President Clinton

Posted by: Anonymous

President Clinton - 27/05/05 02:14 PM

Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Fri May 27, 9:22 AM ET

For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

Clinton commands as much strong support - but more strong opposition - as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.

"Over time, Clinton fatigue has dissipated ... and people are looking back on the Clinton years more favorably," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. In a Pew poll released this month, Kohut called former president Bill Clinton and the senator "comeback kids" because of their rising ratings.

"This may also reflect that she has been recasting her image as a more moderate person," he says.

Spokesmen for Sen. Clinton declined to discuss the survey. "She's just focused on working and doing her job for New York," says Anne Lewis, a veteran Democratic operative working at Hillpac, Clinton's political action committee.

Clinton has been leading the field of Democratic presidential contenders for the 2008 election, still more than three years away. She is running for a second Senate term next year and has dodged questions about whether she'll make a White House bid.

In the poll, 29% were "very likely" to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24% were "somewhat likely." Seven percent were "not very likely" and 39% were "not at all likely" to vote for her.

Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003.

In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.

Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.

No woman has been nominated for national office by one of the two major parties since Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984.

Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.

Among those who were very or somewhat likely to vote for Clinton for president, there were:

• A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.

• Significant differences by age. Two of three voters under 30 were likely to support her, compared with fewer than half of those 50 and older.

• Strongest support from those with the lowest income. Sixty-three percent of those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less were likely to support her, compared with 49% of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher.

• And big swings by ideology. An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.

Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal, 30% a moderate and 9% a conservative.

________________________________________________

Personally, I'd be shocked. But if the Republicans put up a hard-right conservative (ie, DeLay or the like) she's probably got a legit shot.

God I hope one of the party's can put a genuine moderate candidate into the general election.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 27/05/05 03:59 PM

Quote:
according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll
yep... brought to you by the same people that predicted a win for Gore in 2000, and a win for Kerry in 2004...

Kinda' jumping the gun by doing a poll for a potential presidential candidate, 3 years out. Besides, nobody really knows who will be running for the Rep's, or the Dem's, this far in advance. If Billary runs, and the Rep's counter w/ Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell, then you can kiss those conservative & moderate votes goodbye, for the Dems.

It's assinine to have a poll out this far in advance. May as well take a poll to find out what the weather will be like in November of 2008.
Posted by: XChosen

Re: President Clinton - 27/05/05 04:10 PM

Any fuck who believes the USA Today/CNN are idiots.

But with that said I hope to god she does run. That bitch will lose her ass. If the Democrats are really that stupid then go for it.

ps. I'd vote for Al Sharpton before her and I'm fairly sure he should be shot.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 27/05/05 04:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by XChosen:
Any fuck who believes the USA Today/CNN are idiots.
They have a certain bias, but so does everybody else - including CBN, Faux News, the WSJ, etc - it's on both sides. The key is to have an understanding that no news source is without some amount bias.

Any yeah, the poll is more than a little premature, but I thought it was interesting, if for nothing else as an indication that we'll likely get another choice between a "liberal weiner" and a "right wing nut-job."
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 27/05/05 04:27 PM

I wonder what their definition of Conservative was to find 33% to like her must have been a very Liberal Interpretation, for this Conservative would never even entertain the thought unless a RINO like McCain ran against her, but even then I think I just wouldn't Vote or would go for the 3rd party Candidate.

This is more likely a fund raising ploy. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 02:50 PM

Wasn't Hillary already President??? laugh
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 02:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
I wonder what their definition of Conservative was to find 33% to like her must have been a very Liberal Interpretation, for this Conservative would never even entertain the thought unless a RINO like McCain ran against her, but even then I think I just wouldn't Vote or would go for the 3rd party Candidate.

This is more likely a fund raising ploy. :rolleyes:
Bingo! That made the poll worthless IMO.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 03:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by XChosen:
Any fuck who believes the USA Today/CNN are idiots.
They don't conduct the poll. Gallup does.
Posted by: Weasel

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 03:25 PM

It's so that obvious USA TODAY, CNN and Gallop poll hate our freedom.

/am I too early?
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 03:34 PM

No comment, I will save my hate speech for her when she tries to run.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 04:19 PM

I'm not opposed to a female for president.

I'm horribly opposed to THAT one though.

4 wheelers will need to unite against her. She's a bigger enviro-nazi than her husband and will likely try to pass more sweeping wilderness bills that could close down your favorite trails. Don't let the west go the way the east has gone where pay to play offroad parks are getting to be the only wheeling options.
Posted by: socalpunx

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 05:01 PM

So what happens if the GOP puts up Laura Bush to oppose Hillary?
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 06:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by socalpunX:
So what happens if the GOP puts up Laura Bush to oppose Hillary?
Hillary would win.

But she won't run.

*IF* she were to, she wouldn't make it out of the primaries.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 07:30 PM

The GOP has many more qualified (Vilified) people than Laura to put against her, but we'll see won't we. [Wave]
How about Condi for Pres? Watch those Dems squirming would be cool. No matter what Hillary does she can't be Black. I wouldn't put anything past her though. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 08:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conundrum:
The GOP has many more qualified (Vilified) people than Laura to put against her, but we'll see won't we. [Wave]
How about Condi for Pres? Watch those Dems squirming would be cool. No matter what Hillary does she can't be Black. I wouldn't put anything past her though. :rolleyes:
Condi would have a snowball's chance in hell. Sad as it is, this country is not ready for a black president, let alone a woman.

Even Colin Powell would have to overcome that - it wouldn't be hard for him, though - just keep on with his Gulf War record. But he has no interest in the office.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 31/05/05 09:22 PM

The WHITE HOUSE 2008,

PRESIDENT HILLARY CLIN.... I cant even say it.

Posted by: great pyr-hauler

Re: President Clinton - 01/06/05 05:42 AM

Would she even win her "home" state if Giuliani were nominated? I'm pulling for a Giuliani/Rice ticket.
Posted by: MBFlyerfan

Re: President Clinton - 01/06/05 05:57 AM

She cant win, she is too polarizing. The effort mounted against her would make the one against John Kerry look like a PTA meeting.

The poll was flawed in that there was no mention of an opponent. All it says is that some people would vote for her, and some would think about voting for her.

Hell, I would think about voting for her if the opponent was Idi Amin for example. I would then be included in that majority group.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 01/06/05 06:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MBFlyerfan:
Hell, I would think about voting for her if the opponent was Idi Amin for example. I would then be included in that majority group.
At least with Idi Amin you know what you are getting.

Hillary is the kind of woman to go skeet shooting with gays while in blackface just after having an abortion. She will say and do just about anything to get a vote. I did not trust her in 2000, and I don't trust her now. Depending on who runs against her, I don't think her re-election in 2006 to the Senate is a "lock".

MJ
Posted by: Weasel

Re: President Clinton - 01/06/05 03:52 PM

[Spit]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 01/06/05 06:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by great pyr-hauler:
I'm pulling for a Giuliani/Rice ticket.
The fundis won't let Giuliani thru the primaries.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 01/06/05 06:33 PM

I couldn't imagine Rudy picking Rice as a running mate, anyway.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 02/06/05 06:23 AM

Subject: ethics test question

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By
giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which
you will have to make a decision.
Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please
scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.

You are in Florida, Miami to be specific.
There is chaos all around you, caused by a hurricane, with severe
flooding.
This is a flood of biblical proportions.
You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're
caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly
hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos.
There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under
the water.
Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.
Suddenly you see a woman in the water. She is fighting for her life,
trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow
the woman looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's Hillary
Clinton!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take her
under . . . . . . . forever.
You have two options--you can save the life of Hillary Clinton, or you
can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death
of one of the world's most powerful women.

So here's the question, and please give an honest answer:
Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the
classic simplicity of black and white?
Posted by: Lincoln

Re: President Clinton - 02/06/05 02:17 PM

Nice!!!

I would go with the black and white.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 02/06/05 02:32 PM

I would have to go with the color, I want every detail to stand out wink
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 02/06/05 03:57 PM

I would say it's funny...but you guys need to start thinking of new jokes. This thing is what, 3 or 4 years old?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 01:21 PM

My take on Hilary in 2008:

- she is very likely to win the Democratic primary unless she really screws up. Why? She knows politics, how to raise $$$, and I don't think there is anyone else on the horizon who can grab the limelight from her.

- she *may* win the presidential nod too. The Republicans are likely to have a bloodbath during the primaries. It will be hard to campaign against her *and* her hubby. Negative campaigns, on the level we saw against Kerry in 2004, will probably not sit well with the public because Hilary "is a lady". :rolleyes:

I have mixed views about Hilary. Yes, she is terribly slimey ... but probably no worse than her hubby, or any other senator, or even Dubya. Perhaps because she is a woman she doesn't wear it so well. laugh But like her husband she is enormously talented and, well, she probably can handle being president.

So in the end I would vote for her but I'd hate doing it. Like someone else posted, it is about time we had a woman president. I just wish it wasn't her.

_Lazza
Posted by: Samueul

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 01:23 PM

Whatever happens, whoever wins, I know one thing.

My taxes will still rise, cost of living will still go up, and I'll still complain about it all.
Posted by: 2001frontier

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 01:48 PM

I would vote for that bitch with WilMac's fingers. [Finger]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 02:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 2001frontier:
I would vote for that bitch with WilMac's fingers. [Finger]
That means she'd get ten votes, but I'd use gloves. Nasty! eek [LOL]
Posted by: Stonecoldchavez

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 04:14 PM

A woman will never be a US president. A black, like Colin Powell, has a better chance of winning, just based on his military record alone. It will simply not work. How many women are CEO's? There are few out there, but how many are successful?

How many countries in the world have a woman leaders? There are a few, but how big and/or successful are they?

Women in the US are not the same as women around the world. There not on the same social or financial structure. Take the Arab world for instance. Women can barely vote there, if at all. They are second class citizens.

How, as leaders of the free world, can we send a woman (as President, not Secretary of State) to represent us? You cannot. It won't work. Will she have to wear a burka when meeting with Arab leaders?

As for Hillary, she is too polarizing. If she was such a great politician, why is she not Senator from Arkansas then? Why did she have to carpetbag to New York to win a Senate seat?

Women, in my opinion, should stay at home and take of the children. When women left the home for the workplace our society started to decline. Women are not genetically made up to make tough decisions. They are nurturers(sp?); not fighters. That is a fact. Most women cannot decide what shoes to wear that matches their purses. How can we expect one to make a life-threatening decision?

Do you want a woman in charge of the military? I don't. I don't want one to decide on who our next military target is.

IMHO,
Stone
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 04:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:
Women, in my opinion, should stay at home and take of the children. When women left the home for the workplace our society started to decline. Women are not genetically made up to make tough decisions. They are nurturers(sp?); not fighters. That is a fact. Most women cannot decide what shoes to wear that matches their purses. How can we expect one to make a life-threatening decision?
1948 called. They want their opinion back.
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 04:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:

How many countries in the world have a woman leaders? There are a few, but how big and/or successful are they?
Hmm... Indira Ghandi, Gold Meir, Margaret Thatcher. There's been a number of successful queens (that actually have/had power). Does it matter how "big" they are? If they are successful, they are successful.

Quote:
Women are not genetically made up to make tough decisions. They are nurturers(sp?); not fighters. That is a fact. Most women cannot decide what shoes to wear that matches their purses. How can we expect one to make a life-threatening decision?
eek
Posted by: Stonecoldchavez

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 05:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
Quote:
Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:
[b]Women, in my opinion, should stay at home and take of the children. When women left the home for the workplace our society started to decline. Women are not genetically made up to make tough decisions. They are nurturers(sp?); not fighters. That is a fact. Most women cannot decide what shoes to wear that matches their purses. How can we expect one to make a life-threatening decision?
1948 called. They want their opinion back.[/b]
Ahahaha! Pretty funny Wilmac.

I'll take 1948, the world was a much safer place......

Stone
Posted by: Stonecoldchavez

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 05:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:
[b]
How many countries in the world have a woman leaders? There are a few, but how big and/or successful are they?
Hmm... Indira Ghandi, Gold Meir, Margaret Thatcher. There's been a number of successful queens (that actually have/had power). Does it matter how "big" they are? If they are successful, they are successful.

Quote:
Women are not genetically made up to make tough decisions. They are nurturers(sp?); not fighters. That is a fact. Most women cannot decide what shoes to wear that matches their purses. How can we expect one to make a life-threatening decision?
eek [/b]
Moby,

Ghandi, hhmmmm, India, not a real big economic or military superpower. Gold Meir- never heard of her. Margaret Thatcher- Prime Minister. No REAL power. You didn't mention any women, from really influental countries.

C'mon, you never have worked with women, who are in charge, that made any important or influental decisions? All the women I have ever worked with could never make a decision without agonizing over it, debating it to death, worrying who the decision will offend, etc. Women are too emotional when it comes to decision making or they try to play "corporate toughwoman" to show they can make a decision. That has been my experiences with women in corporate america.

Stone
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 05:54 PM

Wow man....just....seriously....do you actually think that way, or are you pulling an Andy Kaufman? And if you actually do think that way, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't get much attention from the ladies. At least not the ones that can read.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 06:05 PM

PS, Stone...Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel during the late sixties and early seventies. Israel may not be a "military superpower", but Israel, after the Six Day War, would need some solid leadership, especially in a security sense....why am I wasting my time explaining this shit to you? Stick your nose in a book NOT written by somebody at Fox News once in a while. Then, once you've learned something, you can make all the broad-sweeping generalizations you want.

On second thought, don't bother. Education is for liberal faggots.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 06:39 PM

Stone. [Freak]

I don't know what else to add... [Huh?]
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 07:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:
Margaret Thatcher- Prime Minister. No REAL power. You didn't mention any women, from really influental countries.
[Huh?] Again....

Maggie had no real power? Really? That's news to me. Who exactly was it that sent the British navy into the Falklands? And are you saying Britain isn't a "really" influential country? That leaves what, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union?

So the Prime Minister of the UK doesn't have any real power - which means that Thatcher, Blair and yes, even Churchill, had no real power.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 03/06/05 08:07 PM

Most women definitely have a different style than the men in the same positions. I've had female bosses for nearly 10 years and am very relieved to have a new male boss starting next week. Not nearly so "feeling" driven.

That said, women are as capable as men in leadership roles....not all women....then again, not all men are cut out for it either.

I would vote for a female candidate if her politics are in the right place. Hillary's are so far left there's no chance in hell I'd vote for her.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 04:41 AM

You know, during the last presidential campaign the Republican party was successful as brandishing anyone who considered themselves on the left as un-American, un-Christian, anti-family, pro-queer, blah-blah. Very negative, polarizing .. and just plain ugly. The Democrats refrained from labeling right wingers as bible-toting, homophobic, xenophonic, NRA-loving, militaristic Nazis ... or at least delegated the name calling duties to Michael Moore and Howard Dean. It's not surprising that more than a third of registered voters didn't go to the polls in the 2004 election; why vote for people who spend millions spouting out hateful rubbish?

Let's just hope in 2008 there is more constructive dialogue. Should Hilary run I don't want to hear about the Monica Lewinsky shit, much like I didn't want to hear about Swift Boat ads or Dubya's elusive "military record". Likewise polarizing issues such as gay marriage and abortion actually directly impact a minority of people (5% of folks are gay, most women do not get abortions, and I assume very few gay women get abortions eek ) ... and they lead to very ugly campaigning. Economic, education, welfare and foreign policy matters are boring BUT these should be the headline issues.

Hilary Clinton, with her hubby in the background, is capable of understanding and working economic, education, welfare and foreign policy matters. I don't give a poop about her views on abortion and gay rights because ultimately the courts will drive these matters in on direction or another .. and these issues don't impact my life. I suppose then my only wish wrt these issues is that whomever gets into office he/she selects "balanced" individuals to lead the higher courts.

So let's wait to see how Hilary handles the important issues. Yes, she is certainly one "un-huggable" individual. As a former New Yorker I was *very* unhappy when she waltzed in from Arkansas to become senator of my home state. But much to my chagrine she seems to be doing a capable job.

Stepping off my soapbox...

_Lazza

PS - other folks have posted suggesting Rudy Guilliani would make a good presidential candidate. Unfortunately although he may be well-liked overall I cannot envision the Republican party endorsing someone who isn't part of their establishment. The same holds true for John McCain.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lazza:

Shahram's bullshit in bold.

You know, during the last presidential campaign the Republican party was successful as brandishing anyone who considered themselves on the left as un-American, un-Christian, anti-family, pro-queer, blah-blah. Very negative, polarizing .. and just plain ugly.

That's why Karl Rove makes the big money. It worked. Poison tongue smack talkin' sells, almost as well as sex does. Ain't you heard, man? America's UNDER ATTACK!!! It's time to stop the faggoty liberal freedom haters before they send us into a den of sodomy and sound Gabriel's mighty horn!!!

The Democrats refrained from labeling right wingers as bible-toting, homophobic, xenophonic, NRA-loving, militaristic Nazis...

They didn't need to. The right wing element in this country (sometimes mistakenly called "conservatives" that could be more accurately described as "Police State Liberals") actually ARE a bunch of sick fucking wannabe fascists.

or at least delegated the name calling duties to Michael Moore and Howard Dean.

I disagree, at least about Dean. Dean had a classy run, and was the ONLY Dem candidate that offered a true opposition to the current regime.

It's not surprising that more than a third of registered voters didn't go to the polls in the 2004 election; why vote for people who spend millions spouting out hateful rubbish?

Or, more importantly, why bother voting, when neither viable candidate is acceptable, and there is no "No Confidence" vote. I still vote, but I know my vote is meaningless, because I refuse to vote for either of the two major parties.

Let's just hope in 2008 there is more constructive dialogue.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAGH!!! Constructive dialogue!!! HA!!! Eh, smoke another one bro!!!

Should Hilary run I don't want to hear about the Monica Lewinsky shit, much like I didn't want to hear about Swift Boat ads or Dubya's elusive "military record".

What is it 2001Frontier keeps telling people? Oh yeah, move to another country if you don't like how this one is run. Shit, you'd get more honest elections in Zimbabwe or El Salvador then you will here at home in '08.

Likewise polarizing issues such as gay marriage and abortion actually directly impact a minority of people (5% of folks are gay, most women do not get abortions, and I assume very few gay women get abortions eek ) ... and they lead to very ugly campaigning.

Horrible, ugly, successful campaigning, that brings out the hordes of recently bipedal Neanderthals, who normally don't vote because the true issues are WAY the fuck beyond their scope, to throw their salvo at the faggoty Volvo crowd, who normally don't vote because the true issues are WAY beyond their scope, and vice versa.

Economic, education, welfare and foreign policy matters are boring BUT these should be the headline issues.

Of course they should, but what do you want from the candidates, a ten-point plan highlighting how they're going to fuck you up the ass, steal your shit and give it to their friends? Why not talk about gay marriage instead?

Hilary Clinton, with her hubby in the background, is capable of understanding and working economic, education, welfare and foreign policy matters.

Good point. Billy boy was the best Republican president we ever had.

I don't give a poop about her views on abortion and gay rights because ultimately the courts will drive these matters in on direction or another .. and these issues don't impact my life.

Nice. You're half-way there, my friend...

I suppose then my only wish wrt these issues is that whomever gets into office he/she selects "balanced" individuals to lead the higher courts.
So let's wait to see how Hilary handles the important issues. Yes, she is certainly one "un-huggable" individual.

Her nomination would be political suicide for the Democrats in '08 for that very reason. She's a smart lady, and has run a successful political machine, but she is unlikable, and for good reason. She lacks that genuine quality that guys like Dean and McCain have, that vehement sincerity, that quality that keeps them out of the White House. I also feel the same way about GW, I think he's a fucking fraud, but his cutesy cowboy act seems to have won over a lot of people, some in present company.

As a former New Yorker I was *very* unhappy when she waltzed in from Arkansas to become senator of my home state. But much to my chagrine she seems to be doing a capable job.

Stepping off my soapbox...

_Lazza

PS - other folks have posted suggesting Rudy Guilliani would make a good presidential candidate. Unfortunately although he may be well-liked overall I cannot envision the Republican party endorsing someone who isn't part of their establishment. The same holds true for John McCain.

Giuliani's still in the running for future positions, but you're right, he's not part of this particular crowd. He kisses enough of their asses in my opinion, but he hasn't put in his dues with them. The problem with Giuliani is he's apparently got mad skeletons in his closet. John McCain is the most unelectable motherfucker out there. He's too much of a cowboy, and the last thing either party needs is some Golden Boy messing things up because he wants to do the "right thing."
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 11:02 AM

Thanks Shahram for your ..crisp.. thoughts. wink

I basically agree with your ranting but I try not to be so cynical (or should I say, realistic?). Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems? Hilary is very polarizing but she might win a majority of the women Republican voters .. just because getting a woman in the White House is more important than the policies she represents. I cannot believe has-been John Edwards has a chance (and the man's only qualification is having a pretty smile), and the current collection of senators out there from either party are generally pretty awful.

One guy in the senate who *seems* decent is Chuck Hagel, a Republican. But after the 2000 election I cannot seeing myself voting Republican regardless of the candidate's credibility. I'm not proud of this, ..kinda sucks really.., but at least there are probably millions of other Americans with the same attitude.

_Lazza
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lazza:
Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems?
Evan Bayh
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 04:19 PM

Quote:
Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems? Hilary is very polarizing but she might win a majority of the women Republican voters .. just because getting a woman in the White House is more important than the policies she represents.
Contrary to your popular belief, Republican women wouldn't vote for Hilary, just because she's a woman. You're forgetting something very, very important... Women who are Republicans don't give a shit about "women's lib"... Hell, even my mom, a former hippie, who spent most of the late 60s, 70s, and 80s going to boycotts, stand-ins, sit-ins, bra-burners, etc., wouldn't vote for Hilary. And she even voted for freaking Dukakis!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 04:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lazza:
Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems?
There are plenty of Democrat governors that can run. Haven't most of the recent presidents ran as governors?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 04:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
Quote:
Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems? Hilary is very polarizing but she might win a majority of the women Republican voters .. just because getting a woman in the White House is more important than the policies she represents.
Contrary to your popular belief, Republican women wouldn't vote for Hilary, just because she's a woman. You're forgetting something very, very important... Women who are Republicans don't give a shit about "women's lib"... Hell, even my mom, a former hippie, who spent most of the late 60s, 70s, and 80s going to boycotts, stand-ins, sit-ins, bra-burners, etc., wouldn't vote for Hilary. And she even voted for freaking Dukakis!
I think a fairly small number of people would vote for her solely because she's a woman, and a fairly small number of people would vote against her because she's a woman (dudes like Stone, apparently) - but it would pretty much cancel out. I still think that if she were to run against a polarlizing hard-right Republican, she would win. But if she ran against a moderate Republican, she would lose.

All of this presupposes that there's no other major terrorist attack on American soil - if that happens during Bush's second term, the Republicans are up shit creek.

Personally, I could see myself voting for either party next time around depending on who they put forth - I'm not a "gimmie" vote.
Posted by: DocNo

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 05:22 PM

I just wish we had instant run-off elections.

Vote for your top two choices. Would inject some true diversity instead of this "two party" system we have now - where both parties, when you get down to it, really are the same: look out for me and my buddies best interests and damn everyone else frown
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 05:52 PM

Perhaps a cummulative voting system? For the primaries, make it a free-for-all where everybody gets 2 or 3 votes - you can throw them all behind one person or split them out to hedge. Then for the general election pick the top 3 from the primaries and have another vote (again with cummulative voting).

This way, the more liberal Republicans and more conservative Democrats could actually have a chance of winning, which more of America would prefer to having two fairly extreme candidates to choose from.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 04/06/05 06:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DocNo:
I just wish we had instant run-off elections.

Vote for your top two choices. Would inject some true diversity instead of this "two party" system we have now - where both parties, when you get down to it, really are the same: look out for me and my buddies best interests and damn everyone else frown
Bad idea. If you only want to vote for one candidate, this would force you to vote for one you hate, or have no vote at all if you don't pick a 2nd choice. If you could pick a candidate as your 1st & 2nd choise, it may work, but that would defeat the whole thing. Having a run off election in case a seat is required to have 50% of the votes would be fairer by pitting the top 2 vote getters against each other.

And how would this fix anything when the guy with the most votes wins even if it is less than 50%.

We are not fixed to a 2 party systrem. If a 3rd party started and made sure their canidiate was on all the ballots, had good advertising and could get at least 10% in the polls, they could win an election. Most 3rd parties are one issue parties. The last election we had Green, Communist, Liberarian, Prohibition and a few others I can't remember.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 07:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric P.:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lazza:
[b]Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems?
There are plenty of Democrat governors that can run. Haven't most of the recent presidents ran as governors?[/b]
Yup. Most Presidents are former governors, NOT former Congress-men. There's a reason for that... Too many bills through Congress, with assinine clauses, that makes a person vote yes for one thing, then no, the next time around. Makes them look like they don't know how to take a stand/position on anything. The comprimising gets them in trouble, when it comes to being the leader of the country.

So that's one more thing Hillary will have to worry about, if she were to run. She'll have to have some sort of experience being the leader of something (like maybe a VP, first), before she will be a candidate that could win the Presidency. I would expect her to run as a VP in 2008, not the Pres.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 07:32 AM

The current Republican party is imploding, what with the fundies pissed off at the moderates, the moderates pissed off at the fundies, and the corporate hacks pissed at both sides.

All the Dems have to do is sit back, drink some iced tea, and enjoy the show.

The only thing that would unite the Republicans at this point would be if Hillary got nominated. They ALL hate her.

Which is why I really hope they DON'T nominate her. It would be suicide.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 07:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
The current Republican party is imploding, what with the fundies pissed off at the moderates, the moderates pissed off at the fundies, and the corporate hacks pissed at both sides.
Really? Gee, I guess I should look around some more... I have yet to see a Republican say they weren't going to vote Republican anymore, based on this "implosion"... Hell, there's not a chance that the so-called "fundi's" or the so-called "moderates" are going to swing their votes over to the dumb, err, dark side...

It's not Hillary that unites us... It's Democrats in general...
Posted by: jerseydevi1

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 08:03 AM

you'll have to excuse WilMac...he's been sipping the "iced tea"
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 08:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
Quote:
Originally posted by WilMac1023:
[b]The current Republican party is imploding, what with the fundies pissed off at the moderates, the moderates pissed off at the fundies, and the corporate hacks pissed at both sides.
Really? Gee, I guess I should look around some more... I have yet to see a Republican say they weren't going to vote Republican anymore, based on this "implosion"... Hell, there's not a chance that the so-called "fundi's" or the so-called "moderates" are going to swing their votes over to the dumb, err, dark side...

It's not Hillary that unites us... It's Democrats in general...[/b]
There's already been some rumbling - fundies v. corporates.

Each believes they deserve what they want - and they don't coincide.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 09:11 AM

Frist is already in the doghouse with Republicans for letting some moderates go over his head and negotiate a deal with Democrats.

Not only that, the man is a DOCTOR that believes you can get AIDS from saliva. Yeah, that's the kind of genius Americans want running the country.

Santorum has said a TON of asanine things.

Not to mention all the hot water DeLay has found himself in.

You all have a MAJORITY in the House, Senate, you have the Presidency, and a majority on the Supreme Court, and you STILL haven't been able to get shit accomplished. And the reason is because of the corporate vs. fundie fight that is going on in the Republican ranks.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 09:48 AM

The Republicans are suffering from being too successful in the last election. They snuggled up to the far right despite their better judgement, and now the far right expect payback (on abortion and gay rights issues, for example) .. and rightly so. Easier said than done, with most moderate Republicans dragging their feet on such issues and wishing their far right constituents would simply go away. They won't.

Now we have the usual political scandals, with the latest being with DeLay. The Dems won't let this go away. If DeLay is proven to be a sleazeball the Republicans will outcast him in a second, but the damage will already have been done.

And let's not forget Iraq and related noise (abuse issues at Gitmo). Stuff like this stick.

So no, I don't think the Republican party is imploding ... not by a long shot. But the euphoria of the 2004 elections is over. All is not well with them but with the likes of Karl Rove around I expect they'll do wonders in the next election.

_Lazza

PS - however if gas prices do not drop I'd say the Republicans are in really deep doo-doo. [LOL]
Posted by: Mobycat

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 09:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lazza:
All is not well with them but with the likes of Karl Rove around I expect they'll do wonders in the next election.
This is why I really wish the Republican's worst nightmare would return to the political stage...James Carville. Love him or hate him, he's just as effective as Rove.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lazza:
Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems?
Barak Obama...

That is, if America can get past having a black president with a funny name. Lord knows, they probably can't.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shahram:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lazza:
[b]Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems?
Barak Obama...

That is, if America can get past having a black president with a funny name. Lord knows, they probably can't.[/b]
I could see him winning at some point, but I think '08 is a bit early - he's still pretty new to the national scene.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
Hell, there's not a chance that the so-called "fundi's" or the so-called "moderates" are going to swing their votes over to the dumb, err, dark side...
Are you serious? The true moderates of both parties can swing either way in an election. I'm sure a lot of moderate Republicans would certainly not vote for somebody like Santorum or DeLay.

I used to be a registered Republican (now I'm an independent), and there is absolutely positively NO WAY IN HELL that I would ever even slightly consider voting for somebody like DeLay or Santorum. I don't give a shit who's on the other side - I don't think the best thing for America right now is a bigoted corrupt Nazi.

That's not to say I'd like to cast my vote for somebody like Hillary or Kerry - but if it's one of them versus a right-wing neo-con, I will. Ideally I'll get to vote for a more moderate candidate (from either party).

If the Republicans keep moving to the right they'll find themselves on the other side of the power balance very quickly.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 01:27 PM

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 02:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Rat:
At least you were right in calling all your comments "Bullshit".

Yep, as conservatives, we're all a bunch of sick wannabe fascists. If we were, we'd just shoot liberal scum like you on sight. But instead we refrain and let you talk all the shit about this country and its leadership that you want because this is America, and you have that right.

Put down the houka.
First, learn how to fucking spell. Second, show me any statement I've ever made that could remotely be considered "liberal" (at least in the textbook sense). I know you're not that smart, but it's just one word, and you should learn its meaning, especially if you're gonna go applying it to people. Third, since when is it a bad thing to "talk shit about this country and its leadership"? This country's leadership stinks to high hell, and its denizens are the dumb fucks who allow them to bend us over the counter. More people should be talking shit about this country and its leadership--we're getting fucked, not fondled, and it's about damn time you "conservatives" (conservative is in quotation marks because you're not conservative, you're Police State Liberals, as opposed to Welfare State Liberals) woke the fuck up and realized your blind adherence to this wannabe John Wayne propaganda is spurious, worth fuck-all, and call it what you want, it ain't "conservative" and it sure as hell ain't "defending freedom". It's corporate greed in a cowboy hat, and if you aren't smart or aware enough to see that, then you deserve the shitstorm you reap.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 03:58 PM

Near as I can tell, the only thing I mispelled is your Arabian dope smoking device.

If fuckwads like you would spend a little more time trying to make your country a better place rather than just pissing and moaning about how fucked up you think it is, maybe....JUST MAYBE things would improve.

Do you vote?
Do you get involved in your community and get active in matters important to you?

Or do you just expect someone else to do it for you?

I vote in every election. I'm active with federal and local land use agencies around multi use issues. I spent 5 years in the military, including the first gulf war. I voluneteer for the USFS and worked for them all through high school and college. I provide a great website similar to XOC to thousands of people free of charge. I'm an NRA member - because I believe in my second amendment rights.

What do you give back to your country? Don't tell me about all the taxes you pay because I'm sure I've paid more than you have.

What makes me a "police state liberal"? Is it because I get annoyed hearing people like you bitch about the country I love? Is it because I look around the world and see that this is still the best country on the planet in which to live and prosper? Is it because I work hard to make a good living for me and my family and don't think that handouts to those who won't work for themselves should be given? Or is it because I support our military along with the decision to oust a tyrant guilty of 25 years of genocide against his own people? Well....Which is it?

You're right. Perhaps I am misusing the word, "liberal". It's very easy around here to apply that term to every cry baby who complains about the way things are without lifting a finger to do anything about it. On second thought, maybe I'm not so far off after all.

You're all talk.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 06/06/05 06:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Rat:
Near as I can tell, the only thing I mispelled is your Arabian dope smoking device.

You're right, you so rarely "mispell"...it's low of me to bring it up...I apologize.

If fuckwads like you would spend a little more time trying to make your country a better place rather than just pissing and moaning about how fucked up you think it is, maybe....JUST MAYBE things would improve.

You're right, maybe I should join the NRA or join a Pro-Life group, or give my money and time to the GOP...then the world would be a happy, prosperous place.

Do you vote?

Always. Mostly for candidates you've never heard of. I call them "wasted votes", partly because they're wasted, and partly because I must be wasted to keep voting for freak candidates that have no chance of winning anything.

Do you get involved in your community and get active in matters important to you?

Sure I do. I regularly enrich the lives of retards here on XOC. Hey, I'm doing it right now! What do I win?

Or do you just expect someone else to do it for you?

Wait, I can expect someone else to waste their vote for me? What a country!!!

I vote in every election.

Yeah...for the wrong candidates. Next.

I'm active with federal and local land use agencies around multi use issues.

Okay, that's commendable, but aside from benefitting people who like to 'wheel, how is this practice beneficial to the world?

I spent 5 years in the military, including the first gulf war.

Wow...so now the citizens of the great nation of Kuwait can enjoy their Filipino indentured servants in peace. Sorry...not impressed.

I voluneteer for the USFS and worked for them all through high school and college. I provide a great website similar to XOC to thousands of people free of charge.

Does your website feed, clothe, educate? Does it provide some sort of platform for the voices of suppressed Chinese dissidents or something? No? Then, other than entertainment, which I agree is of the utmost importance, what sort of service do you provide?

I'm an NRA member - because I believe in my second amendment rights.

I believe in my rights too. I want to keep my guns, but the NRA continually backs Republican candidates that work night and fucking day to undermine other rights while posing to back the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, 2nd Amendment doesn't mean shit if you don't have a 4th or a 1st.

What do you give back to your country? Don't tell me about all the taxes you pay because I'm sure I've paid more than you have.

By virtue of the fact that you're older than me and make more money would allude to the fact that you have, in fact, paid more taxes than I have. Whoopee. And what, like my stoner wisdom and scathing humor aren't enough of a contribution?

What makes me a "police state liberal"? Is it because I get annoyed hearing people like you bitch about the country I love?

What's the matter? Don't think the country can stand up to the criticism?

Is it because I look around the world and see that this is still the best country on the planet in which to live and prosper? Is it because I work hard to make a good living for me and my family and don't think that handouts to those who won't work for themselves should be given? Or is it because I support our military along with the decision to oust a tyrant guilty of 25 years of genocide against his own people? Well....Which is it?

Well, for starters it could be your constant adherence and vehement defense of a Party which constantly works with its "opposition" to provide its corporate backers with political and legal carte blanche. It could also be your willingness to agree whole-heartedly with a political machine that, together with its allies across the aisle, undermines political competition and opposition in order to extinguish any possible chance of an interloper candidate or party, not to mention its constant attack on the delicate system of checks and balances that keep this country in some semblance of political equilibrium. Mostly it's your admitted allegiance to a Party that continually fails to recognize the rights of the individual to privacy and self-determination, and the support of its mad power grab that will result in the loss of more freedom and further militarization of American culture and life. Police State Liberal, like it or not, that's what you are.

You're right. Perhaps I am misusing the word, "liberal". It's very easy around here to apply that term to every cry baby who complains about the way things are without lifting a finger to do anything about it. On second thought, maybe I'm not so far off after all.

No, you're right on. You are misusing the word "liberal", especially when it is applied to you. I see you here crying and moaning just as much as WilMac or Dobermann or anyone else.

You're all talk.

Whatever you say, action man.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 07/06/05 08:33 AM

[Laughing] I made my points. Your comebacks are thin at best.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 07/06/05 08:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pnwbeers:
Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
[b]Hell, there's not a chance that the so-called "fundi's" or the so-called "moderates" are going to swing their votes over to the dumb, err, dark side...
Are you serious? The true moderates of both parties can swing either way in an election. I'm sure a lot of moderate Republicans would certainly not vote for somebody like Santorum or DeLay.

I used to be a registered Republican.....
.....Republicans keep moving to the right they'll find themselves on the other side of the power balance very quickly.[/b]
Agreed.

I'm a Republican by registration, but consider myself a swing voter. I vote for the person, not the party. Kerry's redux of his Vietnam press conferences (this time against Gulf II), didn't qualify as an effective campaigning method, so there was no way for him to earn my vote.

My hope is that both parties will come up with candidates who want what's best for America and have the facilities to employ solutions. I want to be torn between two strong candidates instead of feeling like I'm voting for the "lesser evil".
Posted by: great pyr-hauler

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 06:51 AM

I don't think Shahram told us one good thing he does for the country in his comeback, unless you count bitching and moaning. A good attempt at some witty comebacks but not much substance. All I got out of it was that he votes for worthless candidates and likes to bitch. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 08:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by great pyr-hauler:
I don't think Shahram told us one good thing he does for the country in his comeback, unless you count bitching and moaning. A good attempt at some witty comebacks but not much substance. All I got out of it was that he votes for worthless candidates and likes to bitch. Keep up the good work.
Don't worry. This is typical for his posts. In his never-ending attempt at wittiness, he never, ever, posts anything of substance. Or any actual useful information in a comeback. In all honesty, he really sucks at the whole internete arguement... You can't always win by being funny...most times you just end up looking stupid.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
Quote:
Originally posted by great pyr-hauler:
Shahram's so crazy, I wanna have his baby.
True dat. Shahram is da hotness.
Listen, kids, I'm only gonna say this once.

It's the internet. More importantly, it's XOC.

I never post anything of substance. It's true. But for your own sake, please don't come to XOC for substance. You want substance? Read a fucking book. Pick up the latest issue of the Economist. Take a college course, or visit a museum. You ain't gonna get it from XOC.
Plus, it's not exactly wise to get into some sort of substantial argument with some mouth-breather who doesn't understand the basic fundamentals of politics, culture, history, or anything else about how the world is formed around him. How can you have a proper discussion with someone whose only response is "Well, if you don't like it, why don't you move to Iran where you came from." We're not exactly talking about an exchange between geniuses here.
I've tried arguing with fact, but it's slow, and these threads happen quick. Plus, facts are usually ignored:

Shahram: According to the Tax Foundation, California subsidizes the nation at unrivaled levels....here are some numbers...

Desert_Rat: I don't care about numbers. Californians is faggots. Faggots should go back to Mexico.

off2cjb: Jesus hates faggots. And Mexicans. When MY Lord comes, they will all pay for their transgressions against America.

porsche996: And if you don't like it, you should pack up your Volvo and leave the country.

2001Frontier: And while you're at it, take your Mexican boyfriend with you!

See? That was taken from an actual thread! The only thing I left out was the 82 misspellings and 347 grammar mistakes.

My point is, any amount of substance would probaby be wasted on you lot, so why bother? The best I can hope for is that I get a laugh out of somebody. One thing you can't argue is that my posts are consistently funny. And if they're not funny, they're at least entertaining.

Maybe I do suck at the whole "internete debate" thingy...so you're like, what, XOC's James Carville now? You've got the market cornered on wit and wisdom? C'mon, dude, I've seen enough of your posts to conclude that you aren't exactly the Modern Enlightened Man you'd like to think you are.

You CAN always win by being funny. Being funny brings you out of the game, it transcends the argument. It breaks the tension. It flusters, frustrates, and generally fucks with people who get so caught up in their own bullshit, that they can't see straight. It's fun. And as for me looking stupid, well, I'm definitely not afraid to look stupid. Hell, I'd rather look stupid than be stupid.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 11:57 AM

I guess this is why it's called the "Xterra Owner's Club". Lurker!

Seems to me that some folks have been banned for inciting arguments without having anything productive to say.

I guess we've been through all of this before haven't we?

Enjoy your thoughts as you're the only one who cares about them. Have a pleasant stay will ya? [Wave]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 12:06 PM

Woohoo! Since we're playing the, "stupid quotes from stupid folks" game, here's a few classics:

(Note, they are ALL from Sharam...)

"Nope, the next truck I buy will have been built by some ancestor-worshipping kamikaze midget, not some PBR-drunk Bubba with a third-grade education and a $40 a day meth habit to support."

"I dated a junkie, okay"

"Don't forget that Dec. 7th marks the beginning of "Chakakhan", the Jewish celebration of Christmas. The Jew lights seven candles, one for each Jew banker that lives underneath the earth in a secret bunker and controls the world's money supply."

And finally:

"Hey, didn't I win this thread last week?"

You did get one thing right, though. You definately only post things that you think are funny. Come to think of it, when taken out of context, you are pretty funny. Or sad. I can't figure out which.

Saddest thing is, as much as you profess to hate XOC, the members here, the conversations, etc., you still keep coming here. I realize this must be your relief...posting illegible psuedo-intelligent dribble trying to man-up to whomever you're responding, by attempting to sound intellectually humorous. See, I can throw together a bunch of words in some random order, and sound stupid doing it, too. The thing is, this is how all your posts come off. I only hope, for your sake, you are only sounding stupid, instead of being stupid.

So go ahead. Pick through this post, and do the only thing you're good at...spell check. Congratulations. I've found that the only purpose you serve is to spell check others. Congratulations! You've now relegated yourself as a cheap Microsoft tool.

Keep the spell check coming. XOC definately needs a spell checking secretary. God knows we all forgot how to spell, once computers came around. Turns out it's not worth the effort when any monkey w/ a keyboard can do it for you. [ThumbsUp]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 12:19 PM

Damn You fixed your typo before I could quote it... Nice job, now what the hell can he do?
Posted by: socalpunx

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 12:21 PM

I can't possibly be the only person that thinks Shahram brings the funny can I?

As far as his not having an Xterra, there are a lot of people who post here that don't drive an X (anymore or never had one) that are less entertaining than Angry Sharamy.

No one is going to change the world with any political discussions on XOC anyways. Nor is anyone going to change their mind with anything anyone says here.

And Desert_Rat, excepting your military service, your social contributions seem only related to issues that directly affect you and there is probably someone working harder than you are to counter your efforts. It's the American way.

So really, by doing nothing but standing on the sidelines and bitching, Shahram is probably breaking even. laugh
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 12:28 PM

I'd buy Desert_Rat a beer before I would Shahram, unless I'm coming out of the Men's room with it. eek

It's all in fun! Good ol' internet, gatta love it! [Laughing]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 12:29 PM

He can be funny, sometimes. But he never, ever has anything meaningful to add. Sure, comic relief is almost always a good thing....but when it's the ONLY thing a person is good for, well, it can be pretty annoying.

edit: I'm sorry, Conundrum, to take away your typo catch of mine... I'll be honest; I can't spell worth shiite, and I usually have a few typos as well...
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 12:57 PM

No appologies needed... Just was playing around. At least most of those that post here aren't doing all Acronyms. Jeez I hate those. If you're not an internet Chat room junkie you can't decipher them for crap!

We'll leave the B.S. and Typo identification to that other guy! [ThumbsUp]

Back on topic: I don't think she could win. The Dem's should have learned by now that Polls don't win elections and vilifying the opponent personally or through others doesn't work either. Case in point Howard "Scream" Dean... I think the Dem's are going to be hard pressed for a non-polarizing candidate that can actually win.

It would be nice to have someone that brings the country together, but with such extreme differences in opinions, someone has to be on the loosing end of the stick. Too bad the Republican's can feel like winners and stick to their guns. Get Bolton "Vilify" in and whatever, whoever completed, confirmed. Hopefully there will be a Two-Thirds Majority next time around and there won't be the threat of Filibustering anymore without having to change the rules to suit the ruling "Majority" Party.

I guess we'll see.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 01:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shahram:
Desert_Rat: I don't care about numbers. Californians is faggots. Faggots should go back to Mexico.
.
Wow, putting words in my mouth, eh? Never said that.....but now that you mentioned it.....

There's people from Cali that are good friends of mine. Most are trying to figure out a way to get the hell out of there though.

As for me supporting my special interests....so what? If it makes a difference on something that's important to me, and it does contribute back to society. Shazam doesn't have to support those interests - he can go out and march in his gay pride parades and make a statement for something he believes in. My point was to do something about what you believe in rather than just sitting on the sidelines and crying about it.

Go find a Toyota site to spew your bullshit on.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 01:12 PM

Awe, come on, DR, you know if shazam quoted you, then you must've said it...

'Course, I'm still trying to think of any time when I've EVER used the word "volvo" in a conversation. Those things still made since Ford killed 'em?
Posted by: MyGoldX

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 01:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by porsche996:
Woohoo! Since we're playing the, "stupid quotes from stupid folks" game, here's a few classics:

(Note, they are ALL from Sharam...)

"Don't forget that Dec. 7th marks the beginning of "Chakakhan", the Jewish celebration of Christmas. The Jew lights seven candles, one for each Jew banker that lives underneath the earth in a secret bunker and controls the world's money supply."
I still think this one is funny...
Posted by: MyGoldX

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 01:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Rat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Shahram:
[qb]Desert_Rat: I don't care about numbers. Californians is faggots. Faggots should go back to Mexico.
.
Wow, putting words in my mouth, eh? Never said that.....but now that you mentioned it.....

QB]
I live in california and I can tell you, most of the faggots are not from mexico, they're from San Francisco. Most of the mexicans, however, seem to be in LA, except they seem to be migrating north at a rapid pace

wink
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: President Clinton - 08/06/05 03:16 PM

You guys do realize that you're still harping on the fact that I don't bring anything "meaningful" to the argument. Even after I explained why I won't bring anything "meaningful" to the argument. And to read your posts, one might get the impression that, contrary to me, you actually DO bring something "meaningful" to the argument. Which...you don't.

No, I don't own an Xterra anymore (thank God). Why do I keep coming back here? I don't know. Maybe out of habit. Maybe it's because it's familiar territory, I can always come here and laugh at you. Maybe it's because there's an audience that will laugh at my shit. It's like that underpaid, overworked Special Ed teacher who comes back to a thankless task year after year...I do it for the 'tards. I love you goofy bastards.
Posted by: Rainman_mark

Re: President Clinton - 22/02/13 11:13 PM

Any fuck who believes the USA Today/CNN are idiots.
Posted by: Gonzo-2

Re: President Clinton - 25/02/13 05:47 PM

"Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!"


It's an old thread. Let it go...