Waste of Time...Clinton hanging around hindering Obama's chances....

[smokin68]

At this point there's no feasable way Clinton can win the Democratic nomination. She is now hindering the Dem's race to beat McCain. What does it take for her to admit defeat?

[andserco]

I dont care for the Clintons but when was the last time her or Bill lost an election...they are not used to losing....

[pabull]

Hitlery should be allowed to continue as long as she wants. Isn't that what you Bleeding Heart Libs consider "fair play"?? You surely dont want to disenfranchise another Commie...I mean Democrat ...do ya??:eek:

Keep it up Hitlery!!!! A vote for her is a vote for the GOP!!:D

[bootlen]

She obviously knows she cannot win. She couldn't care less about the Dem party. What she is doing is taking every opportunity to bring Obama down so McCain can win this year, leaving her the next apparent Dem candidate in 2012.

[2cool4us]

At this point there's no feasable way Clinton can win the Democratic nomination. She is now hindering the Dem's race to beat McCain. What does it take for her to admit defeat?Offers her the vice-prez slot, she'll fold her tent. :p:cool:

[sysint]

I think if Obama is smart he holds his ground and minimizes Senator Rodham. Otherwise she will have too much influence.

[jrbenny]

Her selfish ego won't allow her to quit. Plus, she will ensure the one that beat her will lose, too. So, in the end, she will feel better about herself.

[k-fridge]

Offers her the vice-prez slot, she'll fold her tent. :p:cool:
I strongly doubt it. She won't play second fiddle, and there's too much bad blood between them. Word also has it that Obama's wife despises Hillary.

[sysint]

Her selfish ego won't allow her to quit. Plus, she will ensure the one that beat her will lose, too. So, in the end, she will feel better about herself.She needs her blood constituency when Mc Cain wins or Obama screws up. She needs here "I told you so's" ready in the future so she can run over everyone at her next opportunity.

[jrbenny]

Lordy, I'd hate to get in her way.

[sysint]

Doesn't somebody have to do it?

I have to give Obama credit for taking a shot at it.
Most everyone else is afraid to do it.

[k-fridge]

Lordy, I'd hate to get in her way.
I bet Vince Foster felt the same way.

[fixacr]

Doesn't somebody have to do it?

I have to give Obama credit for taking a shot at it.
Most everyone else is afraid to do it.

Bad things seem to happen to people that the Clintons don't like.

[glennac]

At this point there's no feasable way Clinton can win the Democratic nomination. She is now hindering the Dem's race to beat McCain. What does it take for her to admit defeat?

Congratulate her, for once she is doing this country a great service. Keeping a true socialist, anti American and lover of the UN out of the WH. Thank you Hillary for once you have done good.

[air311]

Congratulate her, for once she is doing this country a great service. Keeping a true socialist, anti American and lover of the UN out of the WH. Thank you Hillary for once you have done good.

You're more disillisioned every day. What evidence do you have that Obama is a "true socialist" or anti-american? You have none. Just typical paranoid blabber.

[coordinatesales]

I think I heard a recent poll saying over 60% of democrats think she should stay in the race. If she's close (and she is) and the majority of her own party wants her to stay (and that appears to be the case) then absolutely she should stay in the race.

[scrogdog]

What is particularly interesting is what is going on with respect to the 2000 election where the oft-made liberal claim is that Bush "stole it" despite the will of the people.

It is now mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. So, the strategy seems pretty clear, go to the convention and charge that Obama is not "presidential" despite the voice of the people.

Ah, liberals. Gotta love 'em. Things must be one way one day, but then later when it no longer suits them, thier previous view is out the door.

Clinton has used the line "The people have spoken" many times, particularly with regards to Iraq. Now the word of the people doesn't seem to matter that much. Thus the empty and ever changing stance of a liberal. We can only grow the way the wind blows.

[jrbenny]

Oh, but the MI and FL people didn't get a chance to speak. ;)

:)

[displacedyankee]

What is particularly interesting is what is going on with respect to the 2000 election where the oft-made liberal claim is that Bush "stole it" despite the will of the people.

It is now mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. So, the strategy seems pretty clear, go to the convention and charge that Obama is not "presidential" despite the voice of the people.

Ah, liberals. Gotta love 'em. Things must be one way one day, but then later when it no longer suits them, thier previous view is out the door.

Clinton has used the line "The people have spoken" many times, particularly with regards to Iraq. Now the word of the people doesn't seem to matter that much. Thus the empty and ever changing stance of a liberal. We can only grow the way the wind blows.
Bush "stole" it DESPITE the will of the people??? Newbie here and, umm..I believe Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. That means the will of the people was to NOT put him into office.

[k-fridge]

Bush "stole" it DESPITE the will of the people??? Newbie here and, umm..I believe Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. That means the will of the people was to NOT put him into office.
Popular vote doesn't elect a president, electoral vote does. Bush won that, fair and square. Constitutionally, he won the presidency.

If we elected a president by popular vote, 2 or 3 large (populous) states could name the president; the rest of the country be damned. The electoral system is there for a good reason, and it worked perfectly. People need to get over it.

[air311]

Popular vote doesn't elect a president, electoral vote does. Bush won that, fair and square. Constitutionally, he won the presidency.

If we elected a president by popular vote, 2 or 3 large (populous) states could name the president; the rest of the country be damned. The electoral system is there for a good reason, and it worked perfectly. People need to get over it. It'll always be up in the air if it worked perfectly in 2000 or not. If Gore had won, which I believe he would have won Florida had his daddys buddies on the supreme court
not stopped the recount, then you would be saying it didn't work perfectly. And the "will of the people" was not taken into consideration. Gore won the popular vote, that was the will of the people. And i'm not still bitter about Gore losing, I didn't vote for him. i just believe he wrongfully "lost" in 2000.

[k-fridge]

It'll always be up in the air if it worked perfectly in 2000 or not. If Gore had won, which I believe he would have won Florida had his daddys buddies on the supreme court
not stopped the recount, then you would be saying it didn't work perfectly. And the "will of the people" was not taken into consideration. Gore won the popular vote, that was the will of the people. And i'm not still bitter about Gore losing, I didn't vote for him. i just believe he wrongfully "lost" in 2000.
The votes were recounted by several independent agencies, most of which were liberal leaning. Bush won Florida in every single recount.

All Gore had to do is win his home state, he couldn't even do that.

[scrogdog]

Bush "stole" it DESPITE the will of the people??? Newbie here and, umm..I believe Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. That means the will of the people was to NOT put him into office.

Welcome aboard.

My post was not commentary on the actual event; I was making a point about the hypocrasy of the liberal position with regards to the event.

[mrs reb77]

Alrighty, we've gone over this several times. Bush isn't the first nor only president to be elected without the majority of the popular vote.

check on it.

[air311]

Alrighty, we've gone over this several times. Bush isn't the first nor only president to be elected without the majority of the popular vote.

check on it.

Yeah, and I was just commenting that it wasn't the "will of the people" that put Bush in office in 2000.

[k-fridge]

Yeah, and I was just commenting that it wasn't the "will of the people" that put Bush in office in 2000.
That would be a problem if the US was a pure democracy. ;)

[whec720]

The Clintons are just making the Dems "pay" for their choice. It is Hillary who can not seal the deal. If she were so great, why couldn't she KO Obama a long time ago?

[air311]

That would be a problem if the US was a pure democracy. ;)

Yeah, but sadly it isn't.

[2cool4us]

I strongly doubt it. She won't play second fiddle, and there's too much bad blood between them. Word also has it that Obama's wife despises Hillary.
A choice. The demographics dictate that it must happen for him to win in November. :cool:

[sysint]

She has the prejudiced uneducated white people backing her up. She also has majority with the bitter middle age woman group, and the scared old people.

Although, if you took a look at some of Senator Rodham's pictures, she can be downright scary looking.

[k-fridge]

Yeah, but sadly it isn't.
Nooooo, I'm glad it isn't. No pure democracy in history has survived. It's a very dangerous form of government, especially in the information age where the masses can be mislead by whoever has control of the media.


Hmmmm, that sounds familiar....

[sysint]

I guess much of Hillary's constituency falls into your criteria.

[mrs reb77]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html

[2cool4us]

She has the prejudiced uneducated white people backing her up. She also has majority with the bitter middle age woman group, and the scared old people.

Although, if you took a look at some of Senator Rodham's pictures, she can be downright scary looking.
Ya gotta love them and ya gotta have them. Otherwise they will swap and vote for McCain or not vote at all. :eek::eek:

[whec720]

A choice. The demographics dictate that it must happen for him to win in November. :cool:

Edwards just backed Obama. There's your running mate. Obama is in with the Kennedys. Hillary ain't happening.:cool:

[Andy Schoen]

Yeah, but sadly it isn't.
I'm holding out for a Plato style socialist republic with a philosopher king. It will certainly simplify things. :p And we'd have no war in Iraq and get universal health care to boot! :D

[bootlen]

Edwards just backed Obama. There's your running mate. Obama is in with the Kennedys. Hillary ain't happening.:cool:

He's BEEN in with Chappaquiddick Ted. He still doesn't know Barack's name. "Osama bin Laden...er...Osama Obama...err...aw, hell. Somebody gimme a drink."

[The Doctor]

She has the prejudiced uneducated white people backing her up. She also has majority with the bitter middle age woman group, and the scared old people.

Although, if you took a look at some of Senator Rodham's pictures, she can be downright scary looking.

LOL, and that cackle...watch out Witchiepoo. Dude where's my broom

[whec720]

He's BEEN in with Chappaquiddick Ted. He still doesn't know Barack's name. "Osama bin Laden...er...Osama Obama...err...aw, hell. Somebody gimme a drink."

Not getting what I am saying. There are the Clinton Democrats and then there are the Kennedy Democrats. The party is split. Obama is well financed. Nothing here is an accident.

[bootlen]

Not getting what I am saying. There are the Clinton Democrats and then there are the Kennedy Democrats. The party is split. Obama is well financed. Nothing here is an accident.

I get exactly what you're saying. It was a foregone conclusion that Edwards would back Barack. Remember the Kerry/Edwards bid? Kerry's a Kennedy sperm. The Clinton's did not back the K/E ticket. The Kennedys and Clintons have NEVER gotten along.

Then there was the meeting some months back in NC between Obama and Edwards. I suspect they sealed the VEEP seat at that time.

[smokin68]

Obama-Edwards would be a stronger ticket than Obama-Clinton IMO. Obama couldn't win West Virginia if he pulled a Michael Jackson with the skin dye.

[glennac]

You're more disillisioned every day. What evidence do you have that Obama is a "true socialist" or anti-american? You have none. Just typical paranoid blabber.

You oviously have the IQ of a moron. Obama has co-sponsored a bill in the Senate to give away $845 billion to the UN for them to "fight poverty". This amounts to $2,817. per person in the US or for a family of four it equals to $11,267 per family. Now if that is not Anti-American then I don't know what is. Most of these countries which will get aid in the name of the UN are anti American. That is "socialism" pure and simple taxing the "rich" countries with a huge cost burden for us to give to the "socialist" poor countries with no private enterprise like in Africa where the goverment runs everything through graft and corruption. You just keep with your garbage mouth and name calling. The signs of a truly ignorant person who can not argue a case but resorts to breaking the rules of the forum instead of trying to debate freely.

[sysint]

Who is authorizing billions of dollars to Iraq? Let me re-phrase that. Who is authorizing over a trillion dollars to Iraq?

That amounts to a check of over $3,000 to every man, woman and child in the US. That's $12,000 for every family of four in the US.
Now if that is not Anti-American then I don't know what is. Most of these countries which will get aid in the name of the US are anti American. That is "socialism" pure and simple taxing the "rich" countries with a huge cost burden for us to give to the "socialist" poor countries with no private enterprise like in Iraq where the government, religion and militias run everything through graft and corruption.

