This wasn't really my idea.
Dharmabum suggested it, and I respect his opinion usually, so here goes.

Who would you rather see in the White House in 2008?

where's the poll?! you promised a poll dammit!:mad:


my vote would have went with Bubbles. :banana:

You aren't seeing the poll?
WTF??
(Damnit. Gimme a second, I'll fix it.)

:mad:

am now, thanks:thumbs:

I'm gonna be reasonable here and say "Somebody else." :)

Damn it, DF.

This is blatant Monkey Discrimination, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Christmas time, it's all cold and snowy outside, and that doggone monkey's gotta either find a new home, or run the risk of bunking down with Michael Jackson for another season.

Where's your compassion for the monkey?

:eek: :mad: :confused:

I had to vote for bubbles. Maybe that ape will do better than the current one. :p

Damn it, DF.

This is blatant Monkey Discrimination, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Christmas time, it's all cold and snowy outside, and that doggone monkey's gotta either find a new home, or run the risk of bunking down with Michael Jackson for another season.

Where's your compassion for the monkey?

:eek: :mad: :confused:
what about Bill?

Christmas time, it's all cold and snowy outside, and that doggone Bill's gotta either find a new home, or run the risk of bunking down with Hillary for another season.

Hmmm. Good point.

Wait a minute;
You are offering the hypothesis that Bill has actually been sharing a bed with Hillary for the past couple of decades, and that this is not just a marriage of political convenience?

I don't know sir.
Give me a few days to ponder this.
(After I get over my feelings of nausea, that is. I just got a visual on Bill and Hillary in bed together, and trust me, it ain't a good feeling.)

:(

Well he gave Bubbles away a long time ago. When chimpanzees get older they are not as cute. And do you really want your monkey throughing feces at your guest? Even if they are children.:rolleyes: I think Michael really went down after he had to get rid of his best friend,Bubbles. They were very close even though Michael spent a lot of time spanking his monkey. Anyway I think Bubbles is living on a ranch in Sylmar,California. He has said he has no interest in the public life! He must be over 20 wasn't it in the 80's when we saw all the pictures of him and Michael. ;)

Alrighty then.
But go ahead and vote, will you?
Dharmabum is an impatient kind of guy, and that darned monkey isn't getting any younger!

:corn:

Well he gave Bubbles away a long time ago. When chimpanzees get older they are not as cute. And do you really want your monkey throughing feces at your guest? Even if they are children.:rolleyes: I think Michael really went down after he had to get rid of his best friend,Bubbles. They were very close even though Michael spent a lot of time spanking his monkey. Anyway I think Bubbles is living on a ranch in Sylmar,California. He has said he has no interest in the public life! He must be over 20 wasn't it in the 80's when we saw all the pictures of him and Michael. ;)
chimps can live into their 40's

http://www.chimps-inc.com/faqs2.html

ash trays, ape poop-same thing.

Now people-be fair.

How can anyone vote for bubbles-he has followed a headcase for years.

Dont ya think he deserves a change.

Bubbles might be preferable to Hilary if he wasn't suspected of being a co-conspirator in MJ's boy fetish.

What the hell kind of poll is this? Of course people are going to pick, "somebody else," if they have a chance. The point is, if you have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Michael Jackson's very learned and capable chimp, who would you rather have? Allowing a third choice thoroughly ruins it! C'mon Sparky, you totally dropped the ball here! Thirty push-ups, post haste!

The point is, if you have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Michael Jackson's very learned and capable chimp, who would you rather have?
To Iowans, the obvious (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/24/iowa-poll-says-clinton-breaking-away-from-the-pack/).

*

"A stunning new Iowa poll seems to show the New York senator with an apparent double-digit lead over her nearest rival among likely Democratic caucus goers, with voting just over a week away."

*

"To those who continue to attempt to perpetuate the myth that Hillary Clinton is too divisive to be elected President, explain how George W Bush could have been re-elected if high negatives and the charge of being divisive are decisive factors. The American people are not stupid, they are not going to vote on superficial garbage. They want a better economy, an end to the war in Iraq, and a government they can trust to help address their problems. (http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-01.html) They know Hillary Clinton is the candidate best prepared to do that."

:woohoo:

""The American people are not stupid, they are not going to vote on superficial garbage. They want a better economy, an end to the war in Iraq, and a government they can trust to help address their problems.""

:rolleyes:

The fellow who wrote that bit of tripe obviously has a memory that does not reach back as far as the election of 2004.

Almost four years ago, 57 million of those supposed *Americans who are not stupid* emphatically DID cast their votes for more war in Iraq, for more disastrous handling of the economy, for more of a government that is an abysmal failure at addressing their problems.

Also, to suggest that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for an *end to war* is specious in the extreme.

She has made it clear that she --like the good little ConservaCorporatist that she is--has no intention of bringing the war in Iraq to a halt.

This wasn't really my idea.
Dharmabum suggested it, and I respect his opinion usually, so here goes.

Who would you rather see in the White House in 2008?

Semantically yer ? { query } is flawed.Cannot be argued,
since both 2008 has yet to arrive and also,a new President
has yet to be voted on.
One can't " rather " until a Danny Boy er Girl is Figger'd ~ !
I Rest Me Case !

I Rest Me Case !Your mental case, maybe.

Your mental case, maybe.

And don't trip over too many lumps of Coal,likewise.

Merry Christmas
nUn the less.

Also, to suggest that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for an *end to war* is specious in the extreme.

She has made it clear that she --like the good little ConservaCorporatist that she is--has no intention of bringing the war in Iraq to a halt.
Well.....there are more-experienced people who'd disagree (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=33481).

Well.....there are more-experienced people who'd disagree (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=33481).

As fur Shrilliary,she needed Bill's contacts to get hired-on
at the Rose Law firm.She needed assistance and counsel on how
to speculate on Cattle futures { taking $5K into $100K }.
The McDougals luckily took the fall for her and hubby's botched
Whitewater.As did Web Hubbell and Jim Guy Tucker.
And Vince Foster's death is another classic example of someone
fallin on their sword,around those 2 Boogeymen { Bill & Shrill }.

And don't trip over too many lumps of Coal,likewise.Santa brought me the first two seasons of The Rockford Files.

Does that count?
Merry Christmas
nUn the less.And a Merry Christmas to you too, Foolsworth. :)

[QUOTE=sedan]Santa brought me the first two seasons of The Rockford Files.

I was hooked on The Rockford Files,back in the mid 80's.
I used to work my dinners around the show.
Rockford had quite the appetite back then.
He was OK in - Sayonara -.
And - Fire in the Sky - is a cult classic,already.

Foolie-
How the hell did you get so many posts so quickly? :@@:

Is Jim Garner still alive, I used to love that show, and that gold coloured car was so cool :)

Is Jim Garner still alive, I used to love that show, and that gold coloured car was so cool :) He is alive and still in the business! I wonder how many times he got beat up on that show?

Yeah-it was one of them shows that stuck out, ya know what a mean.

Must be a ripe old age now-good on em :)

He is 79.Yeah-it was one of them shows that stuck out, ya know what a mean.

Must be a ripe old age now-good on em :)

This wasn't really my idea.

Actually, yes it was your idea.

Would you like some cheese to go with that whine, Dharma?

Just pointing out the facts Nappy.

The next Democrat intern can blow Bubbles.

:lolhit:

that's almost as funny as more ppl rather seeing Bubbles in the Oval Office than Hillary.

The next Democrat intern...

FYI,
The correct pronunciation is "Democratic".

Update: As of this date, the allforums readership currently prefers Michael Jackson's chimpanzee to Hillary Clinton by a two to one margin, and it would appear that 'somebody else, thank you' is going to be the big winner.

(I don't know why I keep doing this for free. Most candidates pay big money for this political consulting shit. I'm in the wrong racket.)
:corn:

Somebody else ... George Carlin, perhaps?

Somebody else ... George Carlin, perhaps?
Maybe......if Keith Olbermann is his running-mate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UVXj8F9Fmk)!! Imagine both at Press Conferences!!! :banana:

Then, again........it'd be a tough-sell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=related) to our (local) Mullahs.

Update: As of this date, the allforums readership currently prefers Michael Jackson's chimpanzee to Hillary Clinton by a two to one margin, and it would appear that 'somebody else, thank you' is going to be the big winner.

(I don't know why I keep doing this for free. Most candidates pay big money for this political consulting shit. I'm in the wrong racket.)
:corn:
the money's good, that's for sure, but you only work in election years. then what do you do?:(

Update: As of this date, the allforums readership currently prefers Michael Jackson's chimpanzee to Hillary Clinton by a two to one margin, and it would appear that 'somebody else, thank you' is going to be the big winner.As Napster already pointed out, this poll is even more meaningless than most. I'd rather have someone other than Hillary in the White House but I'd take her over Bubbles if that was the only choice -- and I'm fairly certain there are others who feel the same way.

Why you stickied this nonsense is beyond me.

As Napster already pointed out, this poll is even more meaningless than most. I'd rather have someone other than Hillary in the White House but I'd take her over Bubbles if that was the only choice -- and I'm fairly certain there are others who feel the same way.

Why you stickied this nonsense is beyond me.

OK,Danny.Then lets get REAL current.Do you believe if Hillary
becomes President that she will abide by her recent statement
that Bill will have " No access to National Sscurity Council Meetings ".?

Well I love George Carlin and I'm going to see him March 1 in Santa Rosa where he is going to be filming his newest HBO special but I don't think there is anyway he would be president and I'm pretty sure he has no interest. He has said that he does not even vote so I don't think he is that interested in politicsSomebody else ... George Carlin, perhaps?

I'd rather have someone other than Hillary in the White House but I'd take her over Bubbles if that was the only choice -- and I'm fairly certain there are others who feel the same way.

Why you stickied this nonsense is beyond me.

I posted this because (in another thread) I made the statement that most allforums members would rather see Michael Jackson's chimpanzee in the White House than Hillary Clinton.

Dharmabum bristled, and correctly admonished me for making statements that would presume to speak for everyone else. And he requested to see the poll data on that.

So, in keeping with the spirit of that request, here is the poll, and up top is the poll data to date.

I think I am being more than fair, in that I offered a third choice, instead of just Hillary and the monkey.

And I stickied this because I would like to give everyone a chance to vote, in a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks for asking.
:hug:

I think I am being more than fair, in that I offered a third choice, instead of just Hillary and the monkey.If your original contention was that most allForums members would rather see Michael Jackson's chimpanzee in the White House than Hillary Clinton then those should be the two choices in the poll. Adding the third choice skews the results as you surely knew it would. You can pretend this is 'more than fair' if you like but I think it's plainly dishonest, not to mention more than a little silly.

I posted this because (in another thread) I made the statement that most allforums members would rather see Michael Jackson's chimpanzee in the White House than Hillary Clinton.

Dharmabum bristled, and correctly admonished me for making statements that would presume to speak for everyone else. And he requested to see the poll data on that.

So, in keeping with the spirit of that request, here is the poll, and up top is the poll data to date.

I think I am being more than fair, in that I offered a third choice, instead of just Hillary and the monkey.

And I stickied this because I would like to give everyone a chance to vote, in a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks for asking.
:hug:


*************************
Um,Are You talkin,Like a 10' or a 12' pole ?

Well I love George Carlin.......but I don't think there is any way he would be president and I'm pretty sure he has no interest. He has said that he does not even vote so I don't think he is that interested in politics

He is very interested in politics. That is obvious from the passion with which he talks about it.

It's just that he --like me-- has fully realized that the game is over, and that the bad guys -the uber-Conservative faction who view themselves as Gawd's favorites- have won.

Dang, that's a depressing way of looking at things.

How do you find the will to get out of bed in the morning?

:(

If your original contention was that most allForums members would rather see Michael Jackson's chimpanzee in the White House than Hillary Clinton then those should be the two choices in the poll. Adding the third choice skews the results as you surely knew it would. You can pretend this is 'more than fair' if you like but I think it's plainly dishonest, not to mention more than a little silly.

I am stung, and frankly am feeling more than a bit insulted.

I thought to save the voters (who don't want Hillary back in the White House) the embarrassment of voting for the monkey, so I gave them an out.

And as a research scientist with some experience in the business of crafting objective, scientific surveys, I can assure you that it is not only proper to offer a third alternative to the two primary choices of interest, it is sometimes paramount to insert that third alternative, in order to guage the sample/population's interest or concern for the primary targets.

In this case, I'd say that the results are quite telling, despite the lower-than-expected voter turnout.

PM me if you want more information on the science and art of polling.
I can school you chapter and verse, sir.

:hug:

I am stung, and frankly am feeling more than a bit insulted.That's too bad.I thought to save the voters (who don't want Hillary back in the White House) the embarrassment of voting for the monkey, so I gave them an out.It's an anonymous poll.And as a research scientist with some experience in the business of crafting objective, scientific surveys, I can assure you that it is not only proper to offer a third alternative to the two primary choices of interest, it is sometimes paramount to insert that third alternative, in order to guage the sample/population's interest or concern for the primary targets.If you are doing market research to test the relative strengths of various products this might be the case. But the object here (supposedly) was to determine whether most of the members of allForums would rather have Hillary or a chimp in the White House. This is a binary proposition -- the best way to accurately determine the result is to simply ask the question. And I have already told you that my vote would have been different had the question been properly posed. There are probably others who would have answered differently as well.

Besides, you can't seriously claim this is science, can you?In this case, I'd say that the results are quite telling, despite the lower-than-expected voter turnout.I think you may have found seven people who dislike Dharma enough to vote for a monkey. Congratulations!

I could probably have told you who they are without the poll.
PM me if you want more information on the science and art of polling.
I can school you chapter and verse, sir.No thanks.

This little demonstration has been quite enough for me.

Fair enough.
Clearly you've got it all figured out.
A firmly closed mind equals a supremely confident individual, I have always observed.

Say, that whole concept of a University Education kind of pisses you off too, right?
(Smug, superior PhD's. What the hell do they know?)

You keep on keeping on, Sedan.
I admire and respect you for sticking to your guns on this one.
:)

Fair enough.
Clearly you've got it all figured out.
A firmly closed mind equals a supremely confident individual, I have always observed.Here's an idea: suppose you canvassed this poll outside of allForums, say among a random sample of a thousand American adults. Do you think Bubbles would get 35% of the vote? Of course he wouldn't. A small number of people might find it amusing to give that answer but I think they'd be few and far between. The only reason Bubbles registers on this 'scientific' poll at all is because everyone knows you created the poll to 'show up' a fellow poster. Those who side with you in this effort are the ones who voted for the chimp.

Now, you can say that I'm closed-minded all you like but this is the truth of the matter -- and you and I both know it.Say, that whole concept of a University Education kind of pisses you off too, right?
(Smug, superior PhD's. What the hell do they know?)You must have me confused with someone else -- this comment makes no sense whatsoever.You keep on keeping on, Sedan.
I admire and respect you for sticking to your guns on this one.
:)Your sincerity is deeply appreciated.

Although I can't imagine myself voting for Hillary, I agree that this poll is silly. That is why I refuse to "vote" on it.

Sparky, sedan is one our finest members. I seldom agree with him on most issues but he has always been an excellent addition to our group here. I too, think you may have him confused with someone else?

As far as people running in the current primaries, I have yet to find a candidate that "fits" me. McCain is the closest, but his amnesty for illegals and the McCain/Feingold bill still has me "turned off" a bit. On the Dem side, I find Obama refreshing. He has little experience, but seems to at least stay somewhat consistent. Hillary, Edwards, Guilanni, and Romney seem to be too "political" for my tastes. I'd like a candidate that votes from his heart... not from the latest poll numbers. Huckabee scares the shit out of me... he is my antithesis of political likes... he is socially conservative and fiscally a mess. /shudders.

Well I know he likes to be critical of politics in his act but I seriously don't think he has any interest in running for any public office. George Carlin has not even voted since 1972!!!! So you don't vote freethinker?

It's just that he --like me-- has fully realized that the game is over, and that the bad guys -the uber-Conservative faction who view themselves as Gawd's favorites- have won.[/quote]

Well I know he likes to be critical of politics in his act but I seriously don't think he has any interest in running for any public office. George Carlin has not even voted since 1972!!!! So you don't vote freethinker?


Yes, I vote in every presidential election.

Since I have zero political voice in this country anyway, I write in the name of the person i'd truly like to have running the nation; the Socialist Party candidate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2008-2009 Socialist Party USA Platform: International Policy

-
The United States is the sole remaining global superpower. The U.S. government uses its overwhelming military power to consolidate its strategic hold over the entire world and to defend and advance the interests of U.S. owned corporations as they exploit the working people and natural resources of the entire planet. We stand in total opposition to U.S. imperialism and the current “war on terror” which is just another subterfuge for U.S. imperialism.

1. We call for the closing of all U.S. military facilities at home and abroad that train foreign military and paramilitary personnel.
2. We call for the United States to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. We call for an end to the U.S. occupation of the province of Guantanamo, Cuba.
4. We call for an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank-East Jerusalem and Gaza, and an end to all U.S. aid to Israel, as a precondition for peace.
5. We support an immediate cutoff of all U.S. military aid to Colombia, and all other recipients.
6. We call for the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and all other institutions of covert warfare.
7. We stand for unconditional disarmament by the United States.
8. We call for an international treaty outlawing all weapons of mass destruction, including the use of depleted uranium in conventional weapons.
9. We call for an immediate 50% cut in the military budget, followed by additional cuts, with the aim of rapidly reducing the military budget to less than 10% of its current level, with the "peace dividend" directed to essential social services and to the cost of cleaning up contaminated military sites.
10. We call for the disbanding of NATO and all other aggressive military alliances, and the closing of all overseas bases.
11. We call for an end to U.S. arms sales throughout the world.
12. We call for the U.S. to pay off its debts to the United Nations, an end to veto power in the UN, and an end to permanent membership on the UN Security Council.
13. We call for a constitutional amendment requiring a binding vote of the people on all issues of war or military intervention.
14. We support the right of soldiers to form unions to represent their views and interests.

Nice, Freethinker.
All perfectly-attainable goals.
What makes you think that the bad guys have won, when this is all that you are asking for?

Hang in there, buddy.
You'll get there someday.
:hug:

Sparky, sedan is one our finest members. I seldom agree with him on most issues but he has always been an excellent addition to our group here. I too, think you may have him confused with someone else?



Oldphart,
Sedan's record of meaningful contributions to these boards is indeed distinguished and impressive, and he's certainly been around here a lot longer than myself. I have always viewed his postings with equal parts eager anticipation and a fair amount of respect.

Imagine my hurt feelings then when he:
a. questioned my scientific motives & accused me of purposely 'skewing' the results of this survey
and
b. accused me of being dishonest and silly

OK, the silly part I can live with, but I will always react angrily when somebody questions my integrity. I have spent a lifetime developing my moral compass, and I live each day honestly and operating in a forthright manner.

Sedan or anybody else can question the purpose or utility of the monkey survey, but do not ever presume to attack the rectitude of the science behind it!

Sparky

PS As of this date, the chimp is still ahead of Hillary, though understandably behind 'anyone else'. I'm beginning to respect that monkey more and more with each passing day!!

Hillary, Edwards, Guilanni, and Romney seem to be too "political" for my tastes.
I've always found that sentiment to be extremely-sophomoric. Here, we've got Politicians.....working (whatever) political-strategy....in this nation's political-process....on political-matters....and, there are people criticizing these moves as being too-political??? :confused:

What process would you prefer.....some kind o' bake-off to determine their electability? :@@:

I'd like a candidate that votes from his heart... not from the latest poll numbers.
I'm pretty-certain (most) candidates vote for themselves.....but, that's just a guess, on my part. :rolleyes:

Yes, I vote in every presidential election.

Since I have zero political voice in this country anyway, I write in the name of the person i'd truly like to have running the nation; the Socialist Party candidate.
Whatta great-strategy for avoiding any (meaningful) participation/accountability in this country's political-process, while...I'm sure....still retaining the option of being critical (of whatever) the eventual-outcome. :rolleyes:

From this side of the pond, Presidential hopefuls are split into 3 categories.

[1] Personal Attacks on other hopefuls.
[2] Same old crap Bush has spewed, regards Foreign Policy.
[3] Playing the polls. Especially some Demo's.

I was hoping that by now some of the favourites would have come out and
told the American Public what plan they have regards Foreign Policy for the
next four years, alas, I haven't seen it yet.

I've always found that sentiment to be extremely-sophomoric. Here, we've got Politicians.....working (whatever) political-strategy....in this nation's political-process....on political-matters....and, there are people criticizing these moves as being too-political??? :confused:
Insert panderer/pandering in place of political in the above statement and you have just described my issue with these "politicians".

I guess that I am too sophmoric for you then. I tire of the current crop of "sail-heads" (your wonderful Hillary included) and means that I want a person with some original thought... and not some "lets try to get re-elected mentality". There is a difference is being a politician and being a pure pandering arse. A difference that I can only assume you are too blinded to see. I have NO RESPECT for the political flip-floppers on either side of the aisle. Almost no candidate will dare state what they really believe in any forum. They only hem-haw around and cloud the question... it's a new form of "campaigning" based on our PC mentality.

To be honest, almost all of the candidate's debates insult my intelligence. But I guess one has to be intellectually honest with yourself in order to feel this way. Never let me accuse you of that "problem".

What process would you prefer.....some kind o' bake-off to determine their electability? :@@:


I'm pretty-certain (most) candidates vote for themselves.....but, that's just a guess, on my part. :rolleyes:
Well, your logic train has jumped the tracks again. Please proceed with your ramblings and link-filled hackery. I can hardly wait to see what brilliant issues you post about in the next series of uber-Clintonian worshiping.
:rolleyes:

Almost no candidate will dare state what they really believe in any forum. They only hem-haw around and cloud the question... it's a new form of "campaigning" based on our PC mentality.

Try Kucinich (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/). One example of his non-wishy-washiness: NAFTA.

Update: As of this date, the allforums readership currently prefers Michael Jackson's chimpanzee to Hillary Clinton by a two to one margin....

A superb commentary on the intelligence of those who'd vote for a monkey.

My fondest wish for them is that they could have exactly what they claim to want; a monkey instead of a human being making the decisions for the world's most power military and nation, and the decisions that affects all of their lives.

How hilarious it would be to see Bubbles sitting at a desk in the Oval Office unattended with a Big Red Button that sets off the world's largest nuclear weapons stockpile out in the open (if I could somehow view it via camera from somewhere where I would not suffer the outcome) and the lives of every moronic -"Ah'd ruther have a chimp as president than Hillary!"- Conservazombie in America hanging in the balance......................and then see how much they liked the choice that they giggle over so.

And a Happy New Year to you too, Freethinker.

:hug:

Try Kucinich (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/). One example of his non-wishy-washiness: NAFTA.
While Kucinich does not represent the political ideals that I have, I DO respect him as a politician. The same goes for Ron Paul (and Ralph Nader previously). What I wish we would have is a mainstream Goldwater-type conservative candidate. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative (with some Liberatian leanings). Slim pickings for me at the moment, I'm afraid.

What I wish we would have is a mainstream Goldwater-type conservative candidate.The problem is most politicians these days - on both sides of the aisle - have to devote so much of their time to fundraising. There are not enough hours in the day to raise all the necessary cash and spend quality time actually representing the people. No matter who wins this election, only one thing is certain. The best politician will not win, the best fundraiser will....

Lets spin these poll results a bit more shall we? Fully ONE THIRD of Allforums responders would pick Michael Jackson's Chimp over anyone else for President. Let's admit it, we've got some real retards on this board.

Lets spin these poll results a bit more shall we? Fully ONE THIRD of Allforums responders would pick Michael Jackson's Chimp over anyone else for President. Let's admit it, we've got some real retards on this board.
or it says something about what we think of the quality of the candidates:corn:

OK, so the poll has timed-out, and it's time to un-sticky this thread.

As of this date, Hillary has lost in Iowa, won in New Hampshire, and still there are more of you who would rather see Michael Jackson's monkey in the White House than this woman.


There's your poll data, Dharmabum.
Make of it what you will, sir.

http://www.kiowapilots.com/forums/images/smilies/salute.gif

As of this date, Hillary has lost in Iowa, won in New Hampshire, and still there are more of you who would rather see Michael Jackson's monkey in the White House than this woman.

How hilarious it would be to see Bubbles the chimp sitting at a desk in the Oval Office unattended with a Big Red Button that sets off the world's largest nuclear weapons stockpile out in the open (if I could somehow view it via camera from somewhere where I would not suffer the outcome) and the lives of every -"Ah'd ruther have a chimp as president than Hillary!"- Conservative cretin in America hanging in the balance......................and then see if they still, as they claim to, want the chimp for Prez.

How hilarious it would be to see Bubbles the chimp sitting at a desk in the Oval Office.......
We could do worse.............


http://web.mit.edu/margret/www/myndir/comics/bush_chimp.jpg


.....and, ARE!!!!

... like this one better, eh Sham?

http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/monkey-hillary.jpg
http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/monkey-hillary.jpg