|
||
|
Title: Hillary Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:54am Since my last post stirred up such a shit storm, what if Hillary Clinton were to be the next president? Lee |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by AussieBrian on Jan 12th, 2006, 2:05am Trade you Hillary for John Howard. |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by MJ on Jan 12th, 2006, 2:41am I would move to Australia. That Howard fella seems like a better choice. Then again she would probably claim residency in OZ to run there if she lost an election here. |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 12th, 2006, 2:46am on 01/12/06 at 02:05:05, AussieBrian wrote:
He is busy. |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by BobG on Jan 12th, 2006, 4:30am What do you mean 'what if'. Of course she'll be the next President. |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by BarbaraD on Jan 12th, 2006, 5:17am Won't that be something. Hillary will be president and she can blame everything on GB for 8 years just like he's blamed everything on Bill for 8 years. Turn about - fair play ;) I just love a good plan when it comes together don't you? Hugs BD |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Melissa on Jan 12th, 2006, 7:15am on 01/12/06 at 01:54:06, forgetfulnot wrote:
Become employed, get let go, collect unemployment, save all the cash in a shoebox in the house and then build a fallout shelter. ;;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by sandie99 on Jan 12th, 2006, 8:12am It wouldn't bother me. :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by jimmers on Jan 12th, 2006, 9:50am Wouldn't be much different! We would still have a BUSH in the white house ;;D Seeya, Jimmers |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by BobG on Jan 12th, 2006, 9:52am Oh shit jimmers. That was sick. Funny, but sick. Close but no cigar. 8) |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by burnt-toast on Jan 12th, 2006, 10:01am Wasn't she already president for two terms? Oh, my mistake, that was Bill, she just sounded like the president for two terms. The ole' healthcare for "all" scheme did do a wonderful job of scaring the healthcare/insurance industries into driving healthcare and health insurance costs into the stratosphere. But let's see.... Will the United States of America need to be renamed the United Socialist States of America? Will every citizen's Walmart paycheck be first forwarded to the government for redistribution as our allowance? Hey, is the "company store" making a comeback? Will lazy do-nothings finally be elevated to the same economic level of the hard working do-everything's just because everyone deserves better than what they are willing to work for? Will the national debt continue escalating and be sold to foreign nations with little concern for the citizens who must eventually pay the debt back? Will "Free Trade" continue lining the pockets of the few while destroying nearly all private industry in the U.S. and endangering National Security? Will the American standard of living be sufficiently reduced so that we can actually compete with third world countries in the "Global Economy"? Democrat or Republican - Neither party offers candidates for the House, Senate or President that isn't fully part of the scam. The game is to just finger point "Across the aisle" until one party has done enough wrong to force voters to choose the other. When will we select candidates based on things being done right? Why is it necessary for parties sit on different sides of the room when they are supposed to be representing "The People"? Oh, They represent their party, not "The People". I thought "The People" were supposed to be important, my mistake. Both parties are too powerful, wealthy and corrupt and its time to reject "party endorsed", "politically connected/indebted" candidates who continue "Politics as Ususal" in Washington and all levels of government. As an Independent I no longer vote for party endorsed candidates. I look for outsiders who are in it to promote positive reform, not "Politics as Usual". I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils". We won't even need term limits - just stop re-electing the same self-serving representatives over and over again. Vote with your heart and mind - not a party. Tom |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Jimmy B. on Jan 12th, 2006, 11:50am I'm staying away from this one [smiley=mellow.gif] I've still got a regular headache from the last one. I'll just grab my popcorn and see how it turns out. 8) |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by maffumatt on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:03pm Hillary vs Rice Now that would be a show worth watching. |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by BarbaraD on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:26pm on 01/12/06 at 10:01:58, burnt-toast wrote:
