the "would you vote for Al Gore thread" has me wondering........

[brownsugargirl]

Why do so many of you hate Hillary Clinton? I am wanting to know political reasons, not personal ones. I am really just curious, don't want it to get ugly!

[annadrose]

I am not sure about her yet. I would vote for her if she were the Democratic nominee because I see nothing in the Republican candidates that represents me, a working person.

She is for health care and helping people to help themselves.

[flipper113]

Originally Posted by Carrie

What scares me most is nobody looks great to me. I still need to do a little more research but I can't say that I am for anyone. That scares me.

I have to agree with that! Even in our local elections, they are all a bunch I don't want representing me, pretty sad really.

[Cuthie]

I am always too picky.

I voted for Gore when he ran against Bush.

I had been undecided for about 3 or 4 elections prior to that and so I did not cast my vote.

I don't usually study the candidates until closer to the elections -- after the Primaries. I do not vote straight party. I vote based on the complete candidate including their personal opinions on the issues that are important to me.

[kathytheshopper]

Well, I've "heard" that Hillary has quite the temper, worse than John McCain!! I am apprehensive about universal health care plans. She doesn't ever say she is wrong and I know people hate that about George Bush. Still wondering about Vince Foster, Whitewater, all of Bills women problems, etc..
I'm really keeping my fingers crossed about Fred Thompson!! He will be an awesome candidate.
I don't trust most politicians but I really wouldn't trust her.

[lisacb]

Universal Health Care scares me to death. Sure, everyone is covered, but then it takes months to be seen by a doctor...even for serious things. Also, do you want the government running your Health Care? Just look at what a mess the prescription drug plan is and they will take over the whole thing if Universal Health Care goes through. Anyone who supports that scares the he$$ out of me!

Lisa

[kathytheshopper]

Originally Posted by lisacb

Universal Health Care scares me to death. Sure, everyone is covered, but then it takes months to be seen by a doctor...even for serious things. Also, do you want the government running your Health Care? Just look at what a mess the prescription drug plan is and they will take over the whole thing if Universal Health Care goes through. Anyone who supports that scares the he$$ out of me!

Lisa

Exactly. That scares the heck out of me too. I want to choose my doctor and I don't want MORE red tape!!!

[lovey367]

I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she wants to do away with the tax cuts, spend more money on lazy people who will not work, and she only says what she believes the polls say she should say. She has a horrible spending record in the senate, she has told numerous lies about her back ground, she abopts local dialects to make her seem more 'black' , 'southern' , 'eastern' and more of a New yorker.

I have no idea who she really is.

[allinaugust]

Originally Posted by lovey367

I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she wants to do away with the tax cuts, spend more money on lazy people who will not work, and she only says what she believes the polls say she should say. She has a horrible spending record in the senate, she has told numerous lies about her back ground, she abopts local dialects to make her seem more 'black' , 'southern' , 'eastern' and more of a New yorker.

I have no idea who she really is.

DITTO!!! And, how does she, or anyone else, think we will pay for this "universal" health care??? Every program takes tax dollars. I have just seen too many cases of people not working for their money. Why should I have to support someone who is just too lazy to work??? That is my problem with the Democrats in general.

[dreamscapes]

Who we really need in office is another Ronald Reagan! What he did for the United States Military families and servicemembers was simply AWESOME!!!

So far Fred Thompson is most "inline" with Ronald Reagan...

here's hoping.

[allinaugust]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

Who we really need in office is another Ronald Reagan! What he did for the United States Military families and servicemembers was simply AWESOME!!!

So far Fred Thompson is most "inline" with Ronald Reagan...

here's hoping.

Yes, something needs to be done. IMO, the morals/integrity of the military have gone a bit astray. But, not sure a president can rectify that.

[momshops]

To me Hillary Clinton is just slippery. I agree with lovey367, as I always perceive her to be patronizing her audience. We need healthcare reform, but her plans seem very abstract and I always feel she is speaking in soundbites about it. I do not like her "It Takes a Village" approach, which feels very socialistic to me.

And her history with her husband is not just a personal matter to me. I do not judge her for deciding to take her husband back, but I cannot stand him or his complete lack of integrity, and her choice of mate does play a part in forming my opinion of her character and judgment.

It's a shame, because I think a woman in charge right about now would be a big step in helping this country. But I'd vote for Minnie Mouse first.

[kvmj]

Think about this before you reject universal healthcare. My husband and I pay over $500 a month for the 2 of us through employer sponsored healthcare. If the government handles the program. I believe that the cost would be cut in half. From my perspective. I would rather pay it to the government than a greedy insurance company. It is unacceptable to me that 50,000,000 Americans are uninsured.

England's health care system was fine until Margaret Thatcher messed it up. All you have to do is look at the VA system to see an example of a system that works. Or look at France, Spain, Sweden, Finland or Denmark. They work.

[LBeadle]

I like Hillary but I'll be doing research before the primaries.

[brownsugargirl]

Originally Posted by allinaugust

DITTO!!! And, how does she, or anyone else, think we will pay for this "universal" health care??? Every program takes tax dollars. I have just seen too many cases of people not working for their money. Why should I have to support someone who is just too lazy to work??? That is my problem with the Democrats in general.

I can assure you democrats do not have the market cornered on lazy. I know for a fact there are lazy republicans, my inlaws! As they buy groceries with their foodstamp card and get free heating assistance in the winter, they are cussin' up a storm how the democrats are taxing them to death!! You have to earn a salary to be taxed! Gas is over 3 dollars a gallon, don't think for a second Bush is somewhat to blame, he is an oil man. AND, my inlaws have been known to say they wish the government would give gas cards like they do foodstamp cards! All the way to the store and gas station with their big ole George W sticker on their hoopty. Absolutely priceless.

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by kvmj

Think about this before you reject universal healthcare. My husband and I pay over $500 a month for the 2 of us through employer sponsored healthcare. If the government handles the program. I believe that the cost would be cut in half. From my perspective. I would rather pay it to the government than a greedy insurance company. It is unacceptable to me that 50,000,000 Americans are uninsured.

England's health care system was fine until Margaret Thatcher messed it up. All you have to do is look at the VA system to see an example of a system that works. Or look at France, Spain, Sweden, Finland or Denmark. They work.

If you are only paying out $500 a month for health insurance, consider yourself blessed! For a family of 3, we are paying out $950 a month (two bi-weekly payments of $475), plus we still have deductibles and co-pays.

Don't look at the VA system! it sucks! buildings are falling apart, the care is sub-standard compared to other hospitals at best...the appointments?? pfft...MONTHS in advance...want to make an appointment for a sniffle you have this week? Your appointment is set for August or September. (I know this because my Dad goes to the VA, and I am the one getting his appointments / visits set up).

The VA system is a good reason why we don't need "universal healthcare". If you want another two examples of this wonderful policy (not)...look at Canada's Universal Healthcare, and look at Russia's Universal Healthcare...for that matter, look at Poland's Universal Healthcare!!!

I would love to learn more about the results of Whitewater and her little messes. I don't trust Hillary at all.

There is a story on MSNBC's website today the title reads "Clinton: faith got me through marital woes" What a shame! He should have used his faith before he had the woes.

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by brownsugargirl

I can assure you democrats do not have the market cornered on lazy. I know for a fact there are lazy republicans, my inlaws! As they buy groceries with their foodstamp card and get free heating assistance in the winter, they are cussin' up a storm how the democrats are taxing them to death!! You have to earn a salary to be taxed! Gas is over 3 dollars a gallon, don't think for a second Bush is somewhat to blame, he is an oil man. AND, my inlaws have been known to say they wish the government would give gas cards like they do foodstamp cards! All the way to the store and gas station with their big ole George W sticker on their hoopty. Absolutely priceless.

Don't think for a second that lazy people = welfare or welfare = lazy people!

That is a BAD stereotype!

Did you know that in the state of Michigan, a family of 3 can earn no more than $3000 a month to qualify for food stamps and Medicaid??

Let's do a little math.... $3,000 a month, on a 40 hour work week (160 hours monthly) = $18.75 per hour!!

So, Joe Smith earns $16.00 per hour, for 40 hours a week for his family of three... he QUALIFIES for Food Stamps and Medicaid!!

Does that make him lazy? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! He is from Michigan where a Democrat runs this state and all the jobs are g-o-n-e! Michigan holds the largest number of unemployed workers as well as the largest number of foreclosed homes in the country...the only thing getting bigger is Gov Granholm's pockets from the profits she is making off gasoline here! (we run 20 to 30 cents higher per gallon than the nationwide average).

The other thing getting bigger is her effort to bring yet MORE of Canada's trash to fill up our state.

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by brownsugargirl

they are cussin' up a storm how the democrats are taxing them to death!! You have to earn a salary to be taxed!

Uh, you don't have to work to be taxed!

Own a home? How about property tax and School tax? Own a car? How about Usage Tax, Road Tax and sometimes property Tax?

You don't have to be working to get taxed!!

[brownsugargirl]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

Uh, you don't have to work to be taxed!

Own a home? How about property tax and School tax? Own a car? How about Usage Tax, Road Tax and sometimes property Tax?

You don't have to be working to get taxed!!

Uh, you don't have to be a democrat to be lazy either.

They rent a trailer house, own their beater of a car.....(in Oklahoma we don't pay taxes on cars, just 22.50/yr on car tags for cars over 20 yrs old). I stand corrected, you don't have to work to be taxed, and am so glad you pointed that out, but these upstanding republicans--DON'T work, suck off the government, and with their mouths full of government bought food, cuss democrats.

[dreamscapes]

I wasn't trying to insinuate that being a Democrat -= laziness. I was directly inferring to the fact that a Democrat (in our state) makes it possible to not have an income that is family sustainable and can be welfare qualified even if earning $18+ an hour--which if you think about it, most people would consider $18 an hour to be a "good paying job"...unless....of course....you are from Michigan.

Thanks to our Gov, the only jobs left here are low end type jobs (fast food, drug stores, gas stations, car washes)...the remaining former "good jobs" are going to other states, and our governor is not trying to bring more jobs back to Michigan.

I do think that if you get the right Democrat into any office--local, state or federal they will do a good job...just as the right Republican. There are bad on both sides of the political fence.

I would love to only pay $22.50 for our car every year. LOL...we don't have the property tax on our vehicles (Ohio does), but our tags are always based on the cost of the vehicle WHEN IT WAS NEW!! That will never change! So even when our car is 20 years old, it will be based on the MSRP from when it was new! ($174 a year).

[kvmj]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

If you are only paying out $500 a month for health insurance, consider yourself blessed! For a family of 3, we are paying out $950 a month (two bi-weekly payments of $475), plus we still have deductibles and co-pays.

Don't look at the VA system! it sucks! buildings are falling apart, the care is sub-standard compared to other hospitals at best...the appointments?? pfft...MONTHS in advance...want to make an appointment for a sniffle you have this week? Your appointment is set for August or September. (I know this because my Dad goes to the VA, and I am the one getting his appointments / visits set up).

The VA system is a good reason why we don't need "universal healthcare". If you want another two examples of this wonderful policy (not)...look at Canada's Universal Healthcare, and look at Russia's Universal Healthcare...for that matter, look at Poland's Universal Healthcare!!!

I would love to learn more about the results of Whitewater and her little messes. I don't trust Hillary at all.

There is a story on MSNBC's website today the title reads "Clinton: faith got me through marital woes" What a shame! He should have used his faith before he had the woes.

Actually, the reason that Walter Reed is falling apart is because Walter Reed is slated to be closed. All funds for maintenence were cut. I am not excusing this, Rumsfield made many stupid decisions and this was one of many. The veterans get good care and they are able to manage costs. My dad had excellent care until he died, but that was before Bushco took over. I am aware that there's a backlog for treating PTSD which affects 1/3 of returning vets.

Don't direct me to Poland or Russia or any other system that does not work. Why would we pattern a health care system after anything but the best?

If you want to know everything about Whitewater, just google "the Arkansas Project."

Assumptions are rarely a good basis for decisions. The MSNB article was about Hillary Clinton, not Bill.

[kvmj]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

If you are only paying out $500 a month for health insurance, consider yourself blessed! For a family of 3, we are paying out $950 a month (two bi-weekly payments of $475), plus we still have deductibles and co-pays.

Would you really rather pay $950 per month to an insurance company rather than paying $350 a month just because it's a tax. I think that I pay too much. I think that you pay way too much.

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

There is a story on MSNBC's website today the title reads "Clinton: faith got me through marital woes" What a shame! He should have used his faith before he had the woes.

If you read the article/story--it is referring to HILLARY CLinton and NOT Bill regarding the faith and marital woes. So, before you start spouting your venom, try reading the article.

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by lovey367

... and she only says what she believes the polls say she should say. She has a horrible spending record in the senate, she has told numerous lies about her back ground, she abopts local dialects to make her seem more 'black' , 'southern' , 'eastern' and more of a New yorker.

And all of that could be said about any number of politicians--Democrats or Republicans!

[cjs216]

Originally Posted by brownsugargirl

Why do so many of you hate Hillary Clinton? I am wanting to know political reasons, not personal ones. I am really just curious, don't want it to get ugly!

I personally believe that it will be difficult to answer this question for political reasons. We may like/dislike a candidate solely for personal reasons.

Also, I've mentioned this elsewhere but I think it applies here as well....it seems that women on average tend to be quite critical of successful women often condemning behavior in a professional woman that they would accept in a professional man. I don't know why this is, but I've observed it often.

cj/

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by kvmj

Would you really rather pay $950 per month to an insurance company rather than paying $350 a month just because it's a tax. I think that I pay too much. I think that you pay way too much.

for the quality of care that we currently receive vs the care used in your example "the va"??

you betcha...I would gladly pay the $950 a month! Just knowing that I can make an appointment for a sniffle and get in sometimes on the same day that I call is a benefit that I think I could not live without.

I agree, we pay too much, however, it's totally dependent on which program the employer signs up with. We have the "ultimate" plan--everything is covered 90-10.


To Marilynk: no venom spewed--and none intended...just found the title of the article to be ironic... Clinton+Faith+Woes=survival.

I have no desire to read about Bill's trollops...it's like reading a cheap paperback novel.

[allinaugust]

Originally Posted by brownsugargirl

I can assure you democrats do not have the market cornered on lazy. I know for a fact there are lazy republicans, my inlaws! As they buy groceries with their foodstamp card and get free heating assistance in the winter, they are cussin' up a storm how the democrats are taxing them to death!! You have to earn a salary to be taxed! Gas is over 3 dollars a gallon, don't think for a second Bush is somewhat to blame, he is an oil man. AND, my inlaws have been known to say they wish the government would give gas cards like they do foodstamp cards! All the way to the store and gas station with their big ole George W sticker on their hoopty. Absolutely priceless.

Yes, absolutely, there are lazy Republicans. I wasn't saying any one political party is more lazy than the other, I was implying that the Democratic party tends to be for social programs, ie welfare, food stamps, the list goes on. Republicans for the most part are more for "pull yourself up by the boot straps". People should not rely so much on the government....prime example was when Hurricane Katrina hit. Everyone was wondering "where's my Government???" when many of them should have been saying "how do I get the *&^% out of here and get somewhere safe BEFORE the storm hits???" I really think we have trained our citizens to look to the gov't for assistance when it is needed. Now, I am not talking about if your house burns down, or something you have NO control over. What I don't understand is how people can blame the gov't for them not being able to support their family??? Need free health care?? Join the military. DO SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF!!

Not sure if this is exactly in response to your post, I know I got off on a tangent Anyway, I was not saying Democrats are lazy, and certainly not everyone on public assistance is. But, I have seen FAR too much of it. Not too many people will turn away something FREE, right??? Just look at the WIC program. How many people on that are giving the milk and cheese to family and friends????

I'll stop there, as I'm getting WAYYYY off topic I think

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

To Marilynk: no venom spewed--and none intended...just found the title of the article to be ironic... Clinton+Faith+Woes=survival.

I have no desire to read about Bill's trollops...it's like reading a cheap paperback novel.

You still don't get it... the article is not, and was not about Bill Clinton. It is about how Hillary handled the adverse publicity, the stress and the pain. And how she did that through her faith.
Are you so blinded by your hate that you can't see past that?? Good Grief!

While I detest the current President--I actually like and respect his wife. She can't help it if George is and was an idiot (and please don't tell me I should respect the President--Respect is earned and he has yet to earn mine!) I would love to read Laura Bush's memoirs/autobiography!

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by allinaugust

for "pull yourself up by the boot straps". People should not rely so much on the government....prime example was when Hurricane Katrina hit. Everyone was wondering "where's my Government???" when many of them should have been saying "how do I get the *&^% out of here and get somewhere safe BEFORE the storm hits???"

Don't think that's a very good example as NO ONE seemed to know just how strong Katrina was until a few hours before the storm hit. Evacuation was not recommended until, I believe 48 hrs before the storm actually touched land.

It irritates to me to no end for people that live in Hurricane prone areas to whine and complain when one comes and tears down their house! If you live in or around the Gulf of Mexico or on the Eastern Seaboard then you should be well aware that HURRICANES HAPPEN!! To hear them gripe, complain and whine about Hurricanes is about as bad as if the Eskimoes complained about blizzards!

[allinaugust]

Originally Posted by marilynk

Don't think that's a very good example as NO ONE seemed to know just how strong Katrina was until a few hours before the storm hit. Evacuation was not recommended until, I believe 48 hrs before the storm actually touched land.

It irritates to me to no end for people that live in Hurricane prone areas to whine and complain when one comes and tears down their house! If you live in or around the Gulf of Mexico or on the Eastern Seaboard then you should be well aware that HURRICANES HAPPEN!! To hear them gripe, complain and whine about Hurricanes is about as bad as if the Eskimoes complained about blizzards!

I was living in the Gulf area at the time and remember it well. There was plenty of advance warning, and you don't have to wait for an evacuation recommendation to leave on your own. What I don't think people were prepared for was those levees to break. I don't mind people whining about hurricanes....who wants one??? Or the tornadoes spawned by the hurricanes??? What bothers me is people who don't take enuf responsibility on their own to protect themselves, and expect the Government to bail them out. I'm all for helping my fellow citizen, I do it all the time, but, if people want to realize lower taxes and better living, I think we need someone in office who will teach people to do as much as they can for themselves. Take pride in yourself, and if you MUST rely on public services and aid, use it for its intended use, and better yourself.

[Kelliiii]

Originally Posted by allinaugust

People should not rely so much on the government....prime example was when Hurricane Katrina hit. Everyone was wondering "where's my Government???" when many of them should have been saying "how do I get the *&^% out of here and get somewhere safe BEFORE the storm hits???" I really think we have trained our citizens to look to the gov't for assistance when it is needed.

Oh, soooo not a good example. You might want to re-think that one.....

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by allinaugust

IWhat I don't think people were prepared for was those levees to break. I don't mind people whining about hurricanes....who wants one??? Or the tornadoes spawned by the hurricanes??? .

Oh, I can completely agree with you on the levees. And, the levees breaking could have happened without a hurricane. Of course the FEDERAL GOVT. kept saying those levees were secure...

Now, about the whining--oh yeah, it irritates me. You know about the weather either when you move to a place or because you were born there. If you don't like it--and goodness knows you certainly can't change it--then you should move! Yes, there are natural disasters everywhere. We live in Montana--we knew the winters could be brutal up here. But we deal with it and move on! You live in Louisianan, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Etc. you KNOW that you could be subject to a HURRICANE. It's fairly certain some years. You live in California--it's pretty much a given you will experience an earthquake. But for the love of all that is holy--when it does happen, don't act like it's some big freaking surprise that it came along and wiped out your home!
I lived smack dab in the middle of "Tornado Alley" and it never surprised me when a Tornado hit. But, everyone expected it, and just dusted themselves off and got on with their life.

So, maybe we agree on this--we're just saying it in different ways.

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by marilynk

You still don't get it... the article is not, and was not about Bill Clinton. It is about how Hillary handled the adverse publicity, the stress and the pain. And how she did that through her faith.
Are you so blinded by your hate that you can't see past that?? Good Grief!

While I detest the current President--I actually like and respect his wife. She can't help it if George is and was an idiot (and please don't tell me I should respect the President--Respect is earned and he has yet to earn mine!) I would love to read Laura Bush's memoirs/autobiography!

Oh I got it... I have no respect for her or him. and you are right, respect is earned and they have not earned theirs! Hillary is a chameleon...she will turn whatever direction the current is flowing...and bill is her sheep.

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

Oh I got it... I have no respect for her or him. and you are right, respect is earned and they have not earned theirs! Hillary is a chameleon...she will turn whatever direction the current is flowing...and bill is her sheep.

As opposed to President Bush, who can't or won't admit his mistakes... "Stay the Course"

There needs to be a happy medium. Someone willing to listen to what the people want and work with the people but who is also able to stand by their convictions--but still be able to admit their mistakes!

I want a President that is not going to put the United States in jeapordy. I want a President that while willing to stand up for our country, is not going to make EVERY other country in the world despise us and think of us as bullies. I want a President who understands that the US should not be the world's police force! We don't even have secure borders! Our military is stretched to the breaking point right now. How many units and platoons (both regular military and guard/reserves) are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, tour of duty?
Seriously? I don't know if Hillary is the answer--but she certainly isn't the Satan Spawn that some of you are portraying her as!

[wowitsdark]

Originally Posted by marilynk

I lived smack dab in the middle of "Tornado Alley" and it never surprised me when a Tornado hit. But, everyone expected it, and just dusted themselves off and got on with their life.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/atmo/atmo...es/stalley.gif

Looks like a bunch of red states to me.

Seriously, though, what you are saying is very true about those living in Tornado Alley. People are very can-do, not "can't you do it for me, Uncle Sam?"

[fletchersmom]

Originally Posted by marilynk

As opposed to President Bush, who can't or won't admit his mistakes... "Stay the Course"

There needs to be a happy medium. Someone willing to listen to what the people want and work with the people but who is also able to stand by their convictions--but still be able to admit their mistakes!

I want a President that is not going to put the United States in jeapordy. I want a President that while willing to stand up for our country, is not going to make EVERY other country in the world despise us and think of us as bullies. I want a President who understands that the US should not be the world's police force! We don't even have secure borders! Our military is stretched to the breaking point right now. How many units and platoons (both regular military and guard/reserves) are on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, tour of duty?
Seriously? I don't know if Hillary is the answer--but she certainly isn't the Satan Spawn that some of you are portraying her as!

Okay.. I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes..

If Bill Clinton had had the balls to deal to with Osama while he was in office then things might have been different. On so many occasions he just looked the other way and did absolutely nothing.. Yeah, every other country in the world LOVED us, but most bullies love to be able to push people around without retribution. As much as there is hate spewed about ol GW, he came into office and when confronted with a bully he dealt with it head on. He didn't side step. And while I'm on a role.. It just ticks me off when people gripe about how GWB sat there with the children on 9/11 instead of moving instantly. What was he supposed to do.. jump under a desk and yell for everyone to hit the ground or something. He had to protect those kids from something ugly, and I think he did the right thing. I mean, those kids probably had been really looking forward to the visit.. if it had been my dd's school they'd have prepared for weeks even. Why crush them by leaving all of a sudden and then tell them the hard truth of why. I was the one to explain 9/11 to my kids and that's what I preferred..

Now about Hillary, You can't tell me she was ignorant to what Bill did. The cheating maybe, but his policies and the way he dealt with crisis..no. There's no way I'll vote for her. It's just like I tell Fletcher.. she's guilty by association.

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by fletchersmom

Okay.. I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes..

If Bill Clinton had had the balls to deal to with Osama while he was in office then things might have been different.

Yes, and if George Sr. had dealt with Saddam Hussein effectively we wouldn't be over there right now either.

I had more than one friend in that war--and each one of them said that before they really had a chance to "complete" the mission they were pulled out. So, Bill was not the only one who didn't do a specific job when he had the chance.

[jeanief]

Personally, to my mind, if you choose to paint a person guilty because of who they are married to,, that is is at the very least unfair. You and only hold ANY person responsible for their own actions. Hillary had NOT AN OUNCE of power to make any decisions in the federal government. She may have spoken her mind about things, and I am sure Laura Bush does with GW, but Clinton had educated advisors personally and in his cabinet who we listened to. If your husband or child got in a car accident, while drunk, would that somehow be your fault--even if you had spoken to them about not drinking and driving. NOPE, it would be responsible of the person doing the deed. If you have chosen to not vote for Hillary, which is a right in this country, then be honest and say you are doing it for personal reasons you feel about her personality. To put her in the driver's seat of Bill Clinton and his decisions and actions in the White House is not a valid excuse. Just say you don't like HER own personal actions---don't paint her into Bill's corner.

[fletchersmom]

Originally Posted by jeanief

Personally, to my mind, if you choose to paint a person guilty because of who they are married to,, that is is at the very least unfair. You and only hold ANY person responsible for their own actions. Hillary had NOT AN OUNCE of power to make any decisions in the federal government. She may have spoken her mind about things, and I am sure Laura Bush does with GW, but Clinton had educated advisors personally and in his cabinet who we listened to. If your husband or child got in a car accident, while drunk, would that somehow be your fault--even if you had spoken to them about not drinking and driving. NOPE, it would be responsible of the person doing the deed. If you have chosen to not vote for Hillary, which is a right in this country, then be honest and say you are doing it for personal reasons you feel about her personality. To put her in the driver's seat of Bill Clinton and his decisions and actions in the White House is not a valid excuse. Just say you don't like HER own personal actions---don't paint her into Bill's corner.

You know.. we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that she and Bill are one in the same. I don't like her personality at ALL, but the majority of the reason I won't vote for her is because I'm not willing to risk the very good chance that she's of the same opinions he was.

I wish Dick Cheney would run...

Yah.. I said it. (as I put on my flame retardant suit)

[kathytheshopper]

Originally Posted by fletchersmom

Okay.. I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes..

If Bill Clinton had had the balls to deal to with Osama while he was in office then things might have been different. On so many occasions he just looked the other way and did absolutely nothing.. Yeah, every other country in the world LOVED us, but most bullies love to be able to push people around without retribution. As much as there is hate spewed about ol GW, he came into office and when confronted with a bully he dealt with it head on. He didn't side step. And while I'm on a role.. It just ticks me off when people gripe about how GWB sat there with the children on 9/11 instead of moving instantly. What was he supposed to do.. jump under a desk and yell for everyone to hit the ground or something. He had to protect those kids from something ugly, and I think he did the right thing. I mean, those kids probably had been really looking forward to the visit.. if it had been my dd's school they'd have prepared for weeks even. Why crush them by leaving all of a sudden and then tell them the hard truth of why. I was the one to explain 9/11 to my kids and that's what I preferred..

Now about Hillary, You can't tell me she was ignorant to what Bill did. The cheating maybe, but his policies and the way he dealt with crisis..no. There's no way I'll vote for her. It's just like I tell Fletcher.. she's guilty by association.

Gotta agree with ya!! I always wondered why everyone jumped all over G when he didn't immediately leave those children on 9/11. It wasn't like he stayed there for hours, I think it was 6 minutes or less. Time to see what was really happening and NOT upset the kids. I think Bill might have done the same thing. And yes, Bill could have taken out Osama. I don't think he wanted to cause a stir, might not make him look so perfect! lol
(I dont' want Cheney to run though. I do hope Fred Thompson officially jumps in there!)
And about Hillary. Yes, it 's not nice to judge a wife by her husbands actions. However, in politics and with as strong a force as Hillary is I have a feeling she was in on a lot of it so in this case they are two of a kind.

[jeanief]

That is a whole lot of assuming when you lump Mr. and Mrs. together. I am POSITIVE that you and your significant other do not always agree on things 100%....but, you have a right to pick whatever obscure reason you might want to not vote for someone. I prefer to vote FOR someone instead of against someone...then my vote is not wasted. I would rather not vote at all than vote on personal, "I have a feeling" reasoning, because, especially if those feelings are based on the actions of someone else's actions, then that, in my opinion, is not a reasoned vote.

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by fletchersmom

I wish Dick Cheney would run...

Yep, so do I....I wish he'd run far, far, far away!

[fletchersmom]

Originally Posted by marilynk

Yep, so do I....I wish he'd run far, far, far away!

\

Too Funny!!! Run ..Cheney...Run!!

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by jeanief

That is a whole lot of assuming when you lump Mr. and Mrs. together. I am POSITIVE that you and your significant other do not always agree on things 100%....but, you have a right to pick whatever obscure reason you might want to not vote for someone. I prefer to vote FOR someone instead of against someone...then my vote is not wasted. I would rather not vote at all than vote on personal, "I have a feeling" reasoning, because, especially if those feelings are based on the actions of someone else's actions, then that, in my opinion, is not a reasoned vote.

you have a right to pick whatever obscure reason you might want to not vote for someone (or to vote for someone) whichever the case may be.

[allinaugust]

Originally Posted by Kelliiii

Oh, soooo not a good example. You might want to re-think that one.....

Why is this not a good example???

[wowitsdark]

Originally Posted by jeanief

Just say you don't like HER own personal actions---don't paint her into Bill's corner.

While I understand what you are saying, there is another level to consider.

I believe that she stayed with him for political reasons. It has been reported that they struck a bargain after the Monica issue - she would not leave him, and he in turn would play a key role in furthering her own White House ambitions. He really did need her to stand by him at that time. While those who had never liked him in the first place had their fire fed by his behavior, those who supported him - and whether they would continue to support him - in large part hinged on her ability to forgive him for his behavior. It was politically expedient for each of them to put on a united front in order that their individual political ambitions might be furthered.

If this is not true, it speaks to her character. He had a very long history of infidelity, and she was more than willing to put up with it, either because she was weak and loved him and couldn't let go, or because she did not believe her own star could rise high enough without hitching it to his. It may be that because they are politically on the same page, she was willing to sell herself out on a personal level so that the political agenda might not be compromised. She - and he - pretended that they had the perfect, reconciled marriage prior to his first run for the White House.

None of those traits are particularly appealing or integritous to me. I would have found her much more genuine and impressive had she, after she began to see the pattern of infidelity in Arkansas prior to his White House run, stepped up to the plate and said she refused to continue in marriage with a man with such a history of infidelity. Either she wasn't wise enough to realize it likely wouldn't stop, or she knew but didn't care, or knew but decided it was worth the price if it would help her own political future.

I believe it is a matter of self-respect. She took the calculated risk that he'd stop cheating, or that they could hide it sufficiently from the public. When Gennifer Flowers became known, she feigned surprise, but we later came to know that Hillary had long known about Gennifer and attempted many times to end their affair. She and Bill then went on 60 Minutes to give the impression that all was fine... and in reality, it was not fine at all.

That was a long time ago, and yet to me, those were defining moments in the person she is. While she did not commit the infidelity, she acknowledged that infidelity was not good... and yet she put up with it for many years because maintaining her relationship afforded her power and media face time. I don't find that honorable. I would have been far more impressed had she been able to cut ties with him and insist on making her way in politics without him as baggage. She can't have it both ways, pretending to have a loving marriage to appeal to the populace, while behind closed doors putting up with - or even accepting - that her marital reality is quite different.

And if the reason she stayed with him is that she loved him, what does that say about her? That she is willing to demean herself, playing second fiddle while he sleeps around with the interns. I would hope our President would have more self-respect than that.

[lovey367]

Originally Posted by marilynk

Yes, and if George Sr. had dealt with Saddam Hussein effectively we wouldn't be over there right now either.

I had more than one friend in that war--and each one of them said that before they really had a chance to "complete" the mission they were pulled out. So, Bill was not the only one who didn't do a specific job when he had the chance.

You are correct. However, George H.W. Bush did what alot of American's want us to do now, listen to the U.N. The U.N. said we got Saddam out of Kawait, we're done. So many of these other countries do not have our best interest at heart, why should we listen to them? Because they may become angry at us and call us names? Seriously, France, Germany and Russia all had reasons for not wanting us in the Middle East again. They were all profitting from the Oil for Food program.

France will be asking for our help again soon because they have let their country be overrun by radical Islamic groups and are having difficulty getting it under control.


I'm interested in voting for a person who will do what needs to be done. I honestly thought GW Bush was that person, but he is letting himself be swayed by polls. We need to put an end to Islamic terrorist organizations for the good of our country and the rest of the world, by any means neccesary.

[lovey367]

Originally Posted by wowitsdark

And if the reason she stayed with him is that she loved him, what does that say about her? That she is willing to demean herself, playing second fiddle while he sleeps around with the interns. I would hope our President would have more self-respect than that.

I couldn't agree more. I could never allow myself to be treated in such a way, or continue to love someone who would treat me that way. Maybe that makes me selfish or maybe I just have a very high opinion of myself in thinking that I deserve to be treated well.

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by lovey367

We need to put an end to Islamic terrorist organizations for the good of our country and the rest of the world, by any means neccesary.

And those terrorist groups feel the same way about US... So, how does your statement (above) makes us any better than those terrorist groups???

The terrorist feel what they are doing is for the good of their country and/or their religion and/or mankind as a whole--so what makes them any different than us--If, as you say, we must irradicate them by any means necessary???

MY GOD I am appalled that you would even consider "any means necessary" to be an appropriate response.

[mom2twins2]

Originally Posted by marilynk

And those terrorist groups feel the same way about US... So, how does your statement (above) makes us any better than those terrorist groups???

The terrorist feel what they are doing is for the good of their country and/or their religion and/or mankind as a whole--so what makes them any different than us--If, as you say, we must irradicate them by any means necessary???

MY GOD I am appalled that you would even consider "any means necessary" to be an appropriate response.

Gosh, you sound like Rosie! Whose side are you on, anyway? The terrorists are crazy -- thinking they're blowing themselves and those around them up is their 'godly' call. I fail to see any similiarity in the way the United States is dealing with this war and the terrorists.

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by mom2twins2

Gosh, you sound like Rosie! Whose side are you on, anyway? The terrorists are crazy -- thinking they're blowing themselves and those around them up is their 'godly' call. I fail to see any similiarity in the way the United States is dealing with this war and the terrorists.

I am on the side of our military who are being killed on a daily basis! I don't want another soldier or Marine to die because they have been sent to fight a CIVIL WAR for another country.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION WHO'S SIDE I'M ON simply because I put forth a statement that you have no argument to contradict other than to question my loyalty and hurl what you feel is an insult! HOW DARE YOU!??

[mom2twins2]

Originally Posted by marilynk

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION WHO'S SIDE I'M ON simply because I put forth a statement that you have no argument to contradict other than to question my loyalty and hurl what you feel is an insult! HOW DARE YOU!??

Hey, you said it -- not me. I take great offense at your statement. You compare "us" to the terrorist group. How dare YOU!

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by mom2twins2

Hey, you said it -- not me. I take great offense at your statement. You compare "us" to the terrorist group. How dare YOU!

Let's see--the terrorist groups are doing what they feel is necessary to protect their way of life, hmmmm...isn't that what George W. Bush is proclaiming that we went to war for?
George W. Bush sent our troop to Iraq unprovoked and unasked--the terrorist groups attacked the Trade Centers and our airlines. How many innocent civilians have been killed by our troops simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time--kind of a guilt by association. How many of our troops have been killed by terrorists?

Can't you see that two wrongs do not make a right! George W. Bush got us into a civil war and is the same type of zealot and fanatic that the terrorist groups are! And now, I hear some one say by any means necessary!? Don't you understand that is the exact same thing the terrorist believe? So, tell me how does that mentality make us any better than the terrorists??

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by marilynk

And those terrorist groups feel the same way about US... So, how does your statement (above) makes us any better than those terrorist groups???

The terrorist feel what they are doing is for the good of their country and/or their religion and/or mankind as a whole--so what makes them any different than us--If, as you say, we must irradicate them by any means necessary???

MY GOD I am appalled that you would even consider "any means necessary" to be an appropriate response.

I am appalled that you even have the gumption to even remotely associate the United States in the same category as Islamic Terrorists!

The terrorists feel they are doing what is the good for their RELIGION not for their COUNTRY...because at last check, NYC, Washington DC and Pennsylvania were not a part of their country...nor is any other place where they happen to shack up and hang their hats!

You certainly sound like Rosie to me too!

[mom2twins2]

Originally Posted by marilynk

Let's see--the terrorist groups are doing what they feel is necessary to protect their way of life, hmmmm...isn't that what George W. Bush is proclaiming that we went to war for?

You just repeated the same thing you posted before, just in different words. You're comparing our troops to the terrorists.

[KellyJef]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

I am appalled that you even have the gumption to even remotely associate the United States in the same category as Islamic Terrorists!

The terrorists feel they are doing what is the good for their RELIGION not for their COUNTRY...because at last check, NYC, Washington DC and Pennsylvania were not a part of their country...nor is any other place where they happen to shack up and hang their hats!

You certainly sound like Rosie to me too!

I agree that she certainly sounds like Rosie

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by marilynk

George W. Bush sent our troop to Iraq unprovoked and unasked--the terrorist groups attacked the Trade Centers and our airlines. How many innocent civilians have been killed by our troops simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time--kind of a guilt by association. How many of our troops have been killed by terrorists?

We were attacked on 9/11 ... which was BEFORE we shipped our troops to Iraq.

How many innocent civilians? Many... HOWEVER... how many countries use civilians to hide behind? Only a select few. Churches embedded with terrorists....schools and hospitals embedded with terrorists--conveying to children that it is better to kill someone else and become a martyr than it is to live their life into adulthood.

Our Military members are told NOT to bomb churches and schools...(you think the terrorists don't know this??) Heck yeah they know this, and use it to their advantage.

How many civilians--especially women and children try to "uphold" this martyr / suicide bomber motto? PLENTY.

How many Americans do you think would volunteer to become a suicide bomber??? For pete's sake marilynk! Get real!!

We are yappin about Kevorkian and assisted suicide...I can't imagine the grief Americans would give if we started doing what the terrorists are doing.

[AMulquin]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

We were attacked on 9/11 ... which was BEFORE we shipped our troops to Iraq.

Right. But Iraq did not attack us on 911.

We are yappin about Kevorkian and assisted suicide...I can't imagine the grief Americans would give if we started doing what the terrorists are doing.

I can't either. But I can tell you if a country invaded the US, I think a lot of us would be up in arms. I also can't help but wonder if we were in their shoes, would we be willing to die to help our own cause and to get the occupying force out.

[marilynk]

all I'm saying is that some of the same things I see some of so upset about I see in zealots and fanatics that are Christian, that are American by birth.

And if you can't see that there are some similarities in how the current administration waged a war in Iraq (note I'm not talking about Afghanistan) and how radical terrorist groups wage war then you are blinded by your own stubborn belief that the US can do nothing wrong and our way of life is the only correct way...

[dreamscapes]

Amulquin: I didn't say that Iraq attacked us.

There is more to the story than what you hear in the media--there are always going to be some things that we will never know because we are not privy to that knowledge.

Why things are done a certain way and why things are not done a certain way by ANY United States President are not for us to know. Same goes for Military operations...

Don't believe hook line and sinker that the media is gonna play it to you straight... they are gonna play ya, but it certainly won't be straight!

MarilynK: it has nothing to do with "stubborn belief" perhaps if you had worded your original thought better, you wouldn't have had so many of us compare you to Rosie.

[AMulquin]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

Amulquin: I didn't say that Iraq attacked us.

There is more to the story than what you hear in the media--there are always going to be some things that we will never know because we are not privy to that knowledge.

Why things are done a certain way and why things are not done a certain way by ANY United States President are not for us to know. Same goes for Military operations...

Don't believe hook line and sinker that the media is gonna play it to you straight... they are gonna play ya, but it certainly won't be straight!

Thing is though we have had too many misinformation and missteps along the way. And there are reports to what we are privy to that dispute what has been said and done - even by retired generals and people in the military.

Personally ,I think it's a mistake to just blindly follow. I think it's good to question. Maybe if more had done that, we would not be in the situation we are in now.

[kathytheshopper]

Does anyone remember that Iraq defied the UN 16 times or so??????????? That's cause for action. If Sadam was still in power developing WMD's and now Iran is it would even be a worst case over there. Don't forget all the violations by Iraq!!!!!!!!! Not to mention all the acts of inhumanity under Sadams regime.
Also, true Christians are not radically violent. I don't think there's even a remote comparison between the Islamic terrorists and some nut case Christians.

[marilynk]

Originally Posted by dreamscapes

MarilynK: it has nothing to do with "stubborn belief" perhaps if you had worded your original thought better, you wouldn't have had so many of us compare you to Rosie.

Perhaps you are correct--I could have worded it differently, but it still would have meant the same thing. Secondly, being called Rosie or being compared to Rosie is the worse thing imaginable. I've been called worse

[wowitsdark]

One difference is that we don't have it so bad right now. For all our griping and complaining about how bad we have it with high gas prices and milk at $2.99/gallon, our lives are nothing compared to those of the Iraqi people under Saddam's reign of terror.

I disagree with the whole "Terrorists are mommies and daddies, too" theory.

Saddam defied the UN resolutions at least 17 times. Were he still in power, he would still be defying them. Whether or not he had WMD's at the time of the invasion, we unquestionably found plans and blueprints and several of the necessary components outlined in those blueprints. But for our invasion, where would things stand in Iraq today? Would they be better or worse?

Civilians in Iraq were not safe and sound prior to the war. They died in monstrous numbers every year.

Clearly, Iraq was not the nation of origin of the 9/11 terrorists, who did what they did not to protect their way of life, but rather because we are, in their eyes, a nation of infidels, and by martyring themselves, they earned themselves - or so they believe - a better place in the afterlife and a very handsome sum of money for their families back in the Middle East.

And yet, sadly, the entire region is a hotbed of terroristic tendencies, in which "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Just as undeniable bonds have been formed between the Iranian government and Al Quedah in recent months, it is not a far stretch to assume that Saddam, were he still around, would've participated heavily in such alliances.

Personally, I believe it is unfortunate that Iraq did not rise to a civil war on their own. Saddam's military capability, while certainly nothing as strong as the might of the US, was far superior to that of the civilians within his own country, and overthrowing him from within simply was not going to happen. Russia and France were benefiting heavily by purchasing food provided to Iraq by the UN in exchange for oil. Russia and France were buying up that food that was supposed to go directly to the starving Iraqi people at pennies on the dollar, getting a great deal and putting cold hard cash into the pockets of Saddam, allowing him to build palace after palace while his people starved in record numbers.

The UN was willing to look the other way because the vast majority of their members were not targets of the terrorism originating from that region of the world, despite Saddam's repeated cease fire treaty violations.

Had GHWB violated the UN cease fire and gone ahead and finished off the job at the end of the Gulf War, he'd have been criticized. Perhaps, in retrospect, that criticism would've been preferable to where we are today when we go against the UN. Then again, we have no way of knowing who would've risen to power in his place, so it's impossible to say that things there would've been better with Saddam gone way back then.

In fact, Iraq would've been wide open for someone like Bin Laden to have gained a foothold and the benefit of a nation and it's resources through which to carry out the type of things he's been able to accomplish while hidden from public view.

There are no easy answers, but regardless, I do not think it is accurate to equate our actions with those who seek to destroy because of the religious rewards they believe they will receive for causing our deaths. It is tragic that civilians get caught in the crossfire, but we have to remember that our troops are not walking around over there randomly shooting at innocent Iraqi citizens. Rogue groups of terrorists are hoping to gain a foothold in Iraq so that they might hold the position of power once held by Saddam, and their only hope is to overpower the US forces who are attempting to stabilize the nation while their infrastructure is rebuilt. It is the crossfire caused by those factions - NOT the direct actions of the US troops - that have caused the deaths of civilians in Iraq.

[dreamscapes]

Originally Posted by wowitsdark

One difference is that we don't have it so bad right now. For all our griping and complaining about how bad we have it with high gas prices and milk at $2.99/gallon, our lives are nothing compared to those of the Iraqi people under Saddam's reign of terror.

I disagree with the whole "Terrorists are mommies and daddies, too" theory.

Saddam defied the UN resolutions at least 17 times. Were he still in power, he would still be defying them. Whether or not he had WMD's at the time of the invasion, we unquestionably found plans and blueprints and several of the necessary components outlined in those blueprints. But for our invasion, where would things stand in Iraq today? Would they be better or worse?

Civilians in Iraq were not safe and sound prior to the war. They died in monstrous numbers every year.

Clearly, Iraq was not the nation of origin of the 9/11 terrorists, who did what they did not to protect their way of life, but rather because we are, in their eyes, a nation of infidels, and by martyring themselves, they earned themselves - or so they believe - a better place in the afterlife and a very handsome sum of money for their families back in the Middle East.

And yet, sadly, the entire region is a hotbed of terroristic tendencies, in which "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Just as undeniable bonds have been formed between the Iranian government and Al Quedah in recent months, it is not a far stretch to assume that Saddam, were he still around, would've participated heavily in such alliances.

Personally, I believe it is unfortunate that Iraq did not rise to a civil war on their own. Saddam's military capability, while certainly nothing as strong as the might of the US, was far superior to that of the civilians within his own country, and overthrowing him from within simply was not going to happen. Russia and France were benefiting heavily by purchasing food provided to Iraq by the UN in exchange for oil. Russia and France were buying up that food that was supposed to go directly to the starving Iraqi people at pennies on the dollar, getting a great deal and putting cold hard cash into the pockets of Saddam, allowing him to build palace after palace while his people starved in record numbers.

The UN was willing to look the other way because the vast majority of their members were not targets of the terrorism originating from that region of the world, despite Saddam's repeated cease fire treaty violations.

Had GHWB violated the UN cease fire and gone ahead and finished off the job at the end of the Gulf War, he'd have been criticized. Perhaps, in retrospect, that criticism would've been preferable to where we are today when we go against the UN. Then again, we have no way of knowing who would've risen to power in his place, so it's impossible to say that things there would've been better with Saddam gone way back then.

In fact, Iraq would've been wide open for someone like Bin Laden to have gained a foothold and the benefit of a nation and it's resources through which to carry out the type of things he's been able to accomplish while hidden from public view.

There are no easy answers, but regardless, I do not think it is accurate to equate our actions with those who seek to destroy because of the religious rewards they believe they will receive for causing our deaths. It is tragic that civilians get caught in the crossfire, but we have to remember that our troops are not walking around over there randomly shooting at innocent Iraqi citizens. Rogue groups of terrorists are hoping to gain a foothold in Iraq so that they might hold the position of power once held by Saddam, and their only hope is to overpower the US forces who are attempting to stabilize the nation while their infrastructure is rebuilt. It is the crossfire caused by those factions - NOT the direct actions of the US troops - that have caused the deaths of civilians in Iraq.

how very nicely said!! wow!!!

[fletchersmom]

"Clearly, Iraq was not the nation of origin of the 9/11 terrorists, who did what they did not to protect their way of life, but rather because we are, in their eyes, a nation of infidels, and by martyring themselves, they earned themselves - or so they believe - a better place in the afterlife and a very handsome sum of money for their families back in the Middle East."

Let's not forget about all the virgins that are supposed to be waiting for them..


On a serious note.. that was very eloquent. Thanks