Hillary set to quit the race, or at least it is becoming more probable.


TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNS
Mon Jan 07 2008 09:46:28 ET

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."

Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."

"Her money is going to dry up," Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning.

Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state.

"She did not work this hard to get out after one state! All this talk is nonsense," said one top adviser.

But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.

Developing...

[The dramatic reversal of fortunes has left the media establishment stunned and racing to keep up with fast-moving changes.

In its final poll before Iowa, CNN showed Clinton with a two-point lead over Obama. Editorial decisions were being made based on an understanding the Democratic primary race would be close, explained a network executive.]


http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhn.htm

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race?.....Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."

No surprise there.

The **Hate Evil Hillary** initiative --15 years in the making-- reaches it's long awaited climax within the simpleminded herd.

The faithfully conservative spin machine going by the name *the Mainstream Media* achieves yet another milestone achievement in Manufacturing Public Opinion.

No surprise there.

The **Hate Evil Hillary** initiative --15 years in the making-- reaches it's long awaited climax within the simpleminded herd.

The faithfully conservative spin machine going by the name *the Mainstream Media* achieves yet another milestone achievement in Manufacturing Public Opinion.

Yup, and the sheeple break their necks to spread the word, as if it were gospel. :rolleyes:

And the jackasses continue to support her.

No surprise there.

The **Hate Evil Hillary** initiative --15 years in the making-- reaches it's long awaited climax within the simpleminded herd.

The faithfully conservative spin machine going by the name *the Mainstream Media* achieves yet another milestone achievement in Manufacturing Public Opinion.
The people who would be behind such a "conservative spin machine" would probably rather have Hillary in office than Obama.

Perhaps Democrats in Iowa simply thought that Obama would make a better president than she would?

And the jackasses continue to support her.

Nice.

You realize, of course, that I don't support Ms. Clinton and have said so elsewhere at AF.

But don't let any facts get in the way of your brilliant prognostications and snotty assumptions. :)

Perhaps Democrats in Iowa simply thought that Obama would make a better president than she would?

Yes.

And perhaps the people in Iowa had had it drummed into their consciousness for 15 years that --

""Hillary thinks she's the Smartest Person In The World. We don't want an elitist asshole like THAT". (never mind that no one, including Hillary, has ever suggested any such thing)

or that

""Hillary is a closet lesbian"" (never mind that there is zero evidence of that)

or that

""Hillary is a Communist"" (never mind that there is zero evidence of that, or that the opposite is the case)

or that

""Hillary is a Socialist and a subversive"" (never mind that there is zero evidence of that)

or simply that

""Hillary is a bitch"" ( a totally subjective judgment)

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

If you do not think that there has been a concerted campaign to foment hatred for Hillary in this country for many years, I invite you to try to elicit from ONE of those millions of people who profess to despise Hillary a response to this query; "Name one thing she has ever done to you or to the nation that has caused you any harm whatsoever."

I've never had one give me an answer to it.

She is -- "Just a bitch" to them.

That's what the sheep have been brainwashed with and that's what they believe, and that what motivates their political decisions concerning her.

Nice.

You realize, of course, that I don't support Ms. Clinton and have said so elsewhere at AF.

But don't let any facts get in the way of your brilliant prognostications and snotty assumptions. :)

Might've started when you called him sheeple, eh Frannie? Maybe you shouldn't dish out snotty assumptions if you can't handle the consequences?

:rolleyes:

FT,
Hillary was WAY ahead in the polls up until recently, which would be highly unlikely if Democratic-leaning voters had such a burning hatred of her. I don't deny that there has always been a campaign to discredit her. However, the people who were taken in by that campaign aren't the ones who are voting in Democratic primaries. Among those voters, getting to like Obama was probably a far bigger factor than hating Hillary.

No surprise there.

The **Hate Evil Hillary** initiative --15 years in the making-- reaches it's long awaited climax within the simpleminded herd.

The faithfully conservative spin machine going by the name *the Mainstream Media* achieves yet another milestone achievement in Manufacturing Public Opinion.

ROFL!!

That last paragraph is just too true...

No surprise there.

The **Hate Evil Hillary** initiative --15 years in the making-- reaches it's long awaited climax within the simpleminded herd.

The faithfully conservative spin machine going by the name *the Mainstream Media* achieves yet another milestone achievement in Manufacturing Public Opinion.

Does it ever occur in that spineless crab interior of yourn that
it is ALL Hillary's fault.She and Bill love to play the Blame game.
But the onus is on her and her alone.
Eventually her equivocation,lack of sincerity and playing the
meanie card,unravelled her core of diehard old-fashioned constituents.
She got too cute by half on a steady basis and people are just
fed-up with the same old Clinton machine.

I'd think that the "Conservafascists" et al. would be much happier with Hillary in the White House than Obama... And happier if Hillary won the Democratic nomination, because she'd be easier to beat.

Yup, and the sheeple break their necks to spread the word, as if it were gospel.
So, everyone who dislikes Hillary is one of the "sheeple"? That's pretty ridiculous. I dislike Hillary because I disagree with her positions on many, many issues, and because she gives me a bad vibe. She, among others (Giuliani for example), seems to be one of those quintessential slimy politician types.

FT,
Hillary was WAY ahead in the polls up until recently, which would be highly unlikely if Democratic-leaning voters had such a burning hatred of her. I don't deny that there has always been a campaign to discredit her. However, the people who were taken in by that campaign aren't the ones who are voting in Democratic primaries. Among those voters, getting to like Obama was probably a far bigger factor than hating Hillary.

You may have a very relevant point there.......it is one that I had not considered fully.

I dislike Hillary because I disagree with her positions on many, many issues,........

Really??

Name three.

....and i will bet that the issues/positions you do not like of hers are very different from the ones that the die-hard Reichwingers dislike her for..............{as if they could name any, if asked}

Really??

Name three.

....and i will bet that the issues/positions you do not like of hers are very different from the ones that the die-hard Reichwingers dislike her for..............{as if they could name any, if asked}
She is for the No Child Left Behind Act, for universal health care, and accepts military action as an option for dealing with Iran. She is also for being in the Kyoto Protocol, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I think it's pretty useless and pointless.

Obama the coservative plant, only in freethinkers fucked up universe.

Really??

Name three.

....and i will bet that the issues/positions you do not like of hers are very different from the ones that the die-hard Reichwingers dislike her for..............{as if they could name any, if asked}


i just caught this at the end but i want to make sure i understand... Your asking Df to name three things she disagrees with senator Clinton about,and you are under the assumption they are not the same issues most republicans disagree with sen. Clinton on.......

You are also implying that many republicans that do not choose to vote for Sen. Clinton cannot/will not name issues they disagree with her on?


I had a long reply typed out for this.. but before i post,i wanted to make sure i follow your meaning.

Don't bother, you will just get a post about god guns and guts simpleton sheeple.

Sheeple??? is that new???? I was away for a while over the holiday but when i left we were just all sheep... now we got the promotion/demotion to sheeple? That is very clever word play FT. Evening too comical for a narcissistic humanist.

You have never heard the word sheeple before?

not from FT... to him we were all just Sheep..... i seen he has added a little flair and creativity to his monotone agenda. I am not going to give him credit for thinking of the word,but for him to use it,,,,,,, it has got to be close to the same thing

He's been saying "sheeple" for quite a while now... I think he alternates between sheeple and sheep.

So, everyone who dislikes Hillary is one of the "sheeple"? That's pretty ridiculous. I dislike Hillary because I disagree with her positions on many, many issues, and because she gives me a bad vibe. She, among others (Giuliani for example), seems to be one of those quintessential slimy politician types.

No. Everyone who gloms onto the latest, completely unsubstantiated hate gossip, spreading it as fact and gloating over it, is a sheeple. :rolleyes:

Nice.

You realize, of course, that I don't support Ms. Clinton and have said so elsewhere at AF.

But don't let any facts get in the way of your brilliant prognostications and snotty assumptions. :)


Gee, Frannie, I didn't realize it was all about you. I said jackasses continued to support Ms. Clinton. I didn't mention any names. The only way you could have taken offense is if you consider yourself a jackass. You know how you view yourself better than I do so I wouldn't want to contradict you.

Might've started when you called him sheeple, eh Frannie?

Actually, the sheeple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple) label is entirely apt. Frogger's initial post (nothing more than a C&P job, mind you), coupled with its source and the title he chose for the thread, would lead any right-thinking Homo sapien to the same conclusion.

Maybe you shouldn't dish out snotty assumptions if you can't handle the consequences?

Oh yeah. I'm all broke up over this... :banana:

I dislike Hillary because I disagree with her positions on many, many issues, and because she gives me a bad vibe.

Me too! :thumbs:

I am used to you jumping to incorrect conclusions based on nothing but your own silly notions, Fran, but for you to consider anyone who thinks there is a good chance Hillary R. clinton willl not finish out the Democrat race for the nomination is a 'sheeple' is a stretch even for someone as shallow as you.

At least one of her fellow Democrats has publicly stated that she might withdraw from the race. Does that mean John Edwards is a member of the flock of 'sheeple'? Are the other Democrats who think there is a good chance she will drop out, 'sheeple'.

Are all the people who intensely dislike Hillary, 'sheeple'? Are there no people who have looked at her record and her actions and decided they thoroughly dislike her?

to be completely up front with you, Fran, it is much more likely that you are a jackass than that I am a 'sheeple'.

I am used to you jumping to incorrect conclusions based on nothing but your own silly notions, Fran, but for you to consider anyone who thinks there is a good chance Hillary R. clinton willl not finish out the Democrat race for the nomination is a 'sheeple' is a stretch even for someone as shallow as you.

At least one of her fellow Democrats has publicly stated that she might withdraw from the race. Does that mean John Edwards is a member of the flock of 'sheeple'? Are the other Democrats who think there is a good chance she will drop out, 'sheeple'.

Are all the people who intensely dislike Hillary, 'sheeple'? Are there no people who have looked at her record and her actions and decided they thoroughly dislike her?

to be completely up front with you, Fran, it is much more likely that you are a jackass than that I am a 'sheeple'.

Hillary's support as pointed out by Chris Matthews is mainly
by those Liberal Academics and especially those who live and die to
attend all those pesky democratic meeting where old line Pols like
Ann Lewis and Lonnie Davis and Terry McAuliffe,James Carville,Paul begala
and DNC backers show up,very reliably.
Plus the Seniors who vote Democrat and seldom miss a chance to cast
a ballot.Hopefully not like those Biddy's in Palm beach County Florida who
mistakenly punched the wrong chad,since Gore and Buchanan were
within punchin distance on the ballot.

But, Foolie, it was so easy to get Gore and Buchanan mixed up. After all, they were both politicians and their names are almost exactly the same,
G O R E B U C H A N A N See, they are both composed of letters of the alphabet. The fact that no letter is found in both names doesn't matter. It was easy for those poor people to get mixed up and vote for Buchanan by mistake. Besides, it was a Republican dirty trick anyway.

Yes.

And perhaps the people in Iowa had had it drummed into their consciousness for 15 years that --

""Hillary thinks she's the Smartest Person In The World. We don't want an elitist asshole like THAT". (never mind that no one, including Hillary, has ever suggested any such thing)

or that

""Hillary is a closet lesbian"" (never mind that there is zero evidence of that)

or that

""Hillary is a Communist"" (never mind that there is zero evidence of that, or that the opposite is the case)

or that

""Hillary is a Socialist and a subversive"" (never mind that there is zero evidence of that)

or simply that

""Hillary is a bitch"" ( a totally subjective judgment)

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

If you do not think that there has been a concerted campaign to foment hatred for Hillary in this country for many years, I invite you to try to elicit from ONE of those millions of people who profess to despise Hillary a response to this query; "Name one thing she has ever done to you or to the nation that has caused you any harm whatsoever."

I've never had one give me an answer to it.

She is -- "Just a bitch" to them.

That's what the sheep have been brainwashed with and that's what they believe, and that what motivates their political decisions concerning her.

What a crock of shit

If your logic was even remotely correct - how the hell was she the frontrunner? How the hell was she "the foregone conclusion for the nomination?"

She lost because at the end of the day she is a phoney - people can see it when they look close, she's status quo. Once people have gotten to hear Obama - then the choice is clear in a obama vs clinton matchup.

No surprise there.
'Tis true. We are talkin'-about Ratt Sludge, here. :rolleyes:

That's what the sheep have been brainwashed with and that's what they believe, and that what motivates their political decisions concerning her.
.....And, Ratt Sludge's potential-payday (to cash-in on his bullshit (http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/01/has-matt-drudge-lost-his-mojo.html)) is nigh.

Ratt Sludge.......WOW!!!! You sure are a wit, Mr. Shaman. When did you becoe such a funny guy? Ratt Sludge, I'll bet that kills them down at the elementary school playground. You must have the ten and eleven year olds rolling on the ground in hysterics.

Please, give us more. Ratt Sludge, you're a real pisser, Mr. Shaman.

:banana: for Mr. Shaman.

She lost because at the end of the day she is a phoney - people can see it when they look close, she's status quo.

Riiiiight.

I guess in your world GWB*sh won because he is somehow not a phony.....

And GWB*sh won because he is not *status quo* to the nth degree........

The imbeciles who make up the majority of the electorate in this country could not spot a *phony* if the candidate in question had it tattooed on their foreheads.....and if they did happen to spot it, they'd simply march to the polls in a slack-jawed stupor and vote for that person anyway.

i just caught this at the end but i want to make sure i understand... Your asking Df to name three things she disagrees with senator Clinton about,and you are under the assumption they are not the same issues most republicans disagree with sen. Clinton on.......

Yes, and yes.

She has now named three things.........the No Child Left Behind Act, universal health care, and the acceptance of military action as an option for dealing with Iran.

The first is a tiny side issue, and is hardly anything to base a vote for president on.

The second is a moot point. Even if Clinton DID actually want universal health care, the ConservaFascists are never going to allow that to come to pass in America.

The third is a very real and substantive issue.......but then, it is clearly an issue where the Rightwing warmongers will be --as i noted-- in direct opposition to DF's position. Both DF and the Rightwingers dislike Hillary, yet on this most substantive issue, they are in direct opposition to one another as it regards Hillary's position on the matter.

You are also implying that many republicans that do not choose to vote for Sen. Clinton cannot/will not name issues they disagree with her on?

Not exactly.......even more, I am saying that the Rightwing Hillary haters have never been able to tell me one thing that Clinton has ever done to them or the nation that has caused them any harm.

.



Not exactly.......even more, I am saying that the Rightwing Hillary haters have never been able to tell me one thing that Clinton has ever done to them or the nation that has caused them any harm.

It hurts me personally that she's a Cubbie fan.
I mean, a Yankee fan.

Rendova, Sox Fan
Not to mention she's a thief, but we won't get into THAT again.

Riiiiight.

I guess in your world GWB*sh won because he is somehow not a phony.....

And GWB*sh won because he is not *status quo* to the nth degree........

The imbeciles who make up the majority of the electorate in this country could not spot a *phony* if the candidate in question had it tattooed on their foreheads.....and if they did happen to spot it, they'd simply march to the polls in a slack-jawed stupor and vote for that person anyway.

We are not talking about GWB - the main point is your logic is so flawed it's just laughable - even you are more intelligent than that logic you presented about 15 years of bad mouthing her suddenly impacting her poll numbers in the past few weeks. People are sick of GWB - that's why Hilary is dropping like a stone - people equate her with him because she's establishment. Her poll numbers were high only due to name recognition & the fact that people hadn't really stopped to look yet. Once they actually thought about it - Hilary is an obviously poor choice.

Hilary is a joke - what do we have in this country - a political dynasty? Without her husband Bill - she's nothing, a nobody, with no chance of ever being a senator nevermind President. Same goes for GWB.

The bottom line is that anything that does not fit into "crazy freethinker world" is an underhand conspiracy.

""Hillary is a Communist"" (never mind that there is zero evidence of that, or that the opposite is the case)
Not that I completely disagree, but "opposite" isn't the right word: http://www.againsthillary.com/2007/11/27/hillary-and-the-communist/

It hurts me personally that she's a Cubbie fan.
I mean, a Yankee fan.

Rendova, Sox Fan
Not to mention she's a thief, but we won't get into THAT again.
there's your problem right there! no one in their right mind would be anything other than a Tigers fan:D

there's your problem right there! no one in their right mind would be anything other than a Tigers fan:D

I like the Tigers--kinda. My grandpa played for them, 1920's.



http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5231/whitesoxlogo1eo4.gif

For Hillary--God bless you........

She has now named three things.........the No Child Left Behind Act, universal health care, and the acceptance of military action as an option for dealing with Iran.

The first is a tiny side issue, and is hardly anything to base a vote for president on.

The second is a moot point. Even if Clinton DID actually want universal health care, the ConservaFascists are never going to allow that to come to pass in America.

The third is a very real and substantive issue.......but then, it is clearly an issue where the Rightwing warmongers will be --as i noted-- in direct opposition to DF's position. Both DF and the Rightwingers dislike Hillary, yet on this most substantive issue, they are in direct opposition to one another as it regards Hillary's position on the matter.
Well, with regards to the No Child Left Behind Act... Yes, it is just a small side issue. However, it is indicative of an attitude towards federally controlled public education, and it's that attitude I don't like. We should give more power to the states in the area of education (along with many others, but I won't get into that).

Your opinion on universal health care is just that, an opinion. I think it is certainly possible that it will come to pass in this country eventually.

And yes, the third issue is probably the biggest one. Hillary is quite the "Corporatist warmonger", as you would say. Not really my style. :thumbs:

Basically, it's about general ideologies here. My desire for small government and, as Ron Paul would say, a "humble" foreign policy does not exactly go with Hillary's desires... which are quite the opposite.

Not exactly.......even more, I am saying that the Rightwing Hillary haters have never been able to tell me one thing that Clinton has ever done to them or the nation that has caused them any harm.

SO in this case you are saying since sen. Clinton has not done anything to date to harm the American people (i am sure some people could debate this fact alone,but for the sake of moving froward i will leave it be) than there is no real reason to disallow her ones own vote? Her positions on issues,her voting record,her personality,ability to be trusted,political affiliation.... ect..... have nothing to do with if she is worthy of a vote?

Basically, it's about general ideologies here. My desire for small government and, as Ron Paul would say, a "humble" foreign policy does not exactly go with Hillary's desires... which are quite the opposite.

Here's a fucking newsflash for you;

....NONE of the major candidates who are running has anything remotely resembling a *smaller government* ideology, nor do they have, (with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who has as much chance of being elected as Santa Claus) any of them, the slightest intention of effectively "cutting the size of government".

The Idiot Son got a lot of people who deeply desired a *smaller government* to vote for him in two different elections. What did they GET with his installion into office? Just the exact opposite; the LARGEST government the nation has ever seen, by far.

The only voters in this entire country who are truly putting their support where their mouth is and voting for *smaller government* are the people who --as I do-- vote Socialist.

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

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.

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

Number nine alone will cut the size of Government tremendously.

____________________

American Capitalism is a malignancy that permeates our economic, social, and political systems and institutions. This untreated cancer ravaging the body of civilization is spreading like an unchecked conflagration in a munitions factory. Feudalism didn’t die; it simply evolved. Corporatism, Consumerism, wage slavery, debt slavery, free trade agreements, deregulation, and privatization condemn most of the global population to varying degrees of slavery, serfdom or indentured servitude.

I don't want the military budget cut that much. I believe the military is important.

And Ron Paul does indeed have a chance. It's much too early to say he doesn't, especially since the chance is getting larger every day now. :)

I don't want the military budget cut that much. I believe the military is important.



I don't either. My son attends Annapolis and hopes to command a warship someday.
A warship, not a rowboat.:eek:

Besides, I want him to earn big bucks too so he can take care of his warmongering mom in her old age.:eek: :eek:

And Ron Paul does indeed have a chance. It's much too early to say he doesn't, especially since the chance is getting larger every day now. :)

He doesn't stand ANY chance if this is true........

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

SO in this case you are saying since sen. Clinton has not done anything to date to harm the American people (i am sure some people could debate this fact alone,but for the sake of moving froward i will leave it be) than there is no real reason to disallow her ones own vote?

People absolutely have the power to refuse her their vote. People are free to vote for whoever they like. (well, as long as it's the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee)

But I invite you to try and find ONE person on the street where you live who can TELL you face to face something specific that HRC has done to them or the country that causes her to deserve their hatred.

I've never located one.

Her positions on issues,her voting record,her personality, ability to be trusted, political affiliation.... etc..... have nothing to do with if she is worthy of a vote?

Sure. (although why people think 'personality' is such a determining factor, I cannot understand)

Good fucking luck running into a single person in this country who can recount to you her specific voting record or her positions on issues and explain to you why those votes she cast caused them to despise her and to view her as the Devil incarnate.

He doesn't stand ANY chance if this is true........

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Well, OP, I think this one is a matter of opinion. He says he didn't write the controversial newsletters, and I believe him. I don't really have any proof (not saying that someone doesn't, I just don't know about it), but nor can anyone prove that he did write them. Anyways, if that's the only skeleton in his closet I don't think it's too much of a problem. :)

Oh and a side note... It says in the article that Paul thinks the Civil War was not necessary. I happen to agree. I think states should be able to secede, and there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding secession. And before you all jump on me for "defending racism", I must tell you that the Civil War wasn't about freeing the slaves - Lincoln, when running for President, stated emphatically that he would free no slaves, and was not an abolitionist, as his opponents called him. In 1860, those who wanted to free the slaves were a tiny, tiny minority, thought of as the lunatic fringe even in the North. And those who wanted equal rights for blacks were thought of as loony even by their fellow abolitionists. You could be an abolitionist and still be just as racist as a slave owner. The Free Soil Party, forerunner to Lincoln's Republican party, was formed under the idea that slavery hurts the economy and steals jobs from white men, NOT because of any thoughts about blacks being equal. The U.S. government began to free slaves during the war to weaken the Confederacy; they freed Confederate slaves long before declaring that ALL slaves were free (in fact, Confederate slaves were first "freed" by being declared the property of the U.S. government). The point is, it isn't racist to say that the North shouldn't have gone to war to prevent the South from seceding.

I don't want the military budget cut that much.

Then you need to jettison, now and forever, all notions of this nation ever having a *smaller government*.

I believe the military is important.

I do too. Extremely.

But it could be cut that much and still be larger than any other military on earth.

Then you need to jettison, now and forever, all notions of this nation ever having a *smaller government*.
There are certainly many other areas to cut. And I didn't say that we shouldn't cut the military budget at all, just not that much.

There are certainly many other areas to cut.

But none of the major candidates will move to cut them............unless of course it is something of no meaning or worth whatsoever to them, like food programs for the hungry, or job training for displaced workers, or benefits for military Veterans.

When it comes to cutting THOSE things, the ConservaFascists are deeply dedicated to some serious "belt tightening".

But none of the major candidates will move to cut them............unless of course it is something of no meaning or worth whatsoever to them, like food programs for the hungry, or job training for displaced workers, or benefits for military Veterans.

When it comes to cutting THOSE things, the ConservaFascists are deeply dedicated to some serious "belt tightening".
None of the major candidates is likely to cut the military budget either... So since these cuts are all unlikely, why not hope for the ones I want most?

....NONE of the major candidates who are running has anything remotely resembling a *smaller government* ideology.
I guaran-fuckin'-tee you Mitt Romney would. He's a world-class businessman.

I guaran-fuckin'-tee you Mitt Romney would. He's a world-class businessman.
My father likes him. I'm not sure about him. It seems as though he may let his religion guide him too much.

I guaran-fuckin'-tee you Mitt Romney would. He's a world-class businessman.
Like Bush? He ran businesses in other nations. Into the ground.

My father likes him. I'm not sure about him. It seems as though he may let his religion guide him too much.

I dont see why religion guiding someone is so bad. I dont see someone who has no religion being better at making decisions then someone who is religious. Contrary to what freethinker thinks, being religious does not require a frontal lobatamy.

But, Foolie, it was so easy to get Gore and Buchanan mixed up. After all, they were both politicians and their names are almost exactly the same,
G O R E B U C H A N A N See, they are both composed of letters of the alphabet. The fact that no letter is found in both names doesn't matter. It was easy for those poor people to get mixed up and vote for Buchanan by mistake. Besides, it was a Republican dirty trick anyway.

Um,I beg your Poorness.I do believe a good to fair lot of those Biddy
we're Retired,nagging,Jewish Widows.