Daring to repeat........ When people get off their apathetic rears and get out, find out facts, and VOTE!!! Until then it will just be politics as usual and we'll just keep on doing "what's best for us!" Hugs BD |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Guiseppi on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:35pm Hillary and Rice on the same ticket...................damn now even without a CH I won't be able to sleep tonight!!! Guiseppi |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by imnotbub on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:59pm nevermind [smiley=huh.gif] |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Ree on Jan 12th, 2006, 2:23pm I think we need a woman in the white house. There would be no fighting... Face it most women run their households, handle the money etc. Women are nice. Look at the shit shes been through with MEN... I think shes tough and smart and WHY NOT??? ree |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by maffumatt on Jan 12th, 2006, 2:39pm I don't know Ree, look at Margret Thatchers history, she was a straight shooting, no nonsense bitch, when she needed to be. I saw some history on her giveing speeches in the house of commons, not nice at all, but very effective. |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Opus on Jan 12th, 2006, 2:42pm I predict John McCain Vs. Hillary Clinton, and here are the results. (http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm) Opus/Paul |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Kevin_M on Jan 12th, 2006, 2:53pm on 01/12/06 at 13:03:20, maffumatt wrote:
Catfight! http://p.webshots.com/ProThumbs/70/51270_wallpaper280.jpg |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by LadyElaine on Jan 12th, 2006, 5:48pm We will be safe unless she goes through Medapause ;;D That could be the end of the world as we know it! |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by stevegeebe on Jan 12th, 2006, 7:31pm President by injection. Steve G |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Barry_T_Coles on Jan 12th, 2006, 7:34pm on 01/12/06 at 02:05:05, AussieBrian wrote:
And I will throw in a carton of whatever beer you drink to make the deal worth while. Barry |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Kris_in_SJ on Jan 12th, 2006, 9:00pm Clinton -vs- Rice ... I'd be hard pressed to choose. Ms. Rice just might have her own strong things to say if she wasn't so attached to the Bush. Clinton - vs - McCain ... I'd be hard pressed to choose. If McCain had been the Republican nominee in the last election, I'd have probably voted republican (very against my nature). Looks like a good fight, regardless of the candidates! Kris |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by eyes_afire on Jan 12th, 2006, 10:33pm Quote:
It wouldn't be my fault because I'd vote Libertarian. Bush, Kerry, Rice, Clinton......blah, blah, Whatever. Republicrats one and all. --- Steve |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Charlie on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:28am Am I'm wrong or isn't the neo cons' dream Democratic candidate Hillary? Surely the Karl Roves would be just as nasty as ever. I can't imagine her winning unless the GOP ran Rice. Is HRC more popular than I think? I just don't get it. Charlie http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/neat confused.gif |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 13th, 2006, 1:13am I don't get it either Charlie, but for other reasons, Lee |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by BarbaraD on Jan 13th, 2006, 6:09am But if you look at it a differnt way ... Let the girls have a go at it (the men sure haven't done such a hot shot job of things!). The Arabs would NEVER have an idea of what WE were thinking (for a change) and if they got a clue A WOMAN can change her mind at WILL. That oughta confuse THEM! PMS would certainly scare them (it should scare anyone). Women are good at cleaning up messes. They can organize anything. Congress would have to be polite or the President would send them to their rooms. I can just see all kinds of reasons for electing a woman.... ;) Hugs BD |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by burnt-toast on Jan 13th, 2006, 7:45am A woman may make a great president - but not this woman. Lets not forget Hillary's little discretions and scandals. . Over $200,000 in fraudulent loans - $200,000 from Citizens Bank (now 1st Ozark) to purchase land that would later become famous, and another $20,000 not reported to Citizens from another bank for down payment on the same land. Her magic $1,000 investment that she cashed out for $100,000 only a year later while Bill was the Governor. Her financial deals with the Madison Guarantee Savings & Loan (bought by her partner in Whitewater who was also Clinton's gubernatorial economic advisor), and 1st Ozark. Taxpayers got stuck with a $60 million debt when Madison failed – all the while Bill signs a bill that benefits Twin City Bank, the parent of 1st Ozark. Whitewater - around which all these shady financial deals were structured and how she so generously sold her interests in Whitewater to her partners for a measly $1,000 when Bill was elected president. A deal in which Vince Foster represented the Clintons. The boxes of Whitewater documents removed from her law firm office when an investigation into the Madison Savings & Loan was initiated. The White House pressuring Arkansas financial regulator Beverly Bassett Schafer to make a public statement favoring the Clintons in their role in Whitewater and White House meeting notes, suggesting someone go to Arkansas to make sure Schaffer's story was okay "Item by item, make sure her story is okay," "If the effort is botched, we're done." The key Whitewater documents disappearing from Vince Foster’s office after his death. Vince Foster is dead. Her partners in the Whitewater and banking scam along with most of the people involved in either the scam or cover up were convicted of fraud or conspiracy and served time but she skated. And this is just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). Yeah she’s a real straight shooter. Just the type of ethics that we need to see more of in Washington. Tom |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by BobG on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:41am on 01/12/06 at 01:54:06, forgetfulnot wrote:
Ya did good Lee. ;;D LMAO |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by vig on Jan 13th, 2006, 9:20am I'm with Burnt Toast Tom on this one. I'm all FOR a woman president, just not that one. I don't know who got suckered into her charms, like her husbands, but she's not a good person. She was GIVEN a Senatorship, in a state she'd never lived in.... She's from Illinois. |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Bob P on Jan 13th, 2006, 9:53am Quote:
|
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by BarbaraD on Jan 13th, 2006, 10:04am Not much different from Silverado back in Daddy Bush's day is it? Never hear much about that prodical son these days. Guess Daddy slapped him on the hand and told him to sin no more.... Notice he doesn't go on the fishing trips with the boys - at least not for the press.... But we were talking about Hillary weren't we..... Hugs BD |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Charlie on Jan 13th, 2006, 7:56pm Any alleged financial scheming, tomfoolery or just plain sleaziness by Hillary pales to insignificance when compared to the slippery, legal, illegal, not very legal, nasty, and downright mean and even malevolence when put up against this crowd of bottom feeders. Years ago the Republican rant was that the IRS would become a political tool. It took Bush & Co. to finally make it so. They use it now to disqualify tax returns of filers they seem to pick out of the air. Which kinds of filers? Those with incomes around $13,000. Their sleazeball CEO pals that do their banking in Aruba, have nothing to worry about. http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/spin dance.gif Republicans have screamed about government incompetence since the beginning of time. It took their being in charge to make it so with FEMA, the incompetent Homeland Security whizzes, and the placement of often the least possible qualified cronies Bush can find in various federal positions. Oh yeah. Beat up of Hillary. Everything is her fault. Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Jonny on Jan 13th, 2006, 7:59pm :-* |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by maffumatt on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:09pm - The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance - Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates* - Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify - Most number of witnesses to die suddenly - First president sued for sexual harassment. - First president accused of rape. - First first lady to come under criminal investigation - Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case - First president to establish a legal defense fund. - First president to be held in contempt of court - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad - First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court - Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14 - Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5 - Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4 - Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3 - Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47 - Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33 - Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61 - Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122 CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice. Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar. Bill Kennedy 116 Harold Ickes 148 Ricki Seidman 160 Bruce Lindsey 161 Bill Burton 191 Mark Gearan 221 Mack McLarty 233 Neil Egglseston 250 Hillary Clinton 250 John Podesta 264 Jennifer O'Connor 343 Dwight Holton 348 Patsy Thomasson 420 Jeff Eller 697 |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by maffumatt on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:10pm FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one. I don't remember - 71 I don't know - 62 I'm not sure - 17 I have no idea - 10 I don't believe so - 9 I don't recall - 8 I don't think so - 8 I don't have any specific recollection - 6 I have no recollection - 4 Not to my knowledge - 4 I just don't remember - 4 I don't believe - 4 I have no specific recollection - 3 I might