• i wouldnt vote for her if she were the last person on earth!


  • Get Bill back in the White House, ASAP!


  • @jckeil21:

    i wouldnt vote for her if she were the last person on earth!

    Of course not. If she was the last person on earth, you wouldn’t be there and thus you couldn’t vote :).
    And still, if she was the last person on earth, she would be voted with 100% of the votes.


  • 100% of 0 isnt a very big number. even 100% of 1, if you are that 1.
    hilary is…an interesting person. i wont say woman, because, well…you know.
    i strongly dislike her, but thats where it ends. some people are violently anti-hilary. those people are a little extreme, but i can sympathize with not liking her. i will be truly saddened for this country if she is elected.


  • I almost threw up when i saw two people say yes they would. It takes a hard core femi nazi to vote for hillary.


  • Outside of not being as open a philanderer as he, I see no difference between her and Bill. So that’s an emphatic “no.”

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Hillary? oh that… id rather vote for jesse jackson, even micheal jackson or “Bubbles” the chimp ( the “thing” that replaced emanuel lewis after he grew up) before that could happen.

    I heard Gary Coleman was running for president ? id vote for him… I got your Willis right here! 😮 😮 :oops:

  • '19 Moderator

    lol… I thought this was going to be one of those pols where the “no” option moves when you try to click it. I guess it wasn’t…


  • God forbid we return to the days of budget surplusses, peace, and a robust economy :roll:

    Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?

    Hell yea! my properties rent for 45% more than when Billy was in power.

    WE got rid of Saddam again without any help :roll:

    Taxes went way down.

    People are making hand over fist in real estate (about as good as 1989-1990)

    We now invade nations before they attack ( good progress nice preemtive posture)

    The cost of living hasnt really gone up compared to the amount of time that has passed.

    You got it right on that surplus thing. But after all wars gotta cost something not to mention natural disasters etc. You gotta pay to play baby!


  • @Imperious:

    Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?

    Taxes went way down.

    this will only last until your country realizes that it is in trouble debt-wise and a tax increase is required to pay off your debts.

    We now invade nations before they attack ( good progress nice preemtive posture)

    no you don’t. You havn’t done this . . . EVER.
    There is absolutely no evidence that anyone you have attacked was about to attack you. The Taliban ALREADY attacked you, and Iraq only had eyes on Iran (plus they did not have the means or the wherewithall to attack anyone).

    The cost of living hasnt really gone up compared to the amount of time that has passed.

    way to not make this QOL suck more than the others!

    You got it right on that surplus thing. But after all wars gotta cost something not to mention natural disasters etc. You gotta play to pay baby!

    Are you serious?? Are you really blaming deficit spending on Katrina? He’d been doing this for years before Katrina. This is why your taxes are lower. Do the math!
    As for the war - this is such a joke for the rest of us watching the US pi$$ your money away.


  • I think IL is trolling.

    Don’t feed the trolls!

  • '19 Moderator

    I don’t know, I’d say if that was trolling it wasn’t any more so than what you said… 😉

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The Taliban ALREADY attacked you, and Iraq only had eyes on Iran (plus they did not have the means or the wherewithall to attack anyone).

    Facts: We were attacked by Osama and his organization known as al qaeda, the Taliban was in control of the nation where we had to invade into too take out his organization. Of course the Taliban wasnt good for their people either. The Taliban didnt attack the towers. So my point is correct and you need to crack a book open soon.

    Saddam ran his nation into the ground and clearly went against the very rules established by the united nations after the gulf war which they started. The fact that Osama had to move into another nation to host his activities and the fact that Sadamm threatens our interests in the region allows us to use our big stick to knock him down before he activated his power to do evil in the world again. This was another preemtive attack. now we have two which makes a pattern of national policy.

    Hopefully we can take out Iran soon or North Korea and finish the job.


  • @Mary:

    God forbid we return to the days of… a robust economy :roll:

    Real GDP is up 3.3% this quarter. Since the beginning of 2003, the economy has had good, consistent, even spectacular growth, considering how high the oil prices are. Plus, inflation has been kept in check. Economic growth with very little inflation - an economists’ dream come true.

    http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

    But it was a jobless recovery? The current unemployment rate is 4.9%.

    http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

    Look at the raw job creation numbers, very positive again.

    I think the economy is pretty robust, except for the oil prices, if you actually look at the numbers and do the research. Every indicator
    suggests a robust economy: job growth, GDP growth, consumer spending, industrial production, inflation, etc. I feel sorry for the people who are bitter and stubborn who try to downplay and criticize the strength of the U.S. economy right now because they are mostly ignorant to the facts.

    As for the budget deficits, we just need to control the spending. I hate to say it but President Bush and Congress spend like crazy (Democrats and Republicans). Nonetheless, the budget deficit continues to decline because of increased tax revenues. But there haven’t been any increases in taxes, so how can that be???

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10002188.shtml


  • Poverty level rising (37 million now in poverty, according to Census Bearuea), household income flat (again, Census Beaurea), manufacturing disappearing, another 800,000 medically uninsured, and have you checked your 401k recently? Mine has had negative growth for the least four years. The DOW or S&P still have yet to reach pre-9/11 levels. And you can knock off about a point of GDP growth when the housing bubble bursts. It all looks great on paper until you realize that “job growth” too often = one $60,000 a year job gone while two $20,000 a year jobs are created. This says it all:

    "Although the economy expanded solidly in 2004, the inflation-adjusted income of the median household was unchanged and remains $1,700, or 3.8%, below its most recent peak in 1999, according to yesterday’s release by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

    The main factor explaining this significant, ongoing decline in household income appears to be the faltering job market, especially regarding real annual earnings, which fell significantly for both men (-2.3%) and women (-1.0%). The decline for men was the largest one-year drop since 1990; for women, it was the biggest fall since 1995.

    EPI’s analysis of the Census data shows that increased hours of work actually raised mid-level household annual incomes by 0.5% in 2004, but that real hourly wage decline subtracted that much and more (-1.3%) from income growth.
    http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20050831

    When you start digging deeper, it doesn’t look quite so rosy.

    But all this is icing on the cake. In the face of Medicare/S.S. bankruptcies we are running up massive budget deficits with no end in sight. Republicans have cut taxes, spent hundreds of billions on Iraq and Afghanistan, passed a huge highway bill loaded with pork($200 billion), and now we have to rebuild much of the Gulf Coast (perhaps another $200 billion). What the hell happened to the Republican party? They used to be fiscally conservative.

    Edit: Here’s a source for my manufacturing claim:

    “The factory sector continues to be an exception to the generally positive trend in payroll growth. Manufacturing employment fell again in August, shedding 14,000 jobs, surpassing July’s loss of 6,000. Thus far this year, factory employment is down 78,000. This represents a clear reversal of what turned out to be a short-term positive trend last year in this sector, when manufacturing employment was up 69,000 January through August 2004”

    http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20050902


  • Candyman - I don’t think you’re being quite as accurate about the state of the economy as you could be. Growth has been good since 2003, no doubt, but for almost two years after the recession it was certainly a jobless recovery, as your own link shows. The US is still about a percentage point off of pre-recession unemployment levels, so in some sense there hasn’t been a full recovery, although that is of course to be expected.

    Deficits were projected to go down, although the relief packages for Katrina and Rita have certainly changed that. Don’t forget that trade and current account deficits are making up for lower budget deficits. Essentially, US is exporting debt to enable greater consumption at home.

    http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/sawhill/20050816.htm
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1579037,00.html

    Most of the major indicators point to US economy which is still strong, but is increasingly showing signs of major imbalance. Consumer confidence has decreased (http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10003423.shtml), likely because of the contraction of oil supplies (perceived or otherwise) from Katrina, Iraq, and Venezuela. The current accounts deficit is sustainable in the short-term, but the nightmare scenario is of shocks greatly disrupting the US ability to continue financing, or of Asian countries refusing to buy up US debts. More longer-term, the US savings rate fell to 0% last month, which threatens financial stability and continuing domestic investment. Finally, capital markets aren’t exactly encouraging. Despite a weak dollar, the US trade deficit has continued to increase.

    Deficits unfortunately aren’t as easy to control as you might suggest. This administration came in on a smaller government platform, but has wildly exceeded the spending of most previous presidents. (See the David Brooks interview on the News Hour last Friday.) The difficulty in retracting the transportation bill and the lack of clear direction on funding Katrina relief should be considered an extremely troubling political situation for long-term economic stability.


  • Back on topic.

    I have heard somewhere that if Hillary should run for president (knock on wood that she hopefully doesn’t) that she would not get a single vote from a Republican male. As for the Republican candidate, how about Rudi Giuliani for President? (I know I probably spelt the name wrong and I appoligize.)

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yea id vote for him easily, and im sure he would win easily. Make Colin Powell his VP and maybe even 5% of the Blacks would turn out to vote for them too.


  • @Yahoo:

    WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2008 presidential election Monday, saying quote “I want to finally give women a chance to be behind the Oval Office desk, not under it.” Her move ended months of speculation among the press.


  • @Imperious:

    The Taliban ALREADY attacked you, and Iraq only had eyes on Iran (plus they did not have the means or the wherewithall to attack anyone).

    Facts: We were attacked by Osama and his organization known as al qaeda, the Taliban was in control of the nation where we had to invade into too take out his organization. Of course the Taliban wasnt good for their people either. The Taliban didnt attack the towers. So my point is correct and you need to crack a book open soon.

    yeah yeah, so i got a little lazy.
    This doesn’t change the fact that Bush appears to be the most reactive president ever. Your point is still wrong as Bush didn’t do anything until you got attacked.

    Saddam ran his nation into the ground and clearly went against the very rules established by the united nations after the gulf war which they started. The fact that Osama had to move into another nation to host his activities and the fact that Sadamm threatens our interests in the region allows us to use our big stick to knock him down before he activated his power to do evil in the world again. This was another preemtive attack. now we have two which makes a pattern of national policy.

    you still didn’t say anything to back up your point.
    Also - SH threatened nothing. He shot at people bombing his country, but that was about it. “activated his power to do evil in the world again”??? WAKE UP!! BUSH IS EVIL!

    Face it - Afghanistan was reactive, and Iraq was not pre-emptive - it was just imperialistic stupidity as you have killed many tens of thousands of innocent people at the cost of thousands of US soldiers. Stupid.

    Hopefully we can take out Iran soon or North Korea and finish the job.

    riiiight.
    :roll:
    Oh yeah - and i almost would like to see you attack Iran and NK. You would get the most obscene a$$-kicking you ever imagined. You are having trouble in a nation of 25 million moderates? I’m thinking that 68 million Persians are going to hand you your a$$ after ripping it off.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    SH threatened nothing. He shot at people bombing his country, but that was about it. “activated his power to do evil in the world again”??? WAKE UP!! BUSH IS EVIL!

    Yes Yes Saddam didnt threaten anybody he is a nice dictator who allows his sons to kill and rape women and perform national executions in public, all the while he is killing and gassing his own people to maintain political control of his great minority and invading Kuwait because Bush pushed him just too far… On the other hand Bush has gassed millions and ordered the hurricane to attack us and kill black people, while his Dad started AIDS and the BUSH family is a group of Satanists who plan to destroy the human race with constant wars against peaceful loving nations. Is this from the Democratic rally playbook? If it helps you get thru the day believing this crap then enjoy your bliss while you listen to NPR radio and play the bongo.

    Im sure its all Bush 41’s fault according to you people because hes a republican and you people allways just never accept problems from your side of the aisle. Just like that lush Ted Kennedy who allways tries to shoot down any Bush appointment just because Bush appointed him hating the fact you people didnt get into power and have to wait for another chance to make another 9th circus court of appeals.
    Its just so typical to blame the problem on the guy who inherited the problem from Clinton who did nothing to preemtively put an end to all threats both real and possible to the free world. Your political correctness cannot accept our “Imperialism” because it involves violence and this goes against your 60’s play guitar and pick flowers culture.

    War is a viable and necessary means to achieve peace after diplomacy fails. Wars will never end no matter how many times you vote for John Kerry-

    War out-


  • Back to the original question - I can’t say yes or no, because

    1. Are we certain she will run? If so, will she win the Democratic nomination?

    2. Who will run against her? I want to select the best person and I cannot know who that is until I have the full list of choices.

    3. Who will be the runningmates? This is important considering the VP could well be President someday?

    4. National context is important. Would she be a good fit for President in '08 considering the state of the nation then? We cannot know this until 2008.


  • @F_alk:

    @jckeil21:

    i wouldnt vote for her if she were the last person on earth!

    Of course not. If she was the last person on earth, you wouldn’t be there and thus you couldn’t vote :).
    And still, if she was the last person on earth, she would be voted with 100% of the votes.

    Not true falk, florida in 2000 proved that dems are not capable of using a voting machine correctly. Perhaps if there were only one hole to punch it might be a sure thing.


  • @Mary:

    God forbid we return to the days of budget surplusses, peace, and a robust economy :roll:

    Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?

    ahh, and the days b4 N Korea became a nuclear threat, letting bin laden go on 2 different occasions, ending the term in a recession, building up the whole .com bubble so that it would burst, giving our tech to the chinese, handicapping our trade for decades to come with Nafta, getting us involved in 2 conflicts we had no bussiness being in, the list goes on. Bush has his problems, but Clinton was a jacka$$.

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 5
  • 3
  • 15
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

48
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts