ROFL!!!
If every voter had a sense of humor and every candidate too I think things would look totally different!
If every voter had a sense of humor and every candidate too I think things would look totally different!
Election Madness
- Thread starter whirlcool
- Start date
Help Support :
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Stephen:
"Danemodsandy, you make a good point in having a seperate Head of State and political head of government, however you may not be aware that the Queen while true she can advise,consult and warn her Prime Minister, at the end of the day she is obliged to accept her P.M.'S advice on matters as does the G.G. here so in many ways they are still just a rubber stamp for the executive government,however personally as you mentioned I like having a person who represents Australia who is away from all the political bunfights of the day."
You're quite right about the limits on a monarch's authority. However, Britain's monarch brings one thing to the table that is very difficult for a PM to ignore- the weight of British history and tradition, that indefinable "something" that binds Britain together as a nation. It would be a brave PM indeed who wholly disregarded a monarch's counsel (I mean altogether, not in particulars), because he or she would be breaking with rather a lot of custom. It would be the thin end of the wedge so far as ending the monarchy and turning Britain into a republic, which simply isn't on.
It should also be noted that a determined PM and Parliament can topple a British monarch from the throne itself, as happened with Edward VIII, better known as the Duke of Windsor. Damn fool wanted to marry someone unsuited to be Queen, and lo! the system kicked in. Worked very well, too.
So, I admire what the British have created. I don't say it would work everywhere, and my calls for a royal family here are strictly a joke (and who would we have in it, anyway? Paris Hilton?). But we could definitely use someone with the ability to sit a rotten Prez down and tell him, "Look here, you're being a damned idiot."
"Danemodsandy, you make a good point in having a seperate Head of State and political head of government, however you may not be aware that the Queen while true she can advise,consult and warn her Prime Minister, at the end of the day she is obliged to accept her P.M.'S advice on matters as does the G.G. here so in many ways they are still just a rubber stamp for the executive government,however personally as you mentioned I like having a person who represents Australia who is away from all the political bunfights of the day."
You're quite right about the limits on a monarch's authority. However, Britain's monarch brings one thing to the table that is very difficult for a PM to ignore- the weight of British history and tradition, that indefinable "something" that binds Britain together as a nation. It would be a brave PM indeed who wholly disregarded a monarch's counsel (I mean altogether, not in particulars), because he or she would be breaking with rather a lot of custom. It would be the thin end of the wedge so far as ending the monarchy and turning Britain into a republic, which simply isn't on.
It should also be noted that a determined PM and Parliament can topple a British monarch from the throne itself, as happened with Edward VIII, better known as the Duke of Windsor. Damn fool wanted to marry someone unsuited to be Queen, and lo! the system kicked in. Worked very well, too.
So, I admire what the British have created. I don't say it would work everywhere, and my calls for a royal family here are strictly a joke (and who would we have in it, anyway? Paris Hilton?). But we could definitely use someone with the ability to sit a rotten Prez down and tell him, "Look here, you're being a damned idiot."
peterh770
Well-known member
"What's government for, if not to help the citizens?"
To protect citizens and their freedom to allow them all the room they need to utilize the resourses available to them. Don't want to do that? Then rely on charity, not the government. Any charitable organization can do a better job at collecting donations and distributing to those in need than the government. I could to more good for society with my donations than the government can by taking it from me.
It is not an old GOP cliche, it is the truth. No one here is saying that the GOP is even good, but when dealing with hardcore socialism and socialism-lite... Back to Toggle's statement...
To protect citizens and their freedom to allow them all the room they need to utilize the resourses available to them. Don't want to do that? Then rely on charity, not the government. Any charitable organization can do a better job at collecting donations and distributing to those in need than the government. I could to more good for society with my donations than the government can by taking it from me.
It is not an old GOP cliche, it is the truth. No one here is saying that the GOP is even good, but when dealing with hardcore socialism and socialism-lite... Back to Toggle's statement...
"Any charitable organization can do a better job at collecting donations and distributing to those in need than the government."
Peter, most, if not all, of the legitimate charities would strongly disagree with you.
Katrina was made even worse than it already was because FEMA was ran by a Bush political appointee who had absolutely no experience in emergency management, and no interest in running an effective organization. That, in turn, made many charities efforts ineffective, because they rely on a cabinet-level agency to coordinate their efforts. In other years, when FEMA was a well-run agency, it has played a vital role in recovering from natural disasters.
And there is no shortage of illegitimate charities, or major scandals with well-respected charities: Look at the scandals engulfing the American Red Cross and United Way in recent years. And the bogus scam agencies that popped up after 911 and Katrina. If it weren't for government oversight of private charities, it would be even worse.
Precious little of what "the government is taking from you" goes to fund any kind of social service anyway. Most of it goes to the ridiculously over-inflated "defense" budget (while our soldiers live in substandard housing and have to collect food stamps) and to pay interest on the debt - which, since 1980, has skyrocketed.
Government is not the answer to everything - but it's not the cause of every problem, either. The issues we face are serious, and require nuanced, thoughtful consideration. I don't know if we, as a nation, are capable of that anymore.
Peter, most, if not all, of the legitimate charities would strongly disagree with you.
Katrina was made even worse than it already was because FEMA was ran by a Bush political appointee who had absolutely no experience in emergency management, and no interest in running an effective organization. That, in turn, made many charities efforts ineffective, because they rely on a cabinet-level agency to coordinate their efforts. In other years, when FEMA was a well-run agency, it has played a vital role in recovering from natural disasters.
And there is no shortage of illegitimate charities, or major scandals with well-respected charities: Look at the scandals engulfing the American Red Cross and United Way in recent years. And the bogus scam agencies that popped up after 911 and Katrina. If it weren't for government oversight of private charities, it would be even worse.
Precious little of what "the government is taking from you" goes to fund any kind of social service anyway. Most of it goes to the ridiculously over-inflated "defense" budget (while our soldiers live in substandard housing and have to collect food stamps) and to pay interest on the debt - which, since 1980, has skyrocketed.
Government is not the answer to everything - but it's not the cause of every problem, either. The issues we face are serious, and require nuanced, thoughtful consideration. I don't know if we, as a nation, are capable of that anymore.
Socialism in it's many forms . . .
Some degree of socialism is a good thing, in that private charities can't always be counted on, and they can be very, very capricious in giving to others who may not meet their own standards of conduct - anyone remember when research funding for GRID ("Gay Related Immune Disorder" - what AIDs was before it was renamed) was almost nonexistant 25 years ago because nobody wanted to be seen helping sick gay people? It took Elizabeth Taylor's big mouth and Rock Hudson's death to make it even possible for most private charities to admit there was a need.
My problem with our degree of socialism at the moment has nothing to do with goverment helping people, but rather with the goverment helping large corporations and such. Why are oil companies and corporate farmers getting tax breaks and subsidies worth billions of dollars as we watch prices increase at an unprecedented rate, as well as their profits. I understand that world events have caused much of the price increases, but don't understand why our tax money should be given to those who are benefitting from the price increases.
Some degree of socialism is a good thing, in that private charities can't always be counted on, and they can be very, very capricious in giving to others who may not meet their own standards of conduct - anyone remember when research funding for GRID ("Gay Related Immune Disorder" - what AIDs was before it was renamed) was almost nonexistant 25 years ago because nobody wanted to be seen helping sick gay people? It took Elizabeth Taylor's big mouth and Rock Hudson's death to make it even possible for most private charities to admit there was a need.
My problem with our degree of socialism at the moment has nothing to do with goverment helping people, but rather with the goverment helping large corporations and such. Why are oil companies and corporate farmers getting tax breaks and subsidies worth billions of dollars as we watch prices increase at an unprecedented rate, as well as their profits. I understand that world events have caused much of the price increases, but don't understand why our tax money should be given to those who are benefitting from the price increases.
socialism doesn't say help the people...
Socialism says "What is more important, the individual or the state?"
In a socialist state, if you aren't worth saving (medical costs, say) you don't get what you need. Period.
What it really comes down to is what is more important? Freedom to do what you can, or being forced to 'eat what is set before you'?
Having said this, The Ds are not the socialists and the Rs bastions of individual choice. Both seem to say 'do as I say, not what you choose.'
Nate
Socialism says "What is more important, the individual or the state?"
In a socialist state, if you aren't worth saving (medical costs, say) you don't get what you need. Period.
What it really comes down to is what is more important? Freedom to do what you can, or being forced to 'eat what is set before you'?
Having said this, The Ds are not the socialists and the Rs bastions of individual choice. Both seem to say 'do as I say, not what you choose.'
Nate
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
I'm glad to see this being discussed here. A lot of what I've been reading here fascinates me.
What's amazing, a year later, and with me not really ranting about politics the way I once did, I'm taken with how different it seems now, just KNOWING there's a good chance Bush will leave office quietly.
In the interests of full disclosure, I just want to go on record as saying I cannot imagine voting for Obama...this year. I don't see this as a time of "hope", or "change", not unless I understand what I'm supposed to be hoping for this week, or what I'm directed to change in order to "make it happen".
I still have major issues with Hillary, but I'm over it and, barring any further bizarre happenings, will most likely vote for her (thank you, panthera, for encouraging me to participate, the courts issue has validity to it).
"Obama was right, even if he articulated it a bit awkwardly when he talked about "bitter" people and guns and religion."
Tom, I am DEFINITELY not trying to start an argument, but it's important for me to pinpoint the exact moment I realized I needed to walk away from the progressive movement.
I've always been a Obama skeptic, seeing him as the emperor with no clothes, a particularly devious sort of snake-oil salesman, peddling wares he can't possibly deliver, a cynical opportunist. But it was THAT line, delivered in private to rich elitist supporters, that rendered him dead to me, politically (although I still pray he will not be assassinated). In the absence of experience, knowledge, and wisdom, will serve as only an instrument of further divisiveness to the nation. Hillary may be a "monster", but we need such a monster to annihilate those forces that oppress us, not "reach across the aisle" to them.
And it was my encounters with a certain brand of hardcore Obama supporter that has changed my entire outlook toward progressive politics. We have changed too much as a people, and not for the better.
I won't deny residual racist tendencies and fears that do affect the way I feel toward Obama himself. What I was shocked by, was how Obama used his supporters to do his dirty work for him, socially, on the Internet, and in some segments of the media, to intimidate and stifle debate. There is an intolerance toward centrist thought on ANY issue, ANY point of dissention. There is intolerance toward even the existence of another Democratic candidate in the primary race itself! I am here to tell you these hardcore Obama supporters not only hate religion and spirituality, they demand any person of faith, whether demonstrably or not, renounce any loyalty to any higher power. In these types of social settings that I am privy to, where frustrations and rhetoric, I unwittingly "pass" as straight because of my demeanor and presence. There is tremendous anger and hatred toward gay and lesbian supporters that is expressed, even by openly gay Obama supporters! Why? Because Hillary is considered by them to be the big gay favorite, and they resent being "deserted". I am by no means a supporter of Israel's policies or the lobby, but there IS blatant, unapologetic antisemitism in that campaign, that I cannot support. I can deal with lashing out in a prejudiced way on individual issues where someone's self-identification with said issue correlates directly to the issue itself...but not to use these kinds of bigotries as all-purpose catch-alls, or in tit-for-tat retaliation for racial divisions and real racism towards blacks, that also undermines whatever unity as Americans we could ever hope to achieve.
For me, Wright was not a deciding factor (I'm not comfortable with his particular brand of ideology being such an influence on Obama, for such a long period of time, but he DOES bring up valid points of debate, and I think he's more honest than any of the candidates themselves), but Obama's manner of handling it, particularly the way he threw his own grandmother under the bus, does not inspire confidence. The Republicans will tear him to shreds.
But it was Obama's image, not as a dangerous black nationalist but as a catalyst of national class warfare, that brought it all together for me. The adulation, the lofty speeches, the robotic militarism....I just can't get past it, and it tempers the image of Hillary as a right-wing tool that I had in the past.
It's irrevocably changed a few business relationships, editors, pundits, and such, who were such a part of my life, such influences in my thinking. There are two progressive controversial radio hosts, one of which I'd met and practically idolized. Because of the changes I've seen in their work since the beginning of the year, I no longer even listen to their programs. To me, they are virtual campaign tools for Barack Obama, rather than DEMANDING the best candidate they could get from him, by taking his weaknesses to task before the Republicans do.
I'm even questioning who I am on the political spectrum.
The extremists make me wonder if I even have a place at the Democratic table, whether I even have the right to self-identify as liberal or progressive.
I'm against many of the apparent prevalent left-leaning positions Obama has brought stark definition to. I don't believe in quotas, I support the right to bear arms, I question the global-warming industrial complex that is developing, I think every zip code should have its own nuclear reactor.
I watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC regularly. I thoroughly enjoyed the back-and-forth between the ever-vile Bill O'Reilly and Hillary on Fox...it was better and more substantive, IMHO, then any of the debates.
Does this mean I'm to register with my local Log Cabin Republican office? And how do I get past that whole annoying redistribution of wealth thing?
Thanks, guys. Always food for thought.
I apologize in advance for any offense my comments may inadvertently have caused.
What's amazing, a year later, and with me not really ranting about politics the way I once did, I'm taken with how different it seems now, just KNOWING there's a good chance Bush will leave office quietly.
In the interests of full disclosure, I just want to go on record as saying I cannot imagine voting for Obama...this year. I don't see this as a time of "hope", or "change", not unless I understand what I'm supposed to be hoping for this week, or what I'm directed to change in order to "make it happen".
I still have major issues with Hillary, but I'm over it and, barring any further bizarre happenings, will most likely vote for her (thank you, panthera, for encouraging me to participate, the courts issue has validity to it).
"Obama was right, even if he articulated it a bit awkwardly when he talked about "bitter" people and guns and religion."
Tom, I am DEFINITELY not trying to start an argument, but it's important for me to pinpoint the exact moment I realized I needed to walk away from the progressive movement.
I've always been a Obama skeptic, seeing him as the emperor with no clothes, a particularly devious sort of snake-oil salesman, peddling wares he can't possibly deliver, a cynical opportunist. But it was THAT line, delivered in private to rich elitist supporters, that rendered him dead to me, politically (although I still pray he will not be assassinated). In the absence of experience, knowledge, and wisdom, will serve as only an instrument of further divisiveness to the nation. Hillary may be a "monster", but we need such a monster to annihilate those forces that oppress us, not "reach across the aisle" to them.
And it was my encounters with a certain brand of hardcore Obama supporter that has changed my entire outlook toward progressive politics. We have changed too much as a people, and not for the better.
I won't deny residual racist tendencies and fears that do affect the way I feel toward Obama himself. What I was shocked by, was how Obama used his supporters to do his dirty work for him, socially, on the Internet, and in some segments of the media, to intimidate and stifle debate. There is an intolerance toward centrist thought on ANY issue, ANY point of dissention. There is intolerance toward even the existence of another Democratic candidate in the primary race itself! I am here to tell you these hardcore Obama supporters not only hate religion and spirituality, they demand any person of faith, whether demonstrably or not, renounce any loyalty to any higher power. In these types of social settings that I am privy to, where frustrations and rhetoric, I unwittingly "pass" as straight because of my demeanor and presence. There is tremendous anger and hatred toward gay and lesbian supporters that is expressed, even by openly gay Obama supporters! Why? Because Hillary is considered by them to be the big gay favorite, and they resent being "deserted". I am by no means a supporter of Israel's policies or the lobby, but there IS blatant, unapologetic antisemitism in that campaign, that I cannot support. I can deal with lashing out in a prejudiced way on individual issues where someone's self-identification with said issue correlates directly to the issue itself...but not to use these kinds of bigotries as all-purpose catch-alls, or in tit-for-tat retaliation for racial divisions and real racism towards blacks, that also undermines whatever unity as Americans we could ever hope to achieve.
For me, Wright was not a deciding factor (I'm not comfortable with his particular brand of ideology being such an influence on Obama, for such a long period of time, but he DOES bring up valid points of debate, and I think he's more honest than any of the candidates themselves), but Obama's manner of handling it, particularly the way he threw his own grandmother under the bus, does not inspire confidence. The Republicans will tear him to shreds.
But it was Obama's image, not as a dangerous black nationalist but as a catalyst of national class warfare, that brought it all together for me. The adulation, the lofty speeches, the robotic militarism....I just can't get past it, and it tempers the image of Hillary as a right-wing tool that I had in the past.
It's irrevocably changed a few business relationships, editors, pundits, and such, who were such a part of my life, such influences in my thinking. There are two progressive controversial radio hosts, one of which I'd met and practically idolized. Because of the changes I've seen in their work since the beginning of the year, I no longer even listen to their programs. To me, they are virtual campaign tools for Barack Obama, rather than DEMANDING the best candidate they could get from him, by taking his weaknesses to task before the Republicans do.
I'm even questioning who I am on the political spectrum.
The extremists make me wonder if I even have a place at the Democratic table, whether I even have the right to self-identify as liberal or progressive.
I'm against many of the apparent prevalent left-leaning positions Obama has brought stark definition to. I don't believe in quotas, I support the right to bear arms, I question the global-warming industrial complex that is developing, I think every zip code should have its own nuclear reactor.
I watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC regularly. I thoroughly enjoyed the back-and-forth between the ever-vile Bill O'Reilly and Hillary on Fox...it was better and more substantive, IMHO, then any of the debates.
Does this mean I'm to register with my local Log Cabin Republican office? And how do I get past that whole annoying redistribution of wealth thing?
Thanks, guys. Always food for thought.
I apologize in advance for any offense my comments may inadvertently have caused.
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
One more question.
Who do you think is portrayed more unfairly in the mainstream media? Obama, Hillary, or McCain?
Has the media's way of covering this primary cycle affected your choices for how you GET news and opinion regarding the candidates?
Are media pundits and political commentators TOO transparent in their preferences for particular candidates, during the primary phase?
Do you believe they are exerting too much political influence on American society as a whole?
Who do you think is portrayed more unfairly in the mainstream media? Obama, Hillary, or McCain?
Has the media's way of covering this primary cycle affected your choices for how you GET news and opinion regarding the candidates?
Are media pundits and political commentators TOO transparent in their preferences for particular candidates, during the primary phase?
Do you believe they are exerting too much political influence on American society as a whole?
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
Oh, and, in my negative impressions of certain, very hardcore Obama extremists, in no way did I mean to convey that all Obama supporters, or even most of them, are like the extremists are.
I speak of these new extremists in such harsh terms because, indeed, I wonder if they are more of a threat to America and democracy then even the neocons are.
I speak of these new extremists in such harsh terms because, indeed, I wonder if they are more of a threat to America and democracy then even the neocons are.
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
Everyone says "vote, vote, vote". I ask, for what?? There's no one worth voting for!!
These people have run dreadful campaigns...is this what we're voting into the office of President? We accuse the media of sensationalism?? These guys have got them beat by a mile with the sniping, accusatorial comments, and general ability to throw words around that have no depth of any kind regarding serious problems facing all Americans today. Yeah, someone has to win, I guess. But this is the best we can come up with in this country??
These people have run dreadful campaigns...is this what we're voting into the office of President? We accuse the media of sensationalism?? These guys have got them beat by a mile with the sniping, accusatorial comments, and general ability to throw words around that have no depth of any kind regarding serious problems facing all Americans today. Yeah, someone has to win, I guess. But this is the best we can come up with in this country??
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
In regard to the British Monarchy....
...the one major thing the Monarchy brings to Britain that we do not have in this country, is a sense of continuity. The PM may change every so often, but the Queen's reign spans decades. That sense of continuity, of history and tradition are not lost with every bozo that occupies 10 Downing St. This country loses much of that with every election as the current administration starts to undo what the previous administration put in place. Not that this is always a bad thing, however, the constant sweeping changes are not always good for the nation. There doesn't seem to be a real sense of history, of tradition, or of those principles that this country was founded upon; just words. Meaningless words and assinine laws that tend less and less to favor the real Americans....its citizens.
...the one major thing the Monarchy brings to Britain that we do not have in this country, is a sense of continuity. The PM may change every so often, but the Queen's reign spans decades. That sense of continuity, of history and tradition are not lost with every bozo that occupies 10 Downing St. This country loses much of that with every election as the current administration starts to undo what the previous administration put in place. Not that this is always a bad thing, however, the constant sweeping changes are not always good for the nation. There doesn't seem to be a real sense of history, of tradition, or of those principles that this country was founded upon; just words. Meaningless words and assinine laws that tend less and less to favor the real Americans....its citizens.
"I ask, for what?"
Well, for starters, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.
If John McBush gets elected, you can pretty much be assured that the Supreme Court will be stacked with ideologues for the rest of most of our lives. If you value your rights and would like to see marriage equality, there's your two reasons right there.
Don't get pulled down by the hype surrounding the elections. Political contests are always over-wrought, this one is just more so - partly because it helps move ratings, which affects advertising rates. And all those boorish political ads are money in the bank for the station owners.
And don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You will never find the perfect politician, because politicians are human, and there is no perfect human. Like everything in life, your vote is a compromise.
This is not the time to get all righteous and why-should-I-votey. It's way too important this time.
Well, for starters, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.
If John McBush gets elected, you can pretty much be assured that the Supreme Court will be stacked with ideologues for the rest of most of our lives. If you value your rights and would like to see marriage equality, there's your two reasons right there.
Don't get pulled down by the hype surrounding the elections. Political contests are always over-wrought, this one is just more so - partly because it helps move ratings, which affects advertising rates. And all those boorish political ads are money in the bank for the station owners.
And don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You will never find the perfect politician, because politicians are human, and there is no perfect human. Like everything in life, your vote is a compromise.
This is not the time to get all righteous and why-should-I-votey. It's way too important this time.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Dan:
"...the one major thing the Monarchy brings to Britain that we do not have in this country, is a sense of continuity. The PM may change every so often, but the Queen's reign spans decades. That sense of continuity, of history and tradition are not lost with every bozo that occupies 10 Downing St."
You have it exactly right, Dan. That is one of the most valuable things about the monarchy. I also think it's the factor responsible for something I've noticed many times over the years- that the average Brit I know is emotionally healthier than the average American I know.
"...the one major thing the Monarchy brings to Britain that we do not have in this country, is a sense of continuity. The PM may change every so often, but the Queen's reign spans decades. That sense of continuity, of history and tradition are not lost with every bozo that occupies 10 Downing St."
You have it exactly right, Dan. That is one of the most valuable things about the monarchy. I also think it's the factor responsible for something I've noticed many times over the years- that the average Brit I know is emotionally healthier than the average American I know.
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
Sandy, my point in my post earlier is not that one shouldn't vote - that shouldn't be in the realm of anyone's thinking - it's that there is no one truly worth voting for. The issues are the issues, and they're not going to change, and someone has to win and work on fixing them. Our vote is indeed a compromise between candidate's political views, but why must it be the lesser of evils? As I said, it's a shame that this is all we have to choose from to elect to the office of President, because I'm not sure any of them are really worthy.
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
I think, if we would have more parties and more candidates, we'd be able to make better choices, because the platforms and positions themselves could widen and be more inventive and forward-looking, we as voters could break out of our "lib vs. con" boxes, and choose based on which one has the best policies to address the here-and-now, right now, without all of the baggage the partisans carry with them.
I also really like the idea of instant runoff voting.
I also really like the idea of instant runoff voting.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
AndrewInOrlando:
I absolutely agree that people should vote, and I also, sadly, agree that this season's slate of candidates is not really all that worthy of consideration. All three have serious deficiencies, and all three have pulled stuff I feel is unworthy of people aspiring to the highest office in our land.
I do not know what the fix is here, but I feel that we- meaning "We the People"- have to do something, and right soon. My gut feeling is that a good housecleaning in Congress and three or four Presidential elections where the incumbent does not get re-elected might begin to make a difference. Quite a few people in the halls of power are entirely too comfortable there, and that needs to change pronto. If the people of this nation would use their voting power to base retention of office on actual merit, that would help more than anything. Unfortunately, we have politicians who get elected- and re-elected- just by blathering on about "family values" and "sanctity of marriage", while our country sinks into deeper and deeper trouble for lack of genuine leadership.
I absolutely agree that people should vote, and I also, sadly, agree that this season's slate of candidates is not really all that worthy of consideration. All three have serious deficiencies, and all three have pulled stuff I feel is unworthy of people aspiring to the highest office in our land.
I do not know what the fix is here, but I feel that we- meaning "We the People"- have to do something, and right soon. My gut feeling is that a good housecleaning in Congress and three or four Presidential elections where the incumbent does not get re-elected might begin to make a difference. Quite a few people in the halls of power are entirely too comfortable there, and that needs to change pronto. If the people of this nation would use their voting power to base retention of office on actual merit, that would help more than anything. Unfortunately, we have politicians who get elected- and re-elected- just by blathering on about "family values" and "sanctity of marriage", while our country sinks into deeper and deeper trouble for lack of genuine leadership.
mickeyd
Well-known member
Hello people
I'm my 50's and I've watched the Clintons closely for years, and I have come to respect Hilary's tenacity, recovery and courage. Consider what she's been through; and look at her now: the picture of intelligence, competence, resolve.
Sexism is much older in America than racism, and sure, it would be absolutely wonderful to have an African-American president, no question, but before we finish cracking that nut, we have to dismantle sexism once and for all. The best way to achieve that at least symbolically if not actually is to put a woman in the White House. This is our opportunity in both Indiana and Carolina, to give Hillary her chance and give women their due. Because if we pull this off, Hilary WILL become the first female alpha male, since she can and will beat John McCain. If the country does not give history its just stroke for women before blacks, and nominates Obama, there is no way he can beat Mc Cain who then becomes president of the United States.
These are the views of crazy me and do not reflect those of management, but I'm sticking to them and would love to bet some money on my predicks;'D
I'm my 50's and I've watched the Clintons closely for years, and I have come to respect Hilary's tenacity, recovery and courage. Consider what she's been through; and look at her now: the picture of intelligence, competence, resolve.
Sexism is much older in America than racism, and sure, it would be absolutely wonderful to have an African-American president, no question, but before we finish cracking that nut, we have to dismantle sexism once and for all. The best way to achieve that at least symbolically if not actually is to put a woman in the White House. This is our opportunity in both Indiana and Carolina, to give Hillary her chance and give women their due. Because if we pull this off, Hilary WILL become the first female alpha male, since she can and will beat John McCain. If the country does not give history its just stroke for women before blacks, and nominates Obama, there is no way he can beat Mc Cain who then becomes president of the United States.
These are the views of crazy me and do not reflect those of management, but I'm sticking to them and would love to bet some money on my predicks;'D
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
it would be absolutely wonderful to have an African-American
Why would it be wonderful to have an African American president? Or a woman? Or a Rabbi for that matter???
I don't think that one's gender or one's race should even enter the picture when choosing a leader for this or any other country. I don't care what color a candidate is, or what gender he or she is....it just doesn't matter. Picking Hillary because she's a woman, or Obama because he's black is nothing more that reverse sexism and reverse racism, if they're not qualified or worthy to hold the position. Choosing Clinton because she's a woman isn't going to dismantle sexism in America by a longshot...until we start dismantling organized religion, many of which still view women as property, an extension of a man, or as baby machines. Indhira Ghandi was Prime Minister of India, and Bhutto of Pakistan, but women are still not held in the same regard as men there. And just because Obama wins, doesn't mean that all of a sudden, racism will vanish, just like voting McBush into office will not abolish discrimination against or improve treatment of our country's older Americans and senior citizens.
Maybe I look at things differently, but to me, if you're not qualified for the job, I'm not hiring you, period. And how you conduct yourself is a big part of my selection process.
Now, that said, I don't think Hillary is a terrible candidate, and she is educated and resilient, and a decent enough public speaker. But can she command respect like say, Ronald Reagan did? He may have napped his way through his presidency, but when he said jump, people jumped.
Why would it be wonderful to have an African American president? Or a woman? Or a Rabbi for that matter???
I don't think that one's gender or one's race should even enter the picture when choosing a leader for this or any other country. I don't care what color a candidate is, or what gender he or she is....it just doesn't matter. Picking Hillary because she's a woman, or Obama because he's black is nothing more that reverse sexism and reverse racism, if they're not qualified or worthy to hold the position. Choosing Clinton because she's a woman isn't going to dismantle sexism in America by a longshot...until we start dismantling organized religion, many of which still view women as property, an extension of a man, or as baby machines. Indhira Ghandi was Prime Minister of India, and Bhutto of Pakistan, but women are still not held in the same regard as men there. And just because Obama wins, doesn't mean that all of a sudden, racism will vanish, just like voting McBush into office will not abolish discrimination against or improve treatment of our country's older Americans and senior citizens.
Maybe I look at things differently, but to me, if you're not qualified for the job, I'm not hiring you, period. And how you conduct yourself is a big part of my selection process.
Now, that said, I don't think Hillary is a terrible candidate, and she is educated and resilient, and a decent enough public speaker. But can she command respect like say, Ronald Reagan did? He may have napped his way through his presidency, but when he said jump, people jumped.
mickeyd
Well-known member
because I've read some where that women, collectively, a
be murdered in war. So we'll see. It's just this relentless optimistic sense in my atmosphere that a woman would make an enormous difference in the conduct of national affairs. In Hillary's case, people will ask "How high ?" when she says jump.
If you don't think Hillary is qualified, I don't know what to say except haven't you been reading Shane's emails?????? ;'D ;'D;';D
be murdered in war. So we'll see. It's just this relentless optimistic sense in my atmosphere that a woman would make an enormous difference in the conduct of national affairs. In Hillary's case, people will ask "How high ?" when she says jump.
If you don't think Hillary is qualified, I don't know what to say except haven't you been reading Shane's emails?????? ;'D ;'D;';D
~sudsshane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,250
Obama can't seem to win any Big states..
This whole Democratic primary election has left me with a SOUR taste in my mouth. Leave it to the stupid Democrats to implement a proportional delegate system which the average voter doesn't understand and quite frankly, it doesn't make a bit of sense. This should be a winner takes all election. It is ridiculous that a candidate could win a state's popular vote, but lose the alloted delegates,(ex. Texas).
The list of states captured by Obama on Super Tuesday is largely a joke, except for Illinois and a couple of others. He proudly lists Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah. What do these states have in common? They are states which a Democrat could never win in a general election. Under the Electoral College system, Democratic votes in these states are worthless they will be thrown away. How many people are there in the Alaska Democratic Party? The caucus turnout seems to have been below 10,000 people. Idaho is one of the most reactionary states and the Democratic Party there could meet in a phone booth. The same goes for Utah. Delaware is a perfect state for Obama, rich, Volvo-driving, chablis and latte elitists in the Philadelphia suburbs, but it does not look like America. Colorado is another Obama state where the well-off suburban voter can be decisive in a Democratic primary. True, Obama won Connecticut, which has some union voters, but it looks like Greenwich, and Yale University carried the day. Missouri, another important state, was essentially a tie between Obama and Clinton. Minnesota is a special case because of the Democrat Farmer-Labor Party; this was in any case a state that went for Mondale, for various reasons not a good bellwether.
To win an election, a Democrat must win the Electoral College megastates to get to the 270 plus electoral votes needed to eject the GOP from the White House. Hillary Clinton carried these states convincingly, starting with California, where all of Obama's money could not save him. California is so huge, so crucial, and so much a symbol of America's future that the argument should well end there. A Democrat who cannot win California has no hope of entering the White House. But there is much more......
The "RICH ELITISTS" for Obama
The Obama campaign looks very much like the past campaigns of Howard Dean, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley,John Kerry and other losers of the past. He appeals to wealthy elitists, and therefore has a fundraising base. He can turn out small numbers of dedicated liberal activists for caucuses, as we have seen in Iowa. He can use the Internet to get money in the same way that Howard Dean did. He enjoys the benefits of a biased and brainwashed media,which has trashed Hilary Clinton at every turn. None of this adds up to the ability to win a general election.
Obama lost Massachusetts,another crucial state for Democrats to win in the general. If Obama is the nominee, Massachusetts becomes a swing state due to the fact that McCain polls very well there. Despite media hype, he lost New Jersey. He lost border states like Tennessee and Oklahoma that a Democrat might win. Hillary Clinton had already won megastates Florida and Michigan. She won Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. What can we do with a Democratic candidate who cannot win California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania,Florida and cannot win even the skewed Democratic primary voters of these critical states? The question answers itself. Obama's strengths do not undermine Hillary's single most powerful asset: rock solid support among the white women, retirees, and union workers who make up the majority of the Democratic base. There is nearly nothing that Obama can say to sway those voters.Obama can continue to win his kind of state (caucuses, low union, small to medium size, heavily Affirmative Action) and have the money to continue till the end. Obama's campaign depends on creating the illusion of success. When there is no real success.
A Democratic candidate who cannot appeal to working women, retirees, and union workers is an exercise in futility. But Obama's situation is even worse. While winning California, Arizona, New Mexico,and Texas, Senator Clinton has demonstrated a superiority among Latino voters, now the largest minority group in this country and the key to the future for any political party. Here she won by a 2:1 margin. She also carried the best educated group, Asian Americans, by a similar 2:1 margin.
It might be argued that these Latino and Asian voters will simply go to a Democratic candidate in the general election, whoever that candidate might be. But the Latinos might just as easily go to McCain, who has carefully built a public record of being sympathetic to them, as Rush Limbaugh repeats every day on his radio show.
Therefore, it seems fair to say that while Obama may have a strategy to win the Democratic nomination, he has no strategy at all for winning the general election in November. Are you listening Super Delegates?
Now, the Florida and Michigan votes.
Seat the delegates and count the damn votes! Since when is the USA ,made up of 48 states?? To disenfranchise the voters of Florida after the debacle of 2000, would be political suicide for the Democrats. Why should the Florida voters be punished because our Republican governor and Republican legislature decided to move up the primary date? Florida and Michigan are states that are crucial for the Democrats to win the White House. Obama doesn't want Florida and Michigan to count because if they are counted, Hillary cuts into his delgate lead and as of now, Clinton then would have a narrow lead in the popular vote.
and.. Reverend. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.
Obama attacks Sen. Clinton for lacking judgement on her Iraq war vote. Easy for him and anyone else to say when they are not privy to any intelligence reports Clinton and others who voted for the war may have seen. Now we have Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, the man who married him, baptized his children and whose sermons he attended as a member of the Church. Obama was so taken with one of Wright's sermons he titled his book "Audacity of Hope" after it. But Obama now says he had no idea about the anti-american and racist nature of Wright's sermons. Now you expect a rational and educated person to believe that he sat in those pews for 20 years and never heard Wright spew his anti white and anti American rhetoric? Please..I have some land in Kenya I would like to sell you!
His relationship with Rev. Wright is the second significant, almost 20 year long relationship in Barack Obama's adult life in which he now says he was clueless about things that should have leapt out at him. Umm..Judgment??
It's is indeed a problem of judgment. And, to some extent, arrogance. He knew about Tony Rezko being a problem for him before he announced his presidential bid. But it took 15 months to agree to answer his hometown papers' questions about Rezko. He also knew Wright would be a problem, but instead of addressing it, until this week, he intentionally swept Wright under the rug. Obama has proven himself to be no different than any other politician in Washington. He is selling his supporters a bill of goods and they are buying it hook, line and sinker.
In closing, I cannot in good conscience support this man. I am prepared to vote for McCain and I can say in all honesty that while McCain's support of the war deeply concerns me, McCain has the character and judgment to be President. The Republicans were smart to nominate him, if there is any Republican who can win the presidency this year it is him.
This whole Democratic primary election has left me with a SOUR taste in my mouth. Leave it to the stupid Democrats to implement a proportional delegate system which the average voter doesn't understand and quite frankly, it doesn't make a bit of sense. This should be a winner takes all election. It is ridiculous that a candidate could win a state's popular vote, but lose the alloted delegates,(ex. Texas).
The list of states captured by Obama on Super Tuesday is largely a joke, except for Illinois and a couple of others. He proudly lists Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah. What do these states have in common? They are states which a Democrat could never win in a general election. Under the Electoral College system, Democratic votes in these states are worthless they will be thrown away. How many people are there in the Alaska Democratic Party? The caucus turnout seems to have been below 10,000 people. Idaho is one of the most reactionary states and the Democratic Party there could meet in a phone booth. The same goes for Utah. Delaware is a perfect state for Obama, rich, Volvo-driving, chablis and latte elitists in the Philadelphia suburbs, but it does not look like America. Colorado is another Obama state where the well-off suburban voter can be decisive in a Democratic primary. True, Obama won Connecticut, which has some union voters, but it looks like Greenwich, and Yale University carried the day. Missouri, another important state, was essentially a tie between Obama and Clinton. Minnesota is a special case because of the Democrat Farmer-Labor Party; this was in any case a state that went for Mondale, for various reasons not a good bellwether.
To win an election, a Democrat must win the Electoral College megastates to get to the 270 plus electoral votes needed to eject the GOP from the White House. Hillary Clinton carried these states convincingly, starting with California, where all of Obama's money could not save him. California is so huge, so crucial, and so much a symbol of America's future that the argument should well end there. A Democrat who cannot win California has no hope of entering the White House. But there is much more......
The "RICH ELITISTS" for Obama
The Obama campaign looks very much like the past campaigns of Howard Dean, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley,John Kerry and other losers of the past. He appeals to wealthy elitists, and therefore has a fundraising base. He can turn out small numbers of dedicated liberal activists for caucuses, as we have seen in Iowa. He can use the Internet to get money in the same way that Howard Dean did. He enjoys the benefits of a biased and brainwashed media,which has trashed Hilary Clinton at every turn. None of this adds up to the ability to win a general election.
Obama lost Massachusetts,another crucial state for Democrats to win in the general. If Obama is the nominee, Massachusetts becomes a swing state due to the fact that McCain polls very well there. Despite media hype, he lost New Jersey. He lost border states like Tennessee and Oklahoma that a Democrat might win. Hillary Clinton had already won megastates Florida and Michigan. She won Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. What can we do with a Democratic candidate who cannot win California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania,Florida and cannot win even the skewed Democratic primary voters of these critical states? The question answers itself. Obama's strengths do not undermine Hillary's single most powerful asset: rock solid support among the white women, retirees, and union workers who make up the majority of the Democratic base. There is nearly nothing that Obama can say to sway those voters.Obama can continue to win his kind of state (caucuses, low union, small to medium size, heavily Affirmative Action) and have the money to continue till the end. Obama's campaign depends on creating the illusion of success. When there is no real success.
A Democratic candidate who cannot appeal to working women, retirees, and union workers is an exercise in futility. But Obama's situation is even worse. While winning California, Arizona, New Mexico,and Texas, Senator Clinton has demonstrated a superiority among Latino voters, now the largest minority group in this country and the key to the future for any political party. Here she won by a 2:1 margin. She also carried the best educated group, Asian Americans, by a similar 2:1 margin.
It might be argued that these Latino and Asian voters will simply go to a Democratic candidate in the general election, whoever that candidate might be. But the Latinos might just as easily go to McCain, who has carefully built a public record of being sympathetic to them, as Rush Limbaugh repeats every day on his radio show.
Therefore, it seems fair to say that while Obama may have a strategy to win the Democratic nomination, he has no strategy at all for winning the general election in November. Are you listening Super Delegates?
Now, the Florida and Michigan votes.
Seat the delegates and count the damn votes! Since when is the USA ,made up of 48 states?? To disenfranchise the voters of Florida after the debacle of 2000, would be political suicide for the Democrats. Why should the Florida voters be punished because our Republican governor and Republican legislature decided to move up the primary date? Florida and Michigan are states that are crucial for the Democrats to win the White House. Obama doesn't want Florida and Michigan to count because if they are counted, Hillary cuts into his delgate lead and as of now, Clinton then would have a narrow lead in the popular vote.
and.. Reverend. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.
Obama attacks Sen. Clinton for lacking judgement on her Iraq war vote. Easy for him and anyone else to say when they are not privy to any intelligence reports Clinton and others who voted for the war may have seen. Now we have Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, the man who married him, baptized his children and whose sermons he attended as a member of the Church. Obama was so taken with one of Wright's sermons he titled his book "Audacity of Hope" after it. But Obama now says he had no idea about the anti-american and racist nature of Wright's sermons. Now you expect a rational and educated person to believe that he sat in those pews for 20 years and never heard Wright spew his anti white and anti American rhetoric? Please..I have some land in Kenya I would like to sell you!
His relationship with Rev. Wright is the second significant, almost 20 year long relationship in Barack Obama's adult life in which he now says he was clueless about things that should have leapt out at him. Umm..Judgment??
It's is indeed a problem of judgment. And, to some extent, arrogance. He knew about Tony Rezko being a problem for him before he announced his presidential bid. But it took 15 months to agree to answer his hometown papers' questions about Rezko. He also knew Wright would be a problem, but instead of addressing it, until this week, he intentionally swept Wright under the rug. Obama has proven himself to be no different than any other politician in Washington. He is selling his supporters a bill of goods and they are buying it hook, line and sinker.
In closing, I cannot in good conscience support this man. I am prepared to vote for McCain and I can say in all honesty that while McCain's support of the war deeply concerns me, McCain has the character and judgment to be President. The Republicans were smart to nominate him, if there is any Republican who can win the presidency this year it is him.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
AndrewInOrlando:
I certainly respect your view that qualifications should trump any considerations of gender or race when choosing a President, but the more I look at world affairs today, the more I think we would benefit from diluting the oversupply of testosterone found among today's leaders. Having a woman as President- and having a woman's perspective on volatile issues- might do us a world of good right now.
I certainly respect your view that qualifications should trump any considerations of gender or race when choosing a President, but the more I look at world affairs today, the more I think we would benefit from diluting the oversupply of testosterone found among today's leaders. Having a woman as President- and having a woman's perspective on volatile issues- might do us a world of good right now.
~sudsshane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,250
Can anyone name any of Obama's accomplishments in the Se
Besides a speech he gave in 2002 denouncing the vote to go to war? Seriously, enlighten me because I would love to know
Besides a speech he gave in 2002 denouncing the vote to go to war? Seriously, enlighten me because I would love to know
And just what has Hillary Clinton done, other than host social events and meet heads of state as First Lady?
Don't get me wrong - I am a great admirer of Mrs. Clinton, and would be pleased to vote for her - but her legislative experience is less than Obama's. True, she's been in the Senate longer than he has, but that is her only experience as an elected official. Obama was a state senator in Illinois.
I don't mean to diminish the role of First Lady, but it's not the sort of experience that translates to that of President, at least in my mind.
Don't get me wrong - I am a great admirer of Mrs. Clinton, and would be pleased to vote for her - but her legislative experience is less than Obama's. True, she's been in the Senate longer than he has, but that is her only experience as an elected official. Obama was a state senator in Illinois.
I don't mean to diminish the role of First Lady, but it's not the sort of experience that translates to that of President, at least in my mind.
~sudsshane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,250
From Hillary Clinton.com
well..here are some of her LGBT accomplishments as Senator.
The best evidence of what I will do as President is what I have already done.
I am proud of my record as First Lady, as a U.S. Senator and as a candidate for President in working toward the fair and equal treatment of LGBT Americans.
I am proud that as Chair of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee in 2006, I worked closely with LBGT community to develop a smart strategy that defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am proud of fighting the FMA as divisive wedge politics at its worst.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act which would grant the same benefits (including health insurance) to domestic partners of federal employees that are currently offered to employees’ legal spouses.
I am proud to have championed the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which expands access to vital treatment options for low-income individuals living with HIV, and fought to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act.
I am proud that I hired a National Director of LGBT Outreach within a month of announcing my candidacy for President and to have openly gay and lesbian staffers serving at all levels of my campaign.
I am proud to have a National LGBT Steering Committee of over 135 that includes openly LGBT elected officials, Board members and opinion leaders on issues ranging from transgender rights, to HIV/AIDS, to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.
I am proud to have marched in Gay Pride parades as both First Lady and as Senator and to have spoken in front of so many LGBT audiences ranging from the Human Rights Campaign, Empire State Pride Agenda, the Hetrick Martin Institute, PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), GMHC (Gay Men’s Health Crisis), and the American Foundation for AIDS Research.
I am proud to have fought Republican efforts to demonize and marginalize the LGBT community, and I will continue to do that as President.
well..here are some of her LGBT accomplishments as Senator.
The best evidence of what I will do as President is what I have already done.
I am proud of my record as First Lady, as a U.S. Senator and as a candidate for President in working toward the fair and equal treatment of LGBT Americans.
I am proud that as Chair of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee in 2006, I worked closely with LBGT community to develop a smart strategy that defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am proud of fighting the FMA as divisive wedge politics at its worst.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act which would grant the same benefits (including health insurance) to domestic partners of federal employees that are currently offered to employees’ legal spouses.
I am proud to have championed the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which expands access to vital treatment options for low-income individuals living with HIV, and fought to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act.
I am proud that I hired a National Director of LGBT Outreach within a month of announcing my candidacy for President and to have openly gay and lesbian staffers serving at all levels of my campaign.
I am proud to have a National LGBT Steering Committee of over 135 that includes openly LGBT elected officials, Board members and opinion leaders on issues ranging from transgender rights, to HIV/AIDS, to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.
I am proud to have marched in Gay Pride parades as both First Lady and as Senator and to have spoken in front of so many LGBT audiences ranging from the Human Rights Campaign, Empire State Pride Agenda, the Hetrick Martin Institute, PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), GMHC (Gay Men’s Health Crisis), and the American Foundation for AIDS Research.
I am proud to have fought Republican efforts to demonize and marginalize the LGBT community, and I will continue to do that as President.
~sudsshane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,250
From Wikipedia:
accomplishments as First Lady:
Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997,a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health. The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady. In 1999, she was instrumental in passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.[140] As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997), Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997), and Children and Adolescents (2000), and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000) and Philanthropy (1999).
Hillary Clinton traveled to 79 countries during this time, breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon. In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself, declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights" and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks. She was one of the most prominent international figures during the late 1990s to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban. She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
accomplishments as First Lady:
Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997,a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health. The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady. In 1999, she was instrumental in passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.[140] As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997), Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997), and Children and Adolescents (2000), and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000) and Philanthropy (1999).
Hillary Clinton traveled to 79 countries during this time, breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon. In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself, declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights" and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks. She was one of the most prominent international figures during the late 1990s to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban. She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
~sudsshane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,250
and as Senator....source: Wikipedia
Upon entering the United States Senate, Clinton maintained a low public profile, built relationships with senators from both parties[191] and forged alliances with religiously inclined senators by becoming a regular participant in the Senate Prayer Breakfast.[119][192]
Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002),[193] Committee on Armed Services (since 2003),[194] Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001),[193] Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001)[193] and Special Committee on Aging.[195] She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[196] (since 2001).[197]
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton sought to obtain funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.[198][199] She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.[200] Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001. In 2005, when the act was up for renewal, she worked to address some of the civil liberties concerns with it,[201] before voting in favor of a compromise renewed act in March 2006 that gained large majority support.[202]
Clinton strongly supported the 2001 U.S. military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government.[203] Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. (However, Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.[194] She did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal.)[194]
After the Iraq War began, Clinton made trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troops stationed there. On a visit to Iraq in February 2005, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well.[204] Noting that war deployments were draining regular and reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain.[205] In late 2005, Clinton said that while immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake, Bush's pledge to stay "until the job is done" was also misguided, as it gave Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves." She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but said it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq.[206] Her stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favored immediate withdrawal.[207] Clinton supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases.[208]
Senator Clinton voted against President Bush's two major tax cut packages, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.[209] Clinton voted against both the 2005 confirmation of John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States[210] and the 2006 confirmation of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.[211]
In 2005, Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.[212] Along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games. In July 2004 and June 2006, Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that sought to prohibit same-sex marriage.[209][213]
Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism,[214] Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress;[215] shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003;[216] advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004;[216] and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.[216]
Reelection campaign of 2006
In November 2004, Clinton announced that she would seek a second term in the United States Senate. The early frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, withdrew from the contest after several months of poor campaign performance.[217] Clinton easily won the Democratic nomination over opposition from anti-war activist Jonathan Tasini.[218] Clinton's eventual opponents in the general election were Republican candidate John Spencer, a former mayor of Yonkers, along with several third-party candidates. Throughout the campaign, Clinton consistently led Spencer in the polls by wide margins. She won the election on November 7, 2006 with 67 percent of the vote to Spencer's 31 percent,[219] carrying all but four of New York's sixty-two counties.[220] Clinton spent $36 million towards her reelection, more than any other candidate for Senate in the 2006 elections. She was criticized by some Democrats for spending too much in a one-sided contest, while some supporters were concerned she did not leave more funds for a potential presidential bid in 2008.[221] In the following months she transferred $10 million of her Senate funds towards her now-official presidential campaign.[222]
Second term
Senator Clinton listens as Chief of Naval Operations Navy Admiral Mike Mullen responds to a question during his 2007 confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee.Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture.[223] In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines[224] but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush. In May 2007 a compromise war funding bill that removed withdrawal deadlines but tied funding to progress benchmarks for the Iraqi government passed the Senate by a vote of 80-14 and would be signed by Bush; Clinton was one of those who voted against it.[225] Clinton responded to General David Petraeus's September 2007 Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq by saying, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."[226] In September 2007 she voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps "a foreign terrorist organization", which passed 76-22.[227
Upon entering the United States Senate, Clinton maintained a low public profile, built relationships with senators from both parties[191] and forged alliances with religiously inclined senators by becoming a regular participant in the Senate Prayer Breakfast.[119][192]
Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002),[193] Committee on Armed Services (since 2003),[194] Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001),[193] Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001)[193] and Special Committee on Aging.[195] She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[196] (since 2001).[197]
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton sought to obtain funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.[198][199] She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.[200] Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001. In 2005, when the act was up for renewal, she worked to address some of the civil liberties concerns with it,[201] before voting in favor of a compromise renewed act in March 2006 that gained large majority support.[202]
Clinton strongly supported the 2001 U.S. military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government.[203] Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. (However, Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.[194] She did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal.)[194]
After the Iraq War began, Clinton made trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troops stationed there. On a visit to Iraq in February 2005, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well.[204] Noting that war deployments were draining regular and reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain.[205] In late 2005, Clinton said that while immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake, Bush's pledge to stay "until the job is done" was also misguided, as it gave Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves." She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but said it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq.[206] Her stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favored immediate withdrawal.[207] Clinton supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases.[208]
Senator Clinton voted against President Bush's two major tax cut packages, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.[209] Clinton voted against both the 2005 confirmation of John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States[210] and the 2006 confirmation of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.[211]
In 2005, Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.[212] Along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games. In July 2004 and June 2006, Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that sought to prohibit same-sex marriage.[209][213]
Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism,[214] Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress;[215] shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003;[216] advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004;[216] and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.[216]
Reelection campaign of 2006
In November 2004, Clinton announced that she would seek a second term in the United States Senate. The early frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, withdrew from the contest after several months of poor campaign performance.[217] Clinton easily won the Democratic nomination over opposition from anti-war activist Jonathan Tasini.[218] Clinton's eventual opponents in the general election were Republican candidate John Spencer, a former mayor of Yonkers, along with several third-party candidates. Throughout the campaign, Clinton consistently led Spencer in the polls by wide margins. She won the election on November 7, 2006 with 67 percent of the vote to Spencer's 31 percent,[219] carrying all but four of New York's sixty-two counties.[220] Clinton spent $36 million towards her reelection, more than any other candidate for Senate in the 2006 elections. She was criticized by some Democrats for spending too much in a one-sided contest, while some supporters were concerned she did not leave more funds for a potential presidential bid in 2008.[221] In the following months she transferred $10 million of her Senate funds towards her now-official presidential campaign.[222]
Second term
Senator Clinton listens as Chief of Naval Operations Navy Admiral Mike Mullen responds to a question during his 2007 confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee.Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture.[223] In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines[224] but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush. In May 2007 a compromise war funding bill that removed withdrawal deadlines but tied funding to progress benchmarks for the Iraqi government passed the Senate by a vote of 80-14 and would be signed by Bush; Clinton was one of those who voted against it.[225] Clinton responded to General David Petraeus's September 2007 Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq by saying, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."[226] In September 2007 she voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps "a foreign terrorist organization", which passed 76-22.[227
Shane, she's an intelligent, accomplished woman - but that list of achievements really doesn't say much about her ability to lead the country. It's fairly boiler plate First Lady/Bully Pulpit stuff: Women and children's issues, with some veteran stuff thrown in for good measure, but let's face it: She was no Eleanor Roosevelt.
I'm much more impressed with her proposal for national health insurance (which is much better than Obama's) but she doesn't talk much about that. In fact, she won't talk about any of her best issues, and that frustrates me: I think it's because she has some rotten advisers, and a husband that doesn't want to be "first gentleman" who is subverting her, but the result is a candidate that has all the excitement and sparkle of a Director of Human Resources conducting a mandatory workshop on sexual harassment on a Saturday morning for no extra pay.
I'll vote for her, if it comes to that, but I don't think she's any more qualified than Barak Obama, and nowhere near as interesting.
I'm much more impressed with her proposal for national health insurance (which is much better than Obama's) but she doesn't talk much about that. In fact, she won't talk about any of her best issues, and that frustrates me: I think it's because she has some rotten advisers, and a husband that doesn't want to be "first gentleman" who is subverting her, but the result is a candidate that has all the excitement and sparkle of a Director of Human Resources conducting a mandatory workshop on sexual harassment on a Saturday morning for no extra pay.
I'll vote for her, if it comes to that, but I don't think she's any more qualified than Barak Obama, and nowhere near as interesting.
Stupidity!!!
Got this email from one of my rightwing nutjob relatives, otherwise he's a pretty good guy.
IN JUST ONE YEAR This email comes in three parts:
Part 1. In just one year . Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following: A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratically controlled Congress in 2006 wehave seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for 'change' in 2006, and we got it! Remember it's Congress that makes the law, not the President. Hehas to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
Part 2: Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing. www.taxfoundation.org/publ ications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008 Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K -tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax$9,000 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates It is amazing how many people who fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people who fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
PART 3: You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Read this: Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the followingfacts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegalaliens. Verify at: http://www.cisorg/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. Verify at: http://www.cisorg/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! Verify at:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. Verify athttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegalaliens. Verify at:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. Verify at:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problemin the US Verify at:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and mariju ana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion oran average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.' Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.' Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Are we THAT stupid? If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
"This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).The information contained therein may be confidential or privileged, and its disclosure or reproduction is strictly prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient, please return it immediately to its sender at the above address and destroy it."
Talk about a load of crap. Do people really buy any of this garbage?
Got this email from one of my rightwing nutjob relatives, otherwise he's a pretty good guy.
IN JUST ONE YEAR This email comes in three parts:
Part 1. In just one year . Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following: A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratically controlled Congress in 2006 wehave seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for 'change' in 2006, and we got it! Remember it's Congress that makes the law, not the President. Hehas to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
Part 2: Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing. www.taxfoundation.org/publ ications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008 Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K -tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax$9,000 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates It is amazing how many people who fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people who fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
PART 3: You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Read this: Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the followingfacts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegalaliens. Verify at: http://www.cisorg/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. Verify at: http://www.cisorg/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! Verify at:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. Verify athttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegalaliens. Verify at:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. Verify at:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problemin the US Verify at:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and mariju ana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion oran average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.' Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.' Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Are we THAT stupid? If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
"This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).The information contained therein may be confidential or privileged, and its disclosure or reproduction is strictly prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient, please return it immediately to its sender at the above address and destroy it."
Talk about a load of crap. Do people really buy any of this garbage?
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
"In closing, I cannot in good conscience support this man. I am prepared to vote for McCain and I can say in all honesty that while McCain's support of the war deeply concerns me, McCain has the character and judgment to be President. The Republicans were smart to nominate him, if there is any Republican who can win the presidency this year it is him."
Shane, I'm in agreement with you on everything you've written except this part.
I'm nervous about McCain. He is, to me, a war-mongerer and another opportunist, a guy who snuggled up to Bush after his wife and child were dragged through the mud.
I also don't like his predisposition to refer to Asians as "g--ks". I'm not usually a PC person and it takes a lot to offend me, but, I'm not in the least impressed by his war experiences and, if still has unresolved issues, he should be campaigning for a barstool at his local VFW hall, not the Presidency of the United States, where his job is to represent the interests of ALL the American people, not just the ones he favors. To me, it's the same thing as Obama's favoritism, only from a different angle.
As it stands now, as willing as I would be to vote for a sane Republican if Obama is the nominee, and doing so would keep him out, I don't think I can cross that Rubicon for McCain.
If Obama is the nominee, I'll probably just have to revert to "Plan A", and stay home in November.
I'm gonna keep on praying for a brokered convention, and a surprise Democratic nominee.
Shane, I'm in agreement with you on everything you've written except this part.
I'm nervous about McCain. He is, to me, a war-mongerer and another opportunist, a guy who snuggled up to Bush after his wife and child were dragged through the mud.
I also don't like his predisposition to refer to Asians as "g--ks". I'm not usually a PC person and it takes a lot to offend me, but, I'm not in the least impressed by his war experiences and, if still has unresolved issues, he should be campaigning for a barstool at his local VFW hall, not the Presidency of the United States, where his job is to represent the interests of ALL the American people, not just the ones he favors. To me, it's the same thing as Obama's favoritism, only from a different angle.
As it stands now, as willing as I would be to vote for a sane Republican if Obama is the nominee, and doing so would keep him out, I don't think I can cross that Rubicon for McCain.
If Obama is the nominee, I'll probably just have to revert to "Plan A", and stay home in November.
I'm gonna keep on praying for a brokered convention, and a surprise Democratic nominee.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Whirlpool dishwasher motors update- Latest: michaelz08
-
-
72 Avocado Maytag washer and electric dryer for sale- Latest: turquoisedude
-