I dont see why religion guiding someone is so bad. I dont see someone who has no religion being better at making decisions then someone who is religious. Contrary to what freethinker thinks, being religious does not require a frontal lobatamy.
Trav, it's called separation of church and state. A person's beliefs can guide them in their private life, sure, but if the President makes his decisions based entirely on his religion, the separation of church and state no longer exists.

Trav, it's called separation of church and state. A person's beliefs can guide them in their private life, sure, but if the President makes his decisions based entirely on his religion, the separation of church and state no longer exists.
Nope, people can and will make decisions based on their: spirituality, moral code, upbringing, selfishness, ideology, etc. One cannot remove their faith and/or religion from the decision making process... no more than you could eliminate past life experiences. Unless they are a robot (or Mr. Spock).

The separation of Church and State is freedom of religion with no state sponsored "church". It does not imply that individuals in power cannot use whatever moral compass they may have to make decisions. Unless they "overstep" the boundaries of their power, thereby breaking the law, can they be held accountable for whatever "guides" them.

Nope, people can and will make decisions based on their: spirituality, moral code, upbringing, selfishness, ideology, etc. One cannot remove their faith and/or religion from the decision making process... no more than you could eliminate past life experiences. Unless they are a robot (or Mr. Spock).

The separation of Church and State is freedom of religion with no state sponsored "church". It does not imply that individuals in power cannot use whatever moral compass they may have to make decisions. Unless they "overstep" the boundaries of their power, thereby breaking the law, can they be held accountable for whatever "guides" them.
Of course, I understand. Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's not illegal for an extremely religious President to advance the interests of his religion, and it should not be illegal. However, I don't think it's good for the country to have a President who holds his religious beliefs above the welfare of the people. I really hope you agree.

Of course, I understand. Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's not illegal for an extremely religious President to advance the interests of his religion, and it should not be illegal. However, I don't think it's good for the country to have a President who holds his religious beliefs above the welfare of the people. I really hope you agree.

Understood, and I agree with you there. I would go as far as to say that a POTUS that has little or no moral compass would be worse than a devoutly religious one with ethics (several politicians come to mind...lol).

I dont see why religion guiding someone is so bad.

it's really bad. Religion should not be any kind of guiding force for any decision an elected official makes - PERIOD. This is the USA not some back water middle eastern theocracy

I dont see someone who has no religion being better at making decisions then someone who is religious. Contrary to what freethinker thinks, being religious does not require a frontal lobatamy.

That I can agree with

it's really bad. Religion should not be any kind of guiding force for any decision an elected official makes - PERIOD. This is the USA not some back water middle eastern theocracy
I wouldn't go that far. It's practically impossible in this country anyway, considering that most people are at least somewhat religious.

it's really bad. Religion should not be any kind of guiding force for any decision an elected official makes - PERIOD.
I doubt it ever is. We might actually have decent government if that was the case. Power and influence dictate the decisions of political figures. Not principle.

Like Mark Twain reports of Billary's deth may be exaggerated. She might be squeaking by with a one or two percentage point win in NH. Personally, I hope she is the Democrat candidate because I think she would be a weaker candidate than Obama.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains.

Yeah, but you do wind up with a sore Peter.

Hillary set to quit the race, or at least it is becoming more probable.


TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNS
Mon Jan 07 2008 09:46:28 ET

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."

Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."

"Her money is going to dry up," Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning.

Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state.

"She did not work this hard to get out after one state! All this talk is nonsense," said one top adviser.

But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.

Developing...

[The dramatic reversal of fortunes has left the media establishment stunned and racing to keep up with fast-moving changes.

In its final poll before Iowa, CNN showed Clinton with a two-point lead over Obama. Editorial decisions were being made based on an understanding the Democratic primary race would be close, explained a network executive.]


http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhn.htm


i guess not..seeing the NH results... You guys just like to spread shit about people.

Like Mark Twain reports of Billary's deth may be exaggerated. She might be squeaking by with a one or two percentage point win in NH. Personally, I hope she is the Democrat candidate because I think she would be a weaker candidate than Obama.


" There are times when one would like to hang the whole
human race,and finish the farce "
Contribution,New York Tribune,Sept. 1871

Notebook {published 1935}
" Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed
a human soul. "

-- Samuel Langhorne Clemens

I wouldn't go that far. It's practically impossible in this country anyway, considering that most people are at least somewhat religious.

I understand in reality it is close to impossible - But religion has no place in politics and you can be religious without making it part of decisions in government.

I understand in reality it is close to impossible - But religion has no place in politics and you can be religious without making it part of decisions in government.
If you care that much, perhaps you should be living in a country with more atheists. We really don't have that many of them here...

you can be religious without making it part of decisions in government.

I completely agree; I think a president can be strong of faith without letting it guide or influence national policy. And I don't have a problem with a president who is personally religious, as long as he keeps it personal. When it becomes mixed up with the running of our country....

Well, I just think it's really difficult to keep the two things apart.

living in a country with more atheists.

I don't see a real downside to that. We're not anarchists, you know. ;)

I don't see a real downside to that. We're not anarchists, you know. ;)
I don't see one either, except that they're all in Europe, and I don't like the politics in most of those countries for other reasons.

Hey now,

Stealing doesn't cause anyone any harm! She helped everyone when she stole from the white house.


It hurts me personally that she's a Cubbie fan.
I mean, a Yankee fan.

Rendova, Sox Fan
Not to mention she's a thief, but we won't get into THAT again.

How does stealing from the White House "help" anyone?

Like Mark Twain reports of Billary's deth may be exaggerated. She might be squeaking by with a one or two percentage point win in NH. Personally, I hope she is the Democrat candidate because I think she would be a weaker candidate than Obama. Well you were right about her winning by two percentage points. And I hope she is the Democrat candidate too but I think she will get more votes that Obama. If he was the candidate the Republicans would tear him apart! Hillary is tough! They have been saying stuff about her for years so she is use to it. I wish McCain would be the Republican candidate. He will not get all the evangelical votes that Huckabee would. Needless to say I want a Democrat in office in 2008 not a Republican! :banana:

People are saying that the evangelicals are divided this time around, which might leave the door open for someone else to step in. Some of them are for Huckabee, some for Romney, etc. So perhaps that could work in the favor of the less evangelical candidates.

If you care that much, perhaps you should be living in a country with more atheists. We really don't have that many of them here... I think we have quite a few atheist/agnostic people in the United States.

I think we have quite a few atheist/agnostic people in the United States.
Yes, in number, but not in percentage of the population. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religious_affili ation), 14% of the U.S. do not identify themselves with a religion.

And few of those 14% would go so far as to say their agnostic/atheist.

People are saying that the evangelicals are divided this time around, which might leave the door open for someone else to step in. Some of them are for Huckabee, some for Romney, etc. So perhaps that could work in the favor of the less evangelical candidates. So your saying that the evangelical vote is divided between those two. Why do you think that they would vote for a Mormon? I think a lot of them think of the Mormon church as a cult. Oh, maybe that is not as bad as a Democrat to them. :rolleyes:

So your saying that the evangelical vote is divided between those two. Why do you think that they would vote for a Mormon? I think a lot of them think of the Mormon church as a cult. Oh, maybe that is not as bad as a Democrat to them. :rolleyes:
Apparently it isn't as bad as a Democrat or a social liberal like Giuliani. They want someone who is deeply religious, and Christian, in the White House. Although quite a few Christians don't consider Mormonism "real" Christianity, I think the most evangelical of them do.

EDIT: I should add that I don't think the evangelicals are divided only between those two. I think they are divided further than that. Unfortunately I have no recollection of where I read about this theory. Perhaps it was in the newspaper. Anyways, the point is that the evangelicals are not coming together in a big way behind just one candidate.

Without her husband Bill - she's nothing, a nobody, with no chance of ever being a senator nevermind President.
.....And, that's what's drivin' you "conservatives" nutz.....that you were convinced you'd never have to deal with the successes of (another) Clinton Admin, EVER AGAIN!!! :p

I dont see why religion guiding someone is so bad. I dont see someone who has no religion being better at making decisions then someone who is religious. Contrary to what freethinker thinks, being religious does not require a frontal lobatamy.
There's a difference between that......and a suspension in all belief of Reality???

When did that happen??? :confused:

Like Mark Twain reports of Billary's deth may be exaggerated. She might be squeaking by with a one or two percentage point win in NH. Personally, I hope she is the Democrat candidate because I think she would be a weaker candidate than Obama.
Nice spin. :rolleyes:

Apparently it isn't as bad as a Democrat or a social liberal like Giuliani. They want someone who is deeply religious, and Christian, in the White House. Although quite a few Christians don't consider Mormonism "real" Christianity, I think the most evangelical of them do.
I would differ with that statement. I believe more evangelicals would consider Mormonism "cultish" than moderate Christians.

EDIT: I should add that I don't think the evangelicals are divided only between those two. I think they are divided further than that. Unfortunately I have no recollection of where I read about this theory. Perhaps it was in the newspaper. Anyways, the point is that the evangelicals are not coming together in a big way behind just one candidate.
Again I would disagree, The evangelicals are massing behind Huckabee for the most part. This explains his "rise" in the polls/primaries of late. He is not considered conservative on any viewpoint other than socially. Remember that evangelicals were Democratic until the 80's when they moved to the Republican party. I think this voting bloc is in a state of limbo and really cannot be counted on for strong support in this election by either party (based on the forerunners in the primaries... Huckster excluded).

There is no "true" conservative in the race (other than those claiming they are by pandering and reversing their voting/support histories). It will be interesting to see if anyone emerges as a "champion" of the Goldwater/Buckley brand of conservatism. There are many withholding contributions to the hopefuls based on this (and who will be the Democratic nominee).

Like Mark Twain reports of Billary's deth may be exaggerated. She might be squeaking by with a one or two percentage point win in NH. Personally, I hope she is the Democrat candidate because I think she would be a weaker candidate than Obama.

Agree, Frogger. And I can't believe the voting public won't be swayed a little by her near-tears speech after the defeat in Iowa as compared to her toothy grin after her near-win in NH. Geesh, the woman is an emotional basketcase.

Agree, Frogger. And I can't believe the voting public won't be swayed a little by her near-tears speech after the defeat in Iowa as compared to her toothy grin after her near-win in NH. Geesh, the woman is an emotional basketcase.


[ " agreed " ].Does it make sense that a Hillary is equipped throughly
to be our next President,but in the same breath,is so frail and easily
moved to faux tears,over popularity issues.?
Maybe if The She-Bitch just Triangulated Mores.

[ " agreed " ].Does it make sense that a Hillary is equipped throughly
to be our next President,but in the same breath,is so frail and easily
moved to faux tears,over popularity issues.?
Maybe if The She-Bitch just Triangulated Mores.

The "I" was implied, Foolie... and don't correct my grammar, you know what I meant. *shakes finger at Fool*

Yeah, I'm a little worried that, if elected, she'd start throwing temper tantrums on the front lawn if one of her grandiose plans got vetoed. Sorry, I'm just not ready to elect a hormone-challenged female to the office of president. Maybe if she got an estrogen patch...

:lolhit:

Apparently it isn't as bad as a Democrat or a social liberal like Giuliani. They want someone who is deeply religious, and Christian, in the White House. Although quite a few Christians don't consider Mormonism "real" Christianity, I think the most evangelical of them do.

EDIT: I should add that I don't think the evangelicals are divided only between those two. I think they are divided further than that. Unfortunately I have no recollection of where I read about this theory. Perhaps it was in the newspaper. Anyways, the point is that the evangelicals are not coming together in a big way behind just one candidate. I would be interested in knowing why you think the most evangelical of christians consider Mormonism "real" Christianity?

Agree, Frogger. And I can't believe the voting public won't be swayed a little by her near-tears speech after the defeat in Iowa as compared to her toothy grin after her near-win in NH. Geesh, the woman is an emotional basketcase.Who's calling the kettle black?

Who's calling the kettle black?

Not sure what that veiled insult is supposed to mean... can you be a little more specific?

I'm just not ready to elect a hormone-challenged female to the office of president.
You sound like someone who should probably be a little-more deferrential to the Patriarchy (in this country), and not vote, at all! I'm sure the menfolk would be more-than-happy to provide for your needs. :rolleyes:

You sound like someone who should probably be a little-more deferrential to the Patriarchy (in this country), and not vote, at all! I'm sure the menfolk would be more-than-happy to provide for your needs. :rolleyes:

Now why would I refrain from voting when I'm fairly sure my vote cancels out yours?

Nah, I'll be at the polls... with bells on.

;)

And few of those 14% would go so far as to say their agnostic/atheist. And you know this because....?

Magic elves told me.

Now why would I refrain from voting when I'm fairly sure my vote cancels out yours?
Choose wisely. Your vote only cancels out one person's.

Mr. Shaman
Senior Member Join Date: Dec 12, 2003
Location: Bizarro Bushworld
Posts: 2,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogger
Like Mark Twain reports of Billary's deth may be exaggerated. She might be squeaking by with a one or two percentage point win in NH. Personally, I hope she is the Democrat candidate because I think she would be a weaker candidate than Obama.

Nice spin.

Shamin, you are not only the most obnoxious poster on Allforums, you are also the biggest ass on Allforums.

Please explain how saying Hillary might win New Hampshire by one or two percentage points, something she did by the way, is spin. Saying I prefer her as a candidate over Obama could not be considered spin either except by the dumbest of the dumb, a category you have proven yourself a member of time and time again.

I look forward to reading more of your posts as they illustrate how truely simple minded certain people can be. Anyone can be nasty but it takes someone special to be unbelievably dumb and nasty at the same time.

You are truely sui generis when it comes to the above category.

Choose wisely. Your vote only cancels out one person's.

I always choose wisely and usually vote for the winner... the exception being the election Slick Willie won. You can rest assured I'll do everything in my power to make sure his lil woman doesn't get a chance to carry on that tradition.

BTW, you gonna vote this year? Or just sit back and watch??

I think I will sit back and watch. I'll be watching very carefully...

In Europe. From a barstool.

Hillary set to quit the race, or at least it is becoming more probable.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political machine snapped into action in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary yesterday, propelling her to a startling upset win over Sen. Barack Obama and resurrecting her bid for the White House.

Clinton’s victory - driven by a masterful voter-turnout operation - capped a comeback from last week’s third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. It also raised the possibility of a long battle for the party nomination between the most viable black candidate in history and the former first lady, who is seeking to become the first woman to occupy the Oval Office.

“We’re in it for the long run,” Clinton told a wild crowd at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester. “Tomorrow, we’re going to get up, roll up our sleeves and keep going.”



:lolhit:

Why are you laughing out loud, Frannie?

I am happy Hillary won. I want her to be the Democrat candidate.