Some days you are really ignorant Glenn.

I'd rather pump some dollars to the UN and let them take the heat. Actually, less dollars and still let them take the heat. When middle eastern governments allow nut jobs to crash into buildings you simply go over and level every building they have. Problem solved. Let the UN figure out what to do internally and let the people over there plant IED's blowing each other up. If you think the US needs a couple oil-fields for the trouble, take a few.

[glennac]

Who is authorizing billions of dollars to Iraq? Let me re-phrase that. Who is authorizing over a trillion dollars to Iraq?

That amounts to a check of over $3,000 to every man, woman and child in the US. That's $12,000 for every family of four in the US.
Now if that is not Anti-American then I don't know what is. Most of these countries which will get aid in the name of the US are anti American. That is "socialism" pure and simple taxing the "rich" countries with a huge cost burden for us to give to the "socialist" poor countries with no private enterprise like in Iraq where the government, religion and militias run everything through graft and corruption.

Some days you are really ignorant Glenn.

I'd rather pump some dollars to the UN and let them take the heat. Actually, less dollars and still let them take the heat. When middle eastern governments allow nut jobs to crash into buildings you simply go over and level every building they have. Problem solved. Let the UN figure out what to do internally and let the people over there plant IED's blowing each other up. If you think the US needs a couple oil-fields for the trouble, take a few.

Well sys some days you are really ignorant also. The Democratic controlled Congress has authorized every penny spent in Iraq. We are fighting terrorism over there and just can't simply pull out and that's why we are still there. I personally wish we never went there but we are there and yes in my opinion Bush should have never taken us there and I felt that way from the get go and not just later.

At least there is a reason for the money spent. There is no justifiable reason whatsoever for the money which Obama wants to give to the UN so they can take the credit to help mostly our enemies in this war on Global Poverty. It will be money taken from us when we can't afford it, to be spent as the UN not the US sees fit. Talk about a crime if there ever was one. I am outraged that he or anyone else would even suggest this much less co-sponsor a bill in the US Senate to do this. Try and justify that instead of saying Iraq, what about this bill pending in the US Senate that Obama wants passed. You can't and no one else can either. It is impossible to defend or argue for.

[coolwhip]

The UN sucks!....literally.:mad:

[air311]

Well sys some days you are really ignorant also. The Democratic controlled Congress has authorized every penny spent in Iraq. We are fighting terrorism over there and just can't simply pull out and that's why we are still there. I personally wish we never went there but we are there and yes in my opinion Bush should have never taken us there and I felt that way from the get go and not just later.

At least there is a reason for the money spent. There is no justifiable reason whatsoever for the money which Obama wants to give to the UN so they can take the credit to help mostly our enemies in this war on Global Poverty. It will be money taken from us when we can't afford it, to be spent as the UN not the US sees fit. Talk about a crime if there ever was one. I am outraged that he or anyone else would even suggest this much less co-sponsor a bill in the US Senate to do this. Try and justify that instead of saying Iraq, what about this bill pending in the US Senate that Obama wants passed. You can't and no one else can either. It is impossible to defend or argue for. Let's get our troops out of Iraq, not give any money to the UN, and a lot of problems this country is having could be fixed. they're both big wastes of money.

[sysint]

It's Obama's universal answer to the US and the world. He pulls out of Iraq and diverts the money to the UN. A couple years and he probably thinks he can turn off the spigot.

[sysint]

"Well sys some days you are really ignorant also. The Democratic controlled Congress has authorized every penny spent in Iraq." Excuse by you Glenn. It's not just that simple. It's about as retarded as saying George Bush is the answer to the problem for everything. You are still ignorant.

[glennac]

"Well sys some days you are really ignorant also. The Democratic controlled Congress has authorized every penny spent in Iraq." Excuse by you Glenn. It's not just that simple. It's about as retarded as saying George Bush is the answer to the problem for everything. You are still ignorant.

You are the one who is retarded. Congress has to authorize every penny that the President spends. What don't you understand about that sys. The Democrats control the purse strings. So before you start with your name calling and garbage mouth breaking the rules of this forum answer that. Still have to resort to name calling instead of debate I see. Try debating the facts sometime sys instead of your usual name calling.

[air311]

You are the one who is retarded. Congress has to authorize every penny that the President spends. What don't you understand about that sys. The Democrats control the purse strings. So before you start with your name calling and garbage mouth breaking the rules of this forum answer that. Still have to resort to name calling instead of debate I see. Try debating the facts sometime sys instead of your usual name calling.

Democrats have been in control of congress for 16 months. Who was in control when this mess started?

[glennac]

Democrats have been in control of congress for 16 months. Who was in control when this mess started?

The Republicans of course but the Democrats are now in charge and control the money and they have not shut off the funds and have continued to authorize spending money so no one can say that the money we are now spending is not approved by the Democratically controlled Congress.

Now I wish we never went in but nearly all the Democrats approved the war at the time it started so they can't now say that they were opposed to it at that time.

[sysint]

Obama can and it appears he wants to fund the UN and pull out of Iraq.

[air311]

The Republicans of course but the Democrats are now in charge and control the money and they have not shut off the funds and have continued to authorize spending money so no one can say that the money we are now spending is not approved by the Democratically controlled Congress.

Now I wish we never went in but nearly all the Democrats approved the war at the time it started so they can't now say that they were opposed to it at that time.

All true. They can't shut off the funds, because even most Democrats aren't cold enough to cut off our troops.

[whec720]

I get exactly what you're saying. It was a foregone conclusion that Edwards would back Barack. Remember the Kerry/Edwards bid? Kerry's a Kennedy sperm. The Clinton's did not back the K/E ticket. The Kennedys and Clintons have NEVER gotten along.

Then there was the meeting some months back in NC between Obama and Edwards. I suspect they sealed the VEEP seat at that time.

I think so too. Edwards had to keep his mouth shut till Obama had enough backing by the party. Imagine if he had spoke too soon. Had Hillary got the nod, they (Hill and Bill), would have him destroyed. That's their MO, always has been and will always be.
You might disagree with me on this one, but McCain is weak....too weak to win. People have and continue to underestimate Obama. The will of the people is broken. Apathy has taken over and that is the socialist's best friend. Look around you. Democrats are taking over the joint.
My advice....stock up....if you know what I mean.;)

[forged alloy]

Away from Bush for a minute...

I don't know how many of you caught Hannity's radio show yesterday. He had on some black pastor who was rabidly anti-Obama - he called him the devils seed. He also claimed to have proof of an Obama - Rev. Wright sexual affair, which is why Obama hung around him and supported him for so long. Hannity pressed him on his proof but the dude said he would release it at a more adventageous time. Hannity blew him off because it was an unsupported accusation, and hurtful to the democratic process. I just caught the end of the interview, and didn't get his name. Apparently he had been on with Shawn before.

I'm sure this was pure BS, but it sure makes me wonder if some pre-convention bombshell is why Clinton is hanging around. If something does go off, then we will know that Clinton is truly evil at heart.

[air311]

I think so too. Edwards had to keep his mouth shut till Obama had enough backing by the party. Imagine if he had spoke too soon. Had Hillary got the nod, they (Hill and Bill), would have him destroyed. That's their MO, always has been and will always be.
You might disagree with me on this one, but McCain is weak....too weak to win. People have and continue to underestimate Obama. The will of the people is broken. Apathy has taken over and that is the socialist's best friend. Look around you. Democrats are taking over the joint.
My advice....stock up....if you know what I mean.;)

Another candidate for paranoia treatment.

[whec720]

Another candidate for paranoia treatment.

Okey dokey...:rolleyes:

You do what you have to do and I'll do the same. Share that with your socialist buddies.:p

[mrs reb77]

Another candidate for paranoia treatment.

...they're out to get YOU too air! :D

[2cool4us]

Be relieved if Kerry gets the VP nod. McCain will win by a very slim margin if this happens. :cool:

[k-fridge]

Be relieved if Kerry gets the VP nod. McCain will win by a very slim margin if this happens. :cool:
McCain's gonna win regardless. Up to 30% of Democratic voters will vote Republican this time.

You'd think the Dummycrats would learn, when they run a liberal--they lose.

[glennac]

McCain's gonna win regardless. Up to 30% of Democratic voters will vote Republican this time.

You'd think the Dummycrats would learn, when they run a liberal--they lose.

Your being to kind. The most liberal voting record in the Senate and Obama wants to give the UN our wealth to spend. Socialist or even communist would be a better description in my opinion. A "Liberal" my foot.:)

[2cool4us]

I will have to vote for McCain. :(:eek:

[k-fridge]

I will have to vote for McCain. :(:eek:
There may be hope for you yet. :D

[smokin68]

McCain = 4 more years of Bush. Might as well stick your privates in a vice and turn the crank. McCain can't beat Obama UNLESS Hillary is on the ticket, which she won't be. The MAJORITY of this country wants change, and McCain isn't change, and you 'Pubs know it.

[whec720]

McCain = 4 more years of Bush. Might as well stick your privates in a vice and turn the crank. McCain can't beat Obama UNLESS Hillary is on the ticket, which she won't be. The MAJORITY of this country wants change, and McCain isn't change, and you 'Pubs know it.

Well, I for one, am not a "Pub". What is this "change" you "Dems" speak? Change your brake pads, change your tax bracket, change your underwear? What??:confused:

[glennac]

Well, I for one, am not a "Pub". What is this "change" you "Dems" speak? Change your brake pads, change your tax bracket, change your underwear? What??:confused:

The only change I see is going socialist or communist with Obama. A scary and disastrous trip if there ever was one.

[smokin68]

Well, I for one, am not a "Pub". What is this "change" you "Dems" speak? Change your brake pads, change your tax bracket, change your underwear? What??:confused:


Change in the direction of the war in Iraq...an actual deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawal. Changes to the economy through a different economic plan....the war again is costing this country a fortune besides lives lost. Changes to foreign policy since we've alienated ourselves from alot of the world. Changes from the "BUSH" way of doing things....which like I stated will continue under McCain.

[whec720]

The only change I see is going socialist or communist with Obama. A scary and disastrous trip if there ever was one.

There you have it, smokin'.......Obama and/or Hillary=communism. Ya like them apples...do ya?:D

Glen, do you think the con is on with this too? I sure do. As bad as McCain is, we'd be a lot worse off with a Democrat. However, how long can we hold the flood gates of tyranny back? Too many on the Republican party are leaning left.

[whec720]

Change in the direction of the war in Iraq...an actual deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawal. Changes to the economy through a different economic plan....the war again is costing this country a fortune besides lives lost. Changes to foreign policy since we've alienated ourselves from alot of the world. Changes from the "BUSH" way of doing things....which like I stated will continue under McCain.

Too generic...be specific. "A different economic plan." What's that? I'll bet it is more taxes taken from what I EARN. "Changes in foreign policy". What's that? Maybe that means appeasing terrorists nations, like Iran. Speaking of Iran, what do you do about them when ya pull all US troops out of Iraq? Do you beg and say "please, pretty please" do not invade Iraq? Maybe the "BUSH" way of doing things sure beats the "change" you seek.

[smokin68]

Specific: He's spoken about closing loopholes for tax breaks that the oil companies and other Fortune 500 companies are exploiting. He also has a strong way of dealing with Iran...either they comply with shutting down the nuclear development, or further sanctions will be imposed,and didn't rule out military action.

He can't possibly be worse at foreign policy than we have right now. We attacked a country due to them having WMDs, found none, and created a civil war in a country that was stable under it's dictator,even if we don't agree with his actions. We did this AGAINST the advise of our allies and the UN. Personally I could give a rat's a$$ if Iran invades Iraq, when the dust settles that region might be better off. We need to become far less dependent on oil.....which Obama is for the development of alternative fuels.

[glennac]

There you have it, smokin'.......Obama and/or Hillary=communism. Ya like them apples...do ya?:D

Glen, do you think the con is on with this too? I sure do. As bad as McCain is, we'd be a lot worse off with a Democrat. However, how long can we hold the flood gates of tyranny back? Too many on the Republican party are leaning left.

Whec, check out his link http://www.theobamafile.com/ It has more damming info on Obama they you could imagine. Check out the section on "Politics" it has some real heavy stuff.

I don't think that that many Republicans are going left as the leaders are and hurting the whole party. Bush, McCain, and a lot of the Senators and Congressmen have crossed the line. I have no solution to the problem other than this may be the result of years of constant bias reporting of the news along with the commie leaning teachers union and their 100% control of public education in the US, leftest professors, ACLU, federal judges, most lawyers vote Democrat by a large percentage, and the PC culture which is destroying free speech and used to silence conservatives because we are perceived to be cruel and uncaring.

[whec720]

Specific: He's spoken about closing loopholes for tax breaks that the oil companies and other Fortune 500 companies are exploiting. He also has a strong way of dealing with Iran...either they comply with shutting down the nuclear development, or further sanctions will be imposed,and didn't rule out military action.

He can't possibly be worse at foreign policy than we have right now. We attacked a country due to them having WMDs, found none, and created a civil war in a country that was stable under it's dictator,even if we don't agree with his actions. We did this AGAINST the advise of our allies and the UN. Personally I could give a rat's a$$ if Iran invades Iraq, when the dust settles that region might be better off. We need to become far less dependent on oil.....which Obama is for the development of alternative fuels.

What a bunch of pipe dreams..:rolleyes:

He is going to cut loop holes? okay....what holes, how?? He's running for President, so lay it out! He won't cause he is like all Democrats....just talk.. no "Do". Besides, its not like he is gonna cut the balls off his buddies at Wal Mart. Who do you think is bank rolling this farce of a government we have now?
Further sanctions on Iran?....well....whiptee doo!! Tell me, do you think that will work? That was the "please, pretty please" I was talking about.
Iraq violated UN weapon inspections. That is the record. So, until confirmed, THEY HAD WMDS. The United States confirmed they had none, something UN was unable to do. Why? Because they are a joke and guys, like Saddam, knew it.
You might not care if Iran invades Iraq but others do. You think Israel will stand for that? How long do you think we can hold these guys behind the gates? If this happens, I wouldn't blame Israel for going after them. You think it is a mess now in the ME, wait till clowns like Obama take charge.
The world is a dangerous place. Wishing and sanctioning your way out of problems will get us all killed. Think about it.

[whec720]

Whec, check out his link http://www.theobamafile.com/ It has more damming info on Obama they you could imagine. Check out the section on "Politics" it has some real heavy stuff.

I don't think that that many Republicans are going left as the leaders are and hurting the whole party. Bush, McCain, and a lot of the Senators and Congressmen have crossed the line. I have no solution to the problem other than this may be the result of years of constant bias reporting of the news along with the commie leaning teachers union and their 100% control of public education in the US, leftest professors, ACLU, federal judges, most lawyers vote Democrat by a large percentage, and the PC culture which is destroying free speech and used to silence conservatives because we are perceived to be cruel and uncaring.

Whew...that is quite a resume. How did this guy get as far as he has.....oh yeah...the MSM. You sure won't see this on the NBC Nightly News.:(

[glennac]

Specific: He's spoken about closing loopholes for tax breaks that the oil companies and other Fortune 500 companies are exploiting. He also has a strong way of dealing with Iran...either they comply with shutting down the nuclear development, or further sanctions will be imposed,and didn't rule out military action.

He can't possibly be worse at foreign policy than we have right now. We attacked a country due to them having WMDs, found none, and created a civil war in a country that was stable under it's dictator,even if we don't agree with his actions. We did this AGAINST the advise of our allies and the UN. Personally I could give a rat's a$$ if Iran invades Iraq, when the dust settles that region might be better off. We need to become far less dependent on oil.....which Obama is for the development of alternative fuels.

Smoking the only cure for our dependence on foreign oil will be to kick all the environmentalist out of Congress and that would include all the Democrats and a lot of the Republicans and lift restrictions on oil drilling and nuclear power. Plus repeal all the subsidies on alternate forms of fuel and allow private enterprise to solve our problems and not have more created by big brother.

Obama has the most radical background of any candidate who has ever ran for the office of Presidency. His church, his friends, his family and his voting record like wanting to give all our wealth to the UN. What a joke.

[lolson]

im glad to see her doing her best to prevent us from being involved in a holy war for 1000s of years to come

[air311]

Smoking the only cure for our dependence on foreign oil will be to kick all the environmentalist out of Congress and that would include all the Democrats and a lot of the Republicans and lift restrictions on oil drilling and nuclear power. Plus repeal all the subsidies on alternate forms of fuel and allow private enterprise to solve our problems and not have more created by big brother.

Obama has the most radical background of any candidate who has ever ran for the office of Presidency. His church, his friends, his family and his voting record like wanting to give all our wealth to the UN. What a joke.

So we should drill here for our own oil..how far will that take us? It WILL run out eventually. And most people don't want nuclear power plants popping up everywhere. Even though there's a very slight risk of a meltdown, it can happen. And the more plants that are built, the higher the risk becomes. And what do we do with all the waste? Yes, it can be re-processed, but there's only so many times you can re-process it. There is going to be waste that we have to put somewhere. Maybe we can put it in your backyard? What we need to do is stop this thinking that we can only focus on one form of an energy source. We need to implement different kinds of energy sources, that make the most sense for different parts of the country. Then WE can become a global energy leader, and the rest of the world can rely on us for a change. Goinf nuclear or drilling our lands for oil is only taking us backwards and not makng any real progress.

[forged alloy]

So we should drill here for our own oil..how far will that take us? It WILL run out eventually. And most people don't want nuclear power plants popping up everywhere. Even though there's a very slight risk of a meltdown, it can happen. And the more plants that are built, the higher the risk becomes. And what do we do with all the waste? Yes, it can be re-processed, but there's only so many times you can re-process it. There is going to be waste that we have to put somewhere. Maybe we can put it in your backyard? What we need to do is stop this thinking that we can only focus on one form of an energy source. We need to implement different kinds of energy sources, that make the most sense for different parts of the country. Then WE can become a global energy leader, and the rest of the world can rely on us for a change. Goinf nuclear or drilling our lands for oil is only taking us backwards and not makng any real progress.

Your logic is flawed. All forms of energy production create waste - The difference is that nuclear waste is contained and somewhat recyclable. Only through some catastrophic event can it be released. Waste from fossil fuels and bio-fuels is released into the atmosphere freely.

All forms of energy production should be explored and developed, without respect to politics and special interests.

[air311]

Your logic is flawed. All forms of energy production create waste - The difference is that nuclear waste is contained and somewhat recyclable. Only through some catastrophic event can it be released. Waste from fossil fuels and bio-fuels is released into the atmosphere freely.

All forms of energy production should be explored and developed, without respect to politics and special interests.

Yes, all forms of energy create some waste, but the risk of that nuclear waste becoming uncontained is simply to high, no matter how slight the statistical risk is. A meltdown that got out of control would do LOTS of damage to the immediate area. I never said I was against nuclear power, that just can't be the only road we look at going down. There's no flawed logic in that. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, there's plenty of alternatives that are out there.

[Balystic]

At this point there's no feasable way Clinton can win the Democratic nomination. She is now hindering the Dem's race to beat McCain. What does it take for her to admit defeat?

It takes whatever we use to get our WIVES to admit defeat!!! LMFAO! I just couldn't resist. :-)

[sysint]

If I were Obama I'd try really hard to make her irrelevant. I wouldn't give her anything she can be successful with and plan on firing her... if he's successful.

[whec720]

If I were Obama I'd try really hard to make her irrelevant. I wouldn't give her anything she can be successful with and plan on firing her... if he's successful.

Ha......that's easy! Put her in charge of forming a task force for universal health care for all, or improving public education.:p:D