have - 3 I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2 I don't have any memory of that - 2 I just can't say - 2 I have no direct knowledge of that - 2 I don't have any idea - 2 Not that I recall - 2 I don't believe I did - 2 I can't remember - 2 I can't say - 2 I do not remember doing so - 2 Not that I remember - 2 I'm not aware - 1 I honestly don't know - 1 I don't believe that I did - 1 I'm fairly sure - 1 I have no other recollection - 1 I'm not positive - 1 I certainly don't think so - 1 I don't really remember - 1 I would have no way of remembering that - 1 That's what I believe happened - 1 To my knowledge, no - 1 To the best of my knowledge - 1 To the best of my memory - 1 I honestly don't recall - 1 I honestly don't remember - 1 That's all I know - 1 I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1 I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1 As far as I know - 1 I don't believe I ever did that - 1 That's all I know about that - 1 I'm just not sure - 1 Nothing that I remember - 1 I simply don't know - 1 I would have no idea - 1 I don't know anything about that - 1 I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1 I just don't know - 1 I really don't know - 1 I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1 If these people arent the bottomfeeders I don't know who is. http://prorev.com/legacy.htm |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by burnt-toast on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:26pm on 01/12/06 at 10:01:58, burnt-toast wrote:
From an earlier post Charlie. You're absolutely right, it's not just about Hillary. The whole system is greedy and corrupt and both parties along with "The People" are to blame. In this case 90% of our represenatives make the remaining 10% look bad. The real question is - when will Americans get off their lazy backsides, do some research and elect representatives for the right reasons? Not based on party affiliation, not on what the media wants us to know or the polls show, not on the thin hope that one won't be as bad as the other and not based on the lame "I voted for X because Y didn't have chance to win" method. The same crooks from both parties keep getting re-elected and get bolder and more self-serving every day. When will we stop complaining privately and say "enough"? When will we demand that our leaders exercise higher standards of integrity by removing the self-serving from office? Tom |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Charlie on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:46pm Quote:
We love to say this of course but it's kinda like "Do you support the troops?" It kills the topic or debate on whatever brings about the thread. I have to agree with you on the whole however. I love the impeachment stuff. What is laughingly called Republican led impeachment, caused one of their own members to resign. Afterward, they spent upwards of 50 million dollars ranting on Bill Clinton, led by the shining example of morality, Tom Delay. Gut HEAP and Social Security like programs while wasting millions on the fruitless impeachment. The Washington Times is the New York Times' counterpart. Rupert Murdock hates anyone not applauding every burble from George Bush. Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by burnt-toast on Jan 13th, 2006, 9:45pm on 01/13/06 at 20:46:52, Charlie wrote:
Saying and doing are two seperate things Charlie. It's time to clean the House, Senate, and Oval Office of corrupt politicians from both parties. The problem is that most have been brainwashed into believing that one party is cleaner than the other. Or into believing that one is the party of "The People" and the other isn't. The hard fact is - "The People" are being screwed by representatives from both parties. Since "The People" can be led (misled) like sheep the scam can continue and both parties feed on apathy. Tom |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 13th, 2006, 11:51pm on 01/13/06 at 07:45:50, burnt-toast wrote:
Tom show me one politician without a similar background ,except North Dakota ;;D I'm only 51 but I have never seen a U.S. Senator that didn't retire a millionaire. Where do they earn all these bucks when their working their buts off in Washington? |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by burnt-toast on Jan 14th, 2006, 3:43am on 01/13/06 at 23:51:40, forgetfulnot wrote:
That's a sad point that can't be stressed enough - I can't. To my understanding all (both Democrats and Republicans) in the U.S. House and Senate are millionaires. Most holding office in state legislatures are already millionaires or will magically soon become millionaires. Unfortunately before reaching federal office most have accumulated massive political debt and have accepted corporate/special interest sponsorship. The fact is - legislative decisions are bought and sold. There's little accountability and virtually no valid oversight into these backroom deals. The only time legislator's get hurt is is when the get so greedy and bold that their indescretions can no longer be ignored or they piss off the wrong people in one of the parties. When they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they do little or no time and usually just skate off to work as high paid lobbiests for one of their former sponsors. As I said previously... It's time to clean the House, Senate, and Oval Office of corrupt politicians from both parties. The problem is that most have been brainwashed into believing that one party is cleaner than the other. Or into believing that one is the party of "The People" and the other isn't. The hard fact is - "The People" are being screwed by representatives from both parties. Since "The People" can be led (misled) like sheep the scam can continue and both parties feed on apathy. Tom |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by AussieBrian on Jan 14th, 2006, 4:11am democracy -n. government of the people, by the people, for the people, by duly elected representatives working purely in the people's interest. (see also: garden, fairies at the bottom of). |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by burnt-toast on Jan 14th, 2006, 4:34am on 01/14/06 at 04:11:14, AussieBrian wrote:
I like it! But be careful because you've just insulted Garden Fairies and they are much more numerous than ethical, hard working represenatatives of "The People". ;;D Tom |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by BarbaraD on Jan 14th, 2006, 7:23am The sad part is we're raising a generation of kids who aren't even learning to read and write so how can they "judge" anything? When you go to McDonald's the kid that waits on you can't even count your change back to you. They don't know HOW! Yet we're graduating them from our schools and putting them out in the world. This country was founded on "Mom and Pop" businesses and "family" trades, yet today BIG BUSINESS is the only way to go. Service is a thing of the past. Courtesy is a thing of the past in most stores. What else would we expect of our "elected" officials. No one cares anymore. They've told us for so long "what's good for us" that we've begun to believe it. Personally I can't see much difference between the parties in Washington. They're a bunch of baffoons who like to hear themselves talk and not get anything done while all the time trying to say they're doing it for the "people". BS! But then there's the money issue. When politicians spend millions of dollars to get releelected so they can make millions more - there's just something wrong with the picture. The independents just don't have a chance - they don't have the bucks to do it. And the "people" just don't care. Nothing is going to change until we get the "career" politicians OUT and get some "grass roots" people in and clean up the mess we've let accumulate over the years. But that will be up to the people. It's going to have to start on the local levels and work it's way up to DC. And the career politicians are not going to go easy. They've had it too good for too long. But to do this the "people" will have to get involved and get off their rears, get out and do something and they're just not willing to put out the effort (at least most are not). Most people I've had dealings with are even "afraid" to write their congressman - why is a mystery to me, but they are. How the hell will the jerk know what you're wanting him/her to do if you don't TELL them? When are the "people" going to get it thru their heads that these people WORK for US? Oh well....... Hugs BD |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by vig on Jan 14th, 2006, 9:06am one of the guys they caught recently had $90,000 in his freezer.... Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102282.html this one from the Democrap side of the aisle... (that's William J. Jefferson, not William Jefferson Clinton, btw ;;D) |
||
|
Title: Re: Hillary Post by Charlie on Jan 14th, 2006, 3:06pm Quote:
I pretty much agree with you Tom. There are too many of these characters that are, or become very rich, as well as get perks that make me want to storm the now pretty much inaccessible to you and me, without big wad of cash, sacred, halls of Congress leading to their counting room offices. I'd like their kind of retirement and health care too. They think that what's good for them, is bad for us. http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/boese/3.gif?SSImageQuality=Full The Republicans, especially, made a lot out of cleaning up Congress and our overstuffed bureaucracy. To them, big government is always an evil element in their perfect, pious, squeaky clean, society. It took their being in control to enlarge and create new government agencies at unheard of spending levels, mostly to keep track of Americans at their keyboards and purchases at Waldens, in order to fight terrorists “over there rather than here.” Congress has yet to find its testicles when it comes to clamping down on these creepy voyeuristic intruders in our midst. Shame on these silly old men and women. Maybe it’s time for something new but successful third parties have a helluva time getting anywhere because they have to jump through hoops to get things started since these guys own all the hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place. Charlie |
||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |