RE: The Clintons and questions of campaign funds/fraud (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


orfunboi -> RE: The Clintons and questions of campaign funds/fraud (10/20/2007 4:56:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

yawn...

send in the clowns,... where are the clowns....


Last i checked, they were trying to get back in the white house, doubt they will, but clowns are silly like that.




Sanity -> RE: The Clintons and questions of campaign funds/fraud (10/20/2007 7:23:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: trappedinamuseum

I don't speak for him, but perhaps the thought was that since most (not all) politicians are corrupt in some way, so perhaps Hillary's corruptness is not all that bad.

Lesser of two evils I suppose.



What I am hearing from the Left is, "Vote for Democrats, because they're not as corrupt as Bush"

My question is, when are they going to calm down to the point that they can think clearly and rationally enough to realize that they're not running against Bush.




Alumbrado -> RE: The Clintons and questions of campaign funds/fraud (10/20/2007 7:34:04 AM)

Ahhh, the charade of the 'twin party system' continues, distracting the lumpen from the fact that no matter which side of the aisle they support they are in favor of corrupt, venal, lying bigots. 

All that is needed is the schoolyard excuse of 'But they did it too!', and critical thinking flies out the window in a surge of dualistic fearmongering against 'Them'.

Which is why we have the government we deserve.




Owner59 -> RE: The Clintons and questions of campaign funds/fraud (10/20/2007 7:44:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

quote:

Even hated by many G. W. Bush was a sucessful baseball team manager and popular governor of important state Texas before the presidency.

ROTFLMFAO!!!


To much cool-aid,changes your body...

bush ran that team into the ground and ruined two other businesses.

As a businessman,he was a complete failure.

Thanks for the belly laugh.It was good.

My question was what has Mrs. Clinton done useful  besides voting strictly party line in US Senate? Help me out. My knowlege of US history is not perfect.
Bush at least did something before becoming the president. If one is in love with word "democrat" why not to vote for John Edwards. He made hundreds of millions sucessfully suing medical doctors. Obviously he has great skills with finances.  Maybe he will reduce US debt. Looking from the other country, US would be much better off with independent president (too bad the US election system is unfair).  Pushing somebody who in her arrogant mind imagines she can do the job is unneccessary and not very smart.



If, Hillary is elected,she`ll do just fine.

I heard someone joke once ,that bush was put into power by Hillary`s "agents".They did this knowing how bad bush would be,and to make it possible for people to imagine that a woman could do better.

Though is`t a joke,it`s true.




Sanity -> RE: The Clintons and questions of campaign funds/fraud (10/20/2007 7:49:52 AM)

The two-party system can work, it's not what's broken. What's broken is a million little things, like so much mud-slinging and dirt-digging that only a Clinton-type or a Bush-type would be stupid enough to run. Like lifetime Senators (can you say "Kennedy"?). Like a Supreme Court that makes laws, and therefore causes such division in the electorate that all the hate generated divides the nation like never before...




Owner59 -> RE: The Clintons and questions of campaign funds/fraud (10/20/2007 8:18:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: trappedinamuseum

I don't speak for him, but perhaps the thought was that since most (not all) politicians are corrupt in some way, so perhaps Hillary's corruptness is not all that bad.

Lesser of two evils I suppose.



What I am hearing from the Left is, "Vote for Democrats, because they're not as corrupt as Bush"

My question is, when are they going to calm down to the point that they can think clearly and rationally enough to realize that they're not running against Bush.




Traditionally,the out-going president is associated with the party and it`s new nominee,before,during and after the election.That`s the way it`s always been.

It seems as though bush is being marginalized and played down.Ronald Regan, is the person that keeps getting mentioned at debates.They all are trying to be Regan,lol.

The dynamic is different now,b/c the republican candidates are trying to avoid bush,like the plague.But the over-all dynamic that the general public has with the candidates is still the same.It`ll be interesting to see how that plays out.

Bush will be the party`s leader,and chairman for the next for years(as was Clinton).

He will be a major,if not "the" major speaker at the National Republican Convention,in Minn(though I heard rumors that he`ll be put on at a non-peek time slot).

Every single candidate(especially the nominee{Go! Wudy!} will seek his support next year,with fund-raising and appearances.

All the candidates will have to defend this guys failures and appeal to the general public.The died-in-the -wool republican is going to vote that way,no matter what).It`s the un-decided voters that are the battle.

The way the republicans(right now) are campaigning,they are trying to out-bush ,bush,and going for the really scary neo-con`s votes.

Even though it`s early and still the primary,they`re hurting themselves by doing this ,plus avoiding the Spanish and Black voters(the Univision debate,and the PBS debate,w/ Tavis Smiley), by ignoring them,was not a good idea.

It`s about bush,and those that support him, and his disastrous policies.It`ll be about bush,b/c the most of the candidates are to the right of bush,and support bush`s policies.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125