THOSE HORRIBLE CLINTONS MUST BE STOPPED!! [Archive] - DC Junkies Political Message Board

Betty Blowtorch

05-23-2008, 02:41 PM

Cat slave

05-23-2008, 03:18 PM

Well your heart should be full just in case you missed it....I caught a clip
of the Dynasty Klinton and the accompanying statement was that if Hitlary
doesnt get the pres spot, "Bill" has other things in mind....VP? And then
Chelsea in a few years. Can we say "ongoing dictatorship"?

While I wouldnt give Bush air if he was in a jug, things started falling apart
in the last months of Klintons watch. Our investments started losing big
time in March of that year...that would be investments as in savings for
our independence in later years.

Obama cant keep his stories straight and has a very arrogant posture and
condesending delivery. And hes green as a gourd! On the other side he
is very charismatic and I can see why people follow him like lemmings to the
sea.

Whatever!

Moby

05-23-2008, 04:00 PM

But bill got a blow job and after all that's a much bigger issue then something as silly as oil prices, war or our standard of living.

LadyMod at scam.com

05-23-2008, 04:15 PM

If it was Bill, it would be great. But we are talking Hillary here.

Not so great.

Obama was working after his undergrad and then went to Harvard Law a few years later because he wanted to change things. Oh, one more thing — he also went on partial scholarship.

The man apparently knows how to handle money, he's done a very good job of it for himself. And he knows the value of hard work because he's not a stranger to it.

Lady Mod

.

Irrp

05-23-2008, 05:20 PM

THOSE HORRIBLE CLINTONS

All of you Hillary haters are absolutely right about the Clintons.
They're horrible, despicable monsters!

Just look at the horrible things they did to the U.S. economy
when they were in the White House:

How could the Clintons have sunk to such depths of depravity
that they committed the horrendous and unforgivable atrocity
of creating tens of millions of jobs for the American people?

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9505/chartjobs2003qk6.jpg

Look at how drastically the Clintons reduced unemployment
in America. How could they do something so despicable?

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/5163/chartunemplyresizesu7.jpg

Look at how badly they sabotaged the Republican plan
to increase the national debt from one trillion dollars
to TEN TRILLION DOLLARS in less than 30 years:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/2906/natldebtchart2004mj3.jpg

How could those Clintons have sunk so low that they
wrecked those wonderful trillion-dollar budget deficits
created by "fiscally conservative" Republicans?

Those motherfucking Clintons actually had the nerve
to balance the federal budget. Those cocksuckers!
How dare them! I hate them so much!

I love paying 4 dollars for a gallon of gas. It was
a fucking nightmare having to pay $1.25 a gallon
when the Clintons were in power.

America simply cannot survive another eight years
of the peace and prosperity that the American people
suffered under during the Clinton administration.

Those horrible Clintons MUST be stopped!!

We must get behind BARACK OBAMA!!

Mr. Obama has no proven track record whatsoever
when it comes to running the national government,
but he's good-looking, he's charismatic, he gives
inspiring speeches, and he makes promises.

And as we all know, politicians always live up to
their campaign promises.

Considering what those horrible Clintons did to
America when they controlled the White House,
the only intelligent option for the Democratic party
is to nominate the new guy with no track record.

Why can't all of those deluded Clinton voters
come to their senses and see the light?

You get behind Obama so the rest of us are safe:p

Cat slave

05-23-2008, 08:49 PM

But bill got a blow job and after all that's a much bigger issue then something as silly as oil prices, war or our standard of living.

It wasnt about the blow job. The charges were for lying under oath. His
blow job however showed the level of disrespect he held for the office and the
WH. He should have taken it to some seedy motel where it belonged and all
this would have been avoided.

But hey, we are over it. There are far bigger fish to fry now and in my mind
(and friends) he is totally irrelevant.

Bah bye Billy boy! Looks like you wont get to live in the WH again...my heart
bleeds!:p

Betty Blowtorch

05-24-2008, 02:17 AM

If it was Bill, it would be great. But we are talking Hillary here.

Not so great.
If Hillary is elected President, Bill Clinton would be living in
the White House and working full-time to clean up the mess
made by the Bush-Cheney gang.

With the Clinton team, we'd get two Presidents for the price
of one. And one of them (Bill) has loads of experience and
success running the national government for 8 years.

Did you think Bill would be in the kitchen, baking cookies?

Obama was working after his undergrad and then went to
Harvard Law a few years later because he wanted to change
things. Oh, one more thing — he also went on partial scholarship.

You've absolutely convinced me. Obama is qualified for
a well-paying job in a major law firm.

But his resume contains nothing that proves he's qualified
to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, let alone the
chief executive of the federal government.

On the other hand, there are two other applicants for the
same job that Obama wants: a husband-and-wife team
named Bill and Hillary. Bill has a very impressive record
of achievement during his 8 years of running the country.

The Clinton team has also achieved amazing success
at beating the Republicans at their own dirty games.
They are the only Democrats in more than 60 years
to have won the presidency twice.

Obama has yet to prove he can win it once.

If you were a personnel manager interviewing Obama
and the Clinton team for the job of President, would
you honestly hire the less experienced applicant?

The man apparently knows how to handle money, he's done
a very good job of it for himself. And he knows the value of
hard work because he's not a stranger to it.
Yes, I'm sure the Clinton team's success in managing
trillion-dollar federal budgets for 8 years is trumped by
Obama's ability to handle his own personal finances.

LadyMod at scam.com

05-24-2008, 08:31 AM

If Hillary is elected President, Bill Clinton would be living in
the White House and working full-time to clean up the mess
made by the Bush-Cheney gang.

With the Clinton team, we'd get two Presidents for the price
of one. And one of them (Bill) has loads of experience and
success running the national government for 8 years.

Did you think Bill would be in the kitchen, baking cookies?

I heard he wants to continue traveling racking up those million dollar speaking engagements.

You've absolutely convinced me. Obama is qualified for
a well-paying job in a major law firm.

But his resume contains nothing that proves he's qualified
to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, let alone the
chief executive of the federal government.

In other words, he's not a crook?

On the other hand, there are two other applicants for the
same job that Obama wants: a husband-and-wife team
named Bill and Hillary. Bill has a very impressive record
of achievement during his 8 years of running the country.

The Clinton team has also achieved amazing success
at beating the Republicans at their own dirty games.
They are the only Democrats in more than 60 years
to have won the presidency twice.

Yes, very impressive. They know how to play politics.

Obama has yet to prove he can win it once.

You got to start somewhere.

If you were a personnel manager interviewing Obama
and the Clinton team for the job of President, would
you honestly hire the less experienced applicant?

Do I get to look at all the facts? And as a voter, I think we have been the managers basically interviewing the applicants for the position.

Yes, I'm sure the Clinton team's success in managing
trillion-dollar federal budgets for 8 years is trumped by
Obama's ability to handle his own personal finances.

If you can handle your own finances, you can handle the finances of the Federal budget. Discipline is learned personally first.

Lady Mod

Betty Blowtorch

05-24-2008, 04:09 PM

In other words, he's not a crook?
Are you suggesting that the Clintons are crooks?
If you have some proof, please give us the facts.

Kenneth Starr spent 4 years and 40 million dollars
trying to prove that the Clintons are crooks, and he
failed miserably.

He investigated Whitewater, Vince Foster, and all
of the other dirt that the Republican slime machine
tried to pin on the Clintons, but the worst he could
come up with was Bill lying about a blowjob.

Do you have some juicy information that Ken Starr
overlooked in his 40-million-dollar investigation?

By all means, let's hear it.

The Clinton team has already been through two full
15-round heavyweight fights in which they withstood
every blow the right-wing slime machine could throw
at them, and they emerged victorious.

The Clintons have been thoroughly vetted during
two presidential campaigns. We know everything
there is to know about them. Every bit of dirt.

Obama, on the other hand, has yet to prove he can
go the distance against the repugs. He hasn't been
thoroughly vetted yet. God only knows what kind of
dirt the repugs will dig up on him before the election.

Do I get to look at all the facts?
Yes! By all means! Give us some facts and figures
to back up your opinions. Charts and graphs would
be nice.

I heard he wants to continue traveling racking up
those million dollar speaking engagements.
Glib one-liners are like cotton candy. They look like
food, they taste like food, but they're mostly hot air
with no substance or nutrition.

Yes, very impressive. They know how to play politics.
See answer above, regarding glib one-liners.

You got to start somewhere.
See answer above.

If you can handle your own finances, you can handle
the finances of the Federal budget. Discipline is
learned personally first.
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who earns
a few million dollars and has a good credit rating can
balance the federal budget?

George H.W. Bush (Dubya's daddy) amassed a vast
personal fortune, but as President, he ran up trillions
of dollars in deficits.

A politician's personal finances has no bearing on
whether he will balance the federal budget or run up
huge deficits.

The only human being on earth who has undisputedly
proven that he can transform huge Republican deficits
into a balanced budget is Bill Clinton.

With Obama, we're only guessing what he can do.
He's a great talker, but action speaks louder than
words. The Clintons have already proven what they
can do.

LadyMod at scam.com

05-24-2008, 10:56 PM

Are you suggesting that the Clintons are crooks?
If you have some proof, please give us the facts.

Kenneth Starr spent 4 years and 40 million dollars
trying to prove that the Clintons are crooks, and he
failed miserably.

He investigated Whitewater, Vince Foster, and all
of the other dirt that the Republican slime machine
tried to pin on the Clintons, but the worst he could
come up with was Bill lying about a blowjob.

Do you have some juicy information that Ken Starr
overlooked in his 40-million-dollar investigation?

By all means, let's hear it.

You will have to check your PM box. I know people who worked for the Clintons. I can not post anything Betty.

The Clinton team has already been through two full
15-round heavyweight fights in which they withstood
every blow the right-wing slime machine could throw
at them, and they emerged victorious.

The Clintons have been thoroughly vetted during
two presidential campaigns. We know everything
there is to know about them. Every bit of dirt.

No you don't.

Obama, on the other hand, has yet to prove he can
go the distance against the repugs. He hasn't been
thoroughly vetted yet. God only knows what kind of
dirt the repugs will dig up on him before the election.

No better time than the present to prove himself then is there?

Hillary is a long shot. A very long shot. Two more primaries to go and she can't get enough delegates to make a majority.

I don't even know why you would want to make an issue out of it. Unless you are one of those who would rather vote McCain than make a change in this country.

I've heard of beating a dead horse before. That's kind of what if must be like to stir up support for Clinton these days.

Lady Mod

.

Binky

05-25-2008, 04:36 AM

THOSE HORRIBLE CLINTONS

All of you Hillary haters are absolutely right about the Clintons.
They're horrible, despicable monsters!

Just look at the horrible things they did to the U.S. economy
when they were in the White House:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6640/chartdow2004smpj1.jpg

How could the Clintons have sunk to such depths of depravity
that they committed the horrendous and unforgivable atrocity
of creating tens of millions of jobs for the American people?

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9505/chartjobs2003qk6.jpg

Look at how drastically the Clintons reduced unemployment
in America. How could they do something so despicable?

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/5163/chartunemplyresizesu7.jpg

Look at how badly they sabotaged the Republican plan
to increase the national debt from one trillion dollars
to TEN TRILLION DOLLARS in less than 30 years:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/2906/natldebtchart2004mj3.jpg

How could those Clintons have sunk so low that they
wrecked those wonderful trillion-dollar budget deficits
created by "fiscally conservative" Republicans?

Those motherfucking Clintons actually had the nerve
to balance the federal budget. Those cocksuckers!
How dare them! I hate them so much!

I love paying 4 dollars for a gallon of gas. It was
a fucking nightmare having to pay $1.25 a gallon
when the Clintons were in power.

America simply cannot survive another eight years
of the peace and prosperity that the American people
suffered under during the Clinton administration.

Those horrible Clintons MUST be stopped!!

We must get behind BARACK OBAMA!!

Mr. Obama has no proven track record whatsoever
when it comes to running the national government,
but he's good-looking, he's charismatic, he gives
inspiring speeches, and he makes promises.

And as we all know, politicians always live up to
their campaign promises.

Considering what those horrible Clintons did to
America when they controlled the White House,
the only intelligent option for the Democratic party
is to nominate the new guy with no track record.

Why can't all of those deluded Clinton voters
come to their senses and see the light?

Are you nuts? It's taken more that Clinton to ruin this country. How about Daddy and Baby Bush for starters? There are several others that have driven America into the pits of Hell.

And you just said that you knew Obama didn't have the experience to run this country yet you still want to "get behind" him. What the hell? Just because you think he's good looking and has chrisma is no reason to vote for him. Holy shit! Is that what you are basing your vote on? Oh my God! Are we ever in some serious, serious shit. The muslims are shitting their pants with excitement as they are wanting him to get elected. The man has only been a senator for two damn years, for God's sake. He certainly hasn't cornered the market on let's say, paid his dues and gotten said experience.

And McCain is another evil that we don't need. He wants to remain in the war for 100 years. (that is, until he got called on that statement and decided to change it to pulling out our soldiers within five years.) Go figure! But me thinks he putting up a smoke screen on that issue. He's another Bush. Same policies. Different face. Might as well be clones.

So which door do we pick? Door one? or Door two? Seeing as how McCain, a republican, is for big business (corporations) and Obama is a democrat, which are for the working men and women, then I guess it would behoove us to vote for him, even tho' it may be against our gut instincts. Maybe we all would like to have enough money in our wallets so we can get something to eat for the day, rather than letting big business get all the money and perks.
I am in the biggest voting delemia I have ever been in. I would prefer not to vote in this election at all, this time around. And I can't stand either candidatek and I damn sure I don't trust them. So what do people like me do in a situation as this? Vote or not vote?

This is the biggest election of my lifetime and I am 60. And it is weighing heavily on my heart. This is not one I care to enter into friviously. This is one that will change our country forever.

Betty Blowtorch

05-25-2008, 04:53 AM

I know people who worked for the Clintons.
I can not post anything Betty.
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6572/maxwellsmartshoeyg9.jpg
Gotcha, Chief. I'll be right there so we can talk in person.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/1809/maxwellsmartim5.jpg
Okay, now you can tell me all about it.

I don't even know why you would want to make an issue
out of it. Unless you are one of those who would rather
vote McCain than make a change in this country.

I've heard of beating a dead horse before. That's kind
of what if must be like to stir up support for Clinton
these days.
The reason I started this thread was because I was seeing
an inordinate amount of hate being directed at the Clintons,
not just by the repugs here, but by Democrats and liberals.

In other threads, the Clintons have been called "monsters"
and "Hillary is like catching the clap" which are obviously
expressions of hate rather than substantive arguments.

I wanted to give the Hillary haters an opportunity to explain
in less emotional and more fact-based arguments, exactly
why they hate the Clintons so much, considering all of their
positive accomplishments in the White House.

Personally I don't feel any hostility toward Hillary or Obama,
so it seems odd to see my fellow Dems spewing so much
venom at other Dems. I reserve my hostility for McCain
and the repugs.

From the beginning, my position has been that I'll vote for
the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. I always
keep my eye on the prize, which is removing the neocons
from power.

I've noticed that some of the Hillary haters said they would
NOT vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, thus opening the
door for a McCain victory. That's a self-destructive attitude
which I don't understand.

No better time than the present to prove himself then
is there?
I hope this infatuation with Obama doesn't result in the
Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Can you imagine how you will feel on the morning after
the election, waking up to the news that McCain will be
running America (into the ground) for the next 4 years?

If Obama becomes the nominee, I will be curious to see
how he handles his first major decisions: choosing his
running mate and uniting his deeply divided party.

After that, I'll be curious to see how far the Republican
slime machine will go to humiliate and destroy Obama.

stefan segal

05-25-2008, 04:56 AM

Blowtorch, hillary lent 11 million of bill's money to her campaign and is now just 21 million in debt...all for nought.

The clinton luster is over...he was good for this country for his 8 years, now good no longer.

They are now the "adams family"...the old perverts like mccain who are still trying to recapture their glory days...who got the time OR the money these days.

Obama is a new dream...Camalot revisited. This country need his vision and energy. Lets allow those old fucks to sit home and dazzle their grandchildren.

bill did some good and some bad for this country. I personally was 100% in his corner while he was in office. I loved his speaches...he now makes my skin crawl since he turned into a used car salesman. His attempts at getting cozy makes me think of taking a shower. That family, like the butches, time has come and gone...except for the criminal convictions long overdue.

Vote Obama...you'll like the change:)

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

05-25-2008, 06:04 AM

Are you nuts?
Not according to my psychiatrist. http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7131/avataryellun1.gif

It's taken more than Clinton to ruin this country. How about
Daddy and Baby Bush for starters? There are several others
that have driven America into the pits of Hell.

And you just said that you knew Obama didn't have the experience
to run this country yet you still want to "get behind" him. What the
hell? Just because you think he's good looking and has chrisma is
no reason to vote for him. Holy shit! Is that what you are basing
your vote on? Oh my God! Are we ever in some serious, serious
shit. The muslims are shitting their pants with excitement as they
are wanting him to get elected. The man has only been a senator
for two damn years, for God's sake. He certainly hasn't cornered
the market on let's say, paid his dues and gotten said experience.

Apparently you're not acquainted with the concept of sarcasm.

And McCain is another evil that we don't need. He wants to
remain in the war for 100 years. (that is, until he got called
on that statement and decided to change it to pulling out our
soldiers within five years.) Go figure! But me thinks he is
putting up a smoke screen on that issue. He's another Bush.
Same policies. Different face. Might as well be clones.
I agree.

So which door do we pick? Door one? or Door two? Seeing
as how McCain, a republican, is for big business (corporations)
and Obama is a democrat, which are for the working men and
women, then I guess it would behoove us to vote for him, even
tho' it may be against our gut instincts.

I am in the biggest voting delemma I have ever been in. I would
prefer not to vote in this election at all, this time around. And
I can't stand either candidate and I damn sure I don't trust them.
So what do people like me do in a situation as this?
Vote or not vote?
That's an easy question to answer. Vote for the Democratic
nominee regardless of who it is, because that's the only way
to prevent 4 more years of neocon rule.

LadyMod at scam.com

05-25-2008, 08:40 AM

The reason I started this thread was because I was seeing
an inordinate amount of hate being directed at the Clintons,
not just by the repugs here, but by Democrats and liberals.

In other threads, the Clintons have been called "monsters"
and "Hillary is like catching the clap" which are obviously
expressions of hate rather than substantive arguments.

Really? Oh man, I missed those posts. I dislike her for good reasons,
of course I am not at liberty to say why and you know this now. Of course
I'm not sure she would make the best candidate when she has problems telling
the difference between sniper fire and being greeted by a sweet little girl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

What happens if she has such a lapse when it comes to something important? Say like bringing the soldiers home from Iraq or that National Healthcare plan?

I wanted to give the Hillary haters an opportunity to explain
in less emotional and more fact-based arguments, exactly
why they hate the Clintons so much, considering all of their
positive accomplishments in the White House.

Bills positive accomplishments.

From the beginning, my position has been that I'll vote for
the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. I always
keep my eye on the prize, which is removing the neocons
from power.

This is good. I wish I could say the same thing. But I personally don't think Hillary would be any better for this country than McCain. And that's just a personal opinion.

I know that Bills tenure in office was a good one. Arkansas breathed a sigh of relief to see them leave the Governors mansion. Much like Texans did when Bush left here.

I've noticed that some of the Hillary haters said they would
NOT vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, thus opening the
door for a McCain victory. That's a self-destructive attitude
which I don't understand.

Well, people vote their conscience not necessarily their party. People have said the same thing about OBama. And for less valid reasons.

I hope this infatuation with Obama doesn't result in the
Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I hope the paranoia with the man's age, experience, color and church affiliation doesn't result in the same thing.

Can you imagine how you will feel on the morning after
the election, waking up to the news that McCain will be
running America (into the ground) for the next 4 years?

I'll start looking to the skies for the second coming. Armegeddon will be at hand.

If Obama becomes the nominee, I will be curious to see
how he handles his first major decisions: choosing his
running mate and uniting his deeply divided party.

No doubt, Hillary did her party much damage early in the campaign. OBama has rallied well and I think will continue to do so. I think he will choose a running mate wisely and that the party will reunite once these primaries are over.

After that, I'll be curious to see how far the Republican
slime machine will go to humiliate and destroy Obama.

McCain's camp has plenty of dirt in the news at the moment to over come first. The fact that the man doe not want to get into the kind of mud slinging contest that Hillary was ready to go into, against the opposing candidate tells me that he's a far superior choice in some ways over Hillary. Though frankly he vascilates a lot on the issues, I would be watching his running mate more closely than him. If we had done that when Bush was running, and eyed Cheney closer, I think we would have made better choices 8 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/us/politics/25mccain.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1211715376-f4igpdUM9HArNadttKFTVg

Worries in G.O.P. About McCain Camp Disarray

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: May 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign is in a troubled stretch, hindered by resignations of staff members, a lagging effort to build a national campaign organization and questions over whether he has taken full advantage of Democratic turmoil to present a case for his candidacy, Republicