get along. But she used the hearing to put it to him rather than
stay on point about global warming. She showed me she would
sacrifice governing to further her personal agenda.
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing
another Republican, I'll have vote for her.
I'll vote for her for one good reason. Senator Clinton, if she is ever
president will, pick a Veep from a field of well educated and well
seasoned democrats, and without a doubt assemble a top notch cabinet.
There will be no more, *****'s, Condi's and Gonzo's who are totally
incompetent, but only there only as loyalty appointments, just like
good old "Brownie" was. ...
Reality-based public policy.
That would be nice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 01:18:18 PM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
"grinder" wrote:
I don't trust her. She doesn't lead. She sees where the wind is
blowing and then makes her decision.
She refuses to apologize for her vote to go to war. That's what
we need!!! Elect another President after putting up with 8 years of
putting pride and hubris above governing.
Her attempts to sound black when addressing black groups. She
reminds me of "Vanilla Ice" trying to rap. Forget it Hillary.
It doesn't play.
The last straw was the way she treated Gore during the global
warming hearings. It is no secret the Clintons and Gores don't
get along. But she used the hearing to put it to him rather than
stay on point about global warming. She showed me she would
sacrifice governing to further her personal agenda.
The Clintons have always been about personal agenda and the thirst
for power, and she's always been the more power-hungry of the two.
There is nothing new here.
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing
another Republican, I'll have vote for her.
Then you're a fool. In any Presidential race, Hillary should be
the very last person on earth.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 01:32:37 PM |
|
|
Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:5j3g03d7dq0f4c56rrqob81pffu4p3t01f@
4ax.com:
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing
another Republican, I'll have vote for her.
Then you're a fool. In any Presidential race, Hillary should be
the very last person on earth.
--
Jafo
Utter nonsense.
She's a great deal better than any Republican elected to the Presidency
since Eisenhower.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 02:21:53 PM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
She's a great deal better than any Republican elected to the
Presidency since Eisenhower.
She's the most dangerous politician in America.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
| User: "hc23hc" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 05:23:49 PM |
|
|
Dirty Uncle Jafo wrote:
She's the most dangerous politician in America.
If you weren't all mouth and Gannon, Jafo, you would have supported
Cynthia McKinney while you had the chance.
Hillary Clinton may be nasty and awful... no, she *is* nasty and awful
- and a war-profiteers' ***** to boot. And she's already acting in
total contempt of the mandate handed to Democrats by the American
People - to end this fucked-up war of W's and to prosecute and impeach
the criminals who started it, without delay. Instead, she's openly
joined the regime of pigs with her snout pointing right at the same
old trough.
But next to W she still looks almost human. This is how low things in
American mainstream politics have sunk, thanks to criminals you and
your lies contributed to maintaining in power for far too long. The
insatiably criminal W Junta makes almost anybody else look good, at
least for a fleeting moment in time.
Look on the bright side, though. Eventually, at the rate she's going,
she'll be right up there in the dock alongside W on trial for war
crimes.
..
More than 600,000 Iraqis are dead because of a 30-year political
"vacation" taken by the citizens of the USA, culminating in this
atrocity. Our health care system is broken because America does not
care about its people's health. Top American political leadership is
sociopathic because it serves at the pleasure of transnational
corporations with no commitment to anything but their profits and the
destruction of government regulation rather than the people and law.
But the people are too besotted with corporate propaganda to know
their rights, their interests and how to defend either. Yet, the US is
losing "the war against terrorism" for the same reason it long ago
lost the "war on drugs": the Big Shots are too corrupt to win a war or
stop the carnage of this one. Or rebuild New Orleans. Or save our
environment. Or even put a dent in global warming.
Big Shots dominate our federal, state and local legislatures and our
media corporations. The political situation in America is, in fact,
much more critical than most Americans can imagine. There are entire
institutions, vital to a functional society that have dropped off the
map of the civilized world because they have been so rotted out by the
greed of special interests, bribery and corruption. A small example,
that will be familiar only to the very few remaining candid souls
living in rural America, will be this year's Farm Bill, which will
demonstrate again that the Department of Agriculture is so corrupt it
cannot identify national interest or even farmers' interests.
Likewise with the Food and Drug Agency, that has made unwitting guinea
pigs of the entire American society and any foreign markets for our
crops too stupid or oppressed to avoid it for the free, unregulated
experimentation of the health effects of genetically modified
organisms. Resource agencies charged with enforcing environmental law
and regulation are daily corrupted by development corporations. Agency-
by-agency, institution-by-institution, where can we find one that is
working for the People? As glad as we may be made by tidings of
churches, with congregations 10,000 strong, doing incredible feats of
community outreach and care, can they replace a government that is
supposed to serve 300 million people and is not supposed to be owned
by transnational corporations?
The Big Shots intend to protect their power and their wealth. That's
all they have to say now, and all they ever had to say, millions of
barrels of ink ago. Where's the "Progress"? What did agribusiness,
built on federal water, crop subsidies and low wages, really
accomplish? Where is the quality in those islands of wealth surrounded
by poverty and economic anxiety? What was the ideal served? Where is
the happiness?
Do we live to buy what we don't need to keep corporate CEOs in the
style to which they have become accustomed, averaging 300 times higher
compensation than the median income of their employees? Do we live for
the fame of having invaded and destroyed already crippled nations to
plunder their resources? Do we live to support and applaud or suffer
in fearful silence the fraud and corruption of predatory plutocrats?
Were we born to become the generation that forgot the difference
between news and advertising? Is our purpose in life here in the San
Joaquin Valley and elsewhere to stand at attention and sing hymns of
praise to the destroyers of the Public Trust and the builders of
grotesque slurbs just because Big Shots have the "freedom" to do it?
Is this nation's destiny freedom for Big Shots and the shaft for the
rest of us?
"Of course not, of course not," I hear you saying.
I end in communion with the great Dodge City lawman, Bat Masterson,
who went on to a distinguished career as a New York City sports
writer. He wrote:
"There are many in this old world of ours who hold that things break
about even for all of us. I have observed, for example, that we all
get the same amount of ice. The rich get it in the summertime and the
poor get it in the winter."
-- Bill Hatch, March 2007
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 02:31:20 PM |
|
|
Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:e77g03p26remvmrfb74iq3g28tahjjpdqu@
4ax.com:
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
She's a great deal better than any Republican elected to the
Presidency since Eisenhower.
She's the most dangerous politician in America.
--
Jafo
Dangerous in what way?
Will she destroy America's credibility throughout the world?
Will she increase America's threat from terrorists?
Will she pile-up debt in unprecedented amounts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 02:34:30 PM |
|
|
Joe Steel wrote:
Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:e77g03p26remvmrfb74iq3g28tahjjpdqu@ 4ax.com:
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
She's a great deal better than any Republican elected to the
Presidency since Eisenhower.
She's the most dangerous politician in America.
--
Jafo
Dangerous in what way?
Will she destroy America's credibility throughout the world?
Has Bush left us with any?
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 03:10:40 PM |
|
|
"J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote in news:afVNh.2742$u03.1075
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:
Joe Steel wrote:
Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:e77g03p26remvmrfb74iq3g28tahjjpdqu@ 4ax.com:
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
She's a great deal better than any Republican elected to the
Presidency since Eisenhower.
She's the most dangerous politician in America.
--
Jafo
Dangerous in what way?
Will she destroy America's credibility throughout the world?
Has Bush left us with any?
Precisely my point.
The world regards us as liars.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 05:20:04 PM |
|
|
Joe Steel wrote:
Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:5j3g03d7dq0f4c56rrqob81pffu4p3t01f@
4ax.com:
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing
another Republican, I'll have vote for her.
Then you're a fool. In any Presidential race, Hillary should be
the very last person on earth.
--
Jafo
Utter nonsense.
She's a great deal better than any Republican elected to the Presidency
since Eisenhower.
Now THAT'S foolish. It's a safe bet you aren't a New Yorker.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WF Peifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 06:41:09 PM |
|
|
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oGXNh.5685$ya1.640@news02.roc.ny...
Joe Steel wrote:
Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:5j3g03d7dq0f4c56rrqob81pffu4p3t01f@
4ax.com:
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing
another Republican, I'll have vote for her.
Then you're a fool. In any Presidential race, Hillary should be
the very last person on earth.
--
Jafo
Utter nonsense.
She's a great deal better than any Republican elected to the Presidency
since Eisenhower.
Now THAT'S foolish. It's a safe bet you aren't a New Yorker.
Now, THAT'S foolish! Do you need to be reminded that she beat her
Republican opponent by a million and a half votes in 2006? 67% of the vote
to 31%? Don't you realize that she took every single county in the state
except for three . . . Hamilton, Allegany and Wyoming . . . and Spencer only
won those ultra-conservative counties by 287, 528 and 416 votes,
respectively? Maybe YOU don't like her, but to say that it's a safe bet
that someone who DOES like isn't a New Yorker is ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong. I don't care for her too much myself. But she's far
preferable to anything poking it's ugly head up on the Republican side of
the fence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 06:10:44 PM |
|
|
WF Peifer wrote:
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oGXNh.5685$ya1.640@news02.roc.ny...
Joe Steel wrote:
Jafo <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:5j3g03d7dq0f4c56rrqob81pffu4p3t01f@
4ax.com:
As viewed from alt.california, Joe Steel wrote:
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing
another Republican, I'll have vote for her.
Then you're a fool. In any Presidential race, Hillary should be
the very last person on earth.
--
Jafo
Utter nonsense.
She's a great deal better than any Republican elected to the Presidency
since Eisenhower.
Now THAT'S foolish. It's a safe bet you aren't a New Yorker.
Now, THAT'S foolish! Do you need to be reminded that she beat her
Republican opponent by a million and a half votes in 2006? 67% of the vote
to 31%? Don't you realize that she took every single county in the state
except for three . . . Hamilton, Allegany and Wyoming . . . and Spencer only
won those ultra-conservative counties by 287, 528 and 416 votes,
respectively? Maybe YOU don't like her, but to say that it's a safe bet
that someone who DOES like isn't a New Yorker is ridiculous.
Why must people constantly read things not written in political discussions?
That isn't what I said. It's a safe bet he's not a New Yorker as he
would vote her because "she's a great deal better than any Republican
elected to the Presidency since Eisenhower".
I'm a New Yorker. I voted for her in 2000. I knew she would be
re-elected, in spite of the fact that I have yet to meet any New Yorker
who can name 3 things she has done for the benefit of, and in
representation of the will of, the people of New York.
She is completely ineffectual. New York would be unchanged if we just
left her seat empty.
Don't get me wrong. I don't care for her too much myself. But she's far
preferable to anything poking it's ugly head up on the Republican side of
the fence.
I and most voters I know disagree. They prefer even Giuliani over Hillary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WF Peifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 08:06:05 PM |
|
|
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UpYNh.5695$ya1.4363@news02.roc.ny...
Why must people constantly read things not written in political
discussions?
That isn't what I said. It's a safe bet he's not a New Yorker as he
would vote her because "she's a great deal better than any Republican
elected to the Presidency since Eisenhower".
I'm a New Yorker. I voted for her in 2000. I knew she would be
re-elected, in spite of the fact that I have yet to meet any New Yorker
who can name 3 things she has done for the benefit of, and in
representation of the will of, the people of New York.
She is completely ineffectual. New York would be unchanged if we just
left her seat empty.
I'm for less interference in people's lives by the government, to to me
"completely ineffectual" sounds like an improvement over "effective".
Don't get me wrong. I don't care for her too much myself. But she's
far
preferable to anything poking it's ugly head up on the Republican side
of
the fence.
I and most voters I know disagree. They prefer even Giuliani over Hillary.
I guess I have to assume that you're not down in NYC, where I'm told that
Giuliani couldn't now win a race for dogcatcher. Hell, the members of the
firefighters union there has launched a nationwide "anybody but Rudy"
campaign. They aren't too happy with the way he handled 9/11, and that's
the only thing Rudy has to hang his hat on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 07:31:08 PM |
|
|
WF Peifer wrote:
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UpYNh.5695$ya1.4363@news02.roc.ny...
Why must people constantly read things not written in political
discussions?
That isn't what I said. It's a safe bet he's not a New Yorker as he
would vote her because "she's a great deal better than any Republican
elected to the Presidency since Eisenhower".
I'm a New Yorker. I voted for her in 2000. I knew she would be
re-elected, in spite of the fact that I have yet to meet any New Yorker
who can name 3 things she has done for the benefit of, and in
representation of the will of, the people of New York.
She is completely ineffectual. New York would be unchanged if we just
left her seat empty.
I'm for less interference in people's lives by the government, to to me
"completely ineffectual" sounds like an improvement over "effective".
Don't get me wrong. I don't care for her too much myself. But she's
far
preferable to anything poking it's ugly head up on the Republican side
of
the fence.
I and most voters I know disagree. They prefer even Giuliani over Hillary.
I guess I have to assume that you're not down in NYC, where I'm told that
Giuliani couldn't now win a race for dogcatcher.
I've been there, and he most certainly could. The firefighter's union
doesn't dictate how the rest of New Yorkers vote.
Hell, the members of the
firefighters union there has launched a nationwide "anybody but Rudy"
campaign. They aren't too happy with the way he handled 9/11, and that's
the only thing Rudy has to hang his hat on.
Among his other accomplishments, crime reduction is big issue he can
hang his hat on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Karma Ghia" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 02:44:19 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns98FF700A99856aa10021highstreamnet@216.168.3.50>,
Joe Steel <NoSpam@dot.com> wrote:
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing another
Republican, I'll have vote for her.
Yes, we vote for the lesser of two evils. Still evil, but , what's a guy
gonna do.
I would suggest looking for ways to influence her. Or her vice-prez.
--
Money: What a concept?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton won't get my vote. |
26 Mar 2007 03:31:40 PM |
|
|
Karma Ghia <georgek@aol.com> wrote in
news:georgek-70F556.11441926032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
In article <Xns98FF700A99856aa10021highstreamnet@216.168.3.50>,
Joe Steel <NoSpam@dot.com> wrote:
I don't care for her either but if the alternative is electing
another Republican, I'll have vote for her.
Yes, we vote for the lesser of two evils. Still evil, but , what's a
guy gonna do.
I would suggest looking for ways to influence her. Or her vice-prez.
The American way of choosing representatives is so bad, we're often left
with a choice of bad and worse. Unfortunately, they're so indebted to
special interests, common citizens have almost no chance of influencing
them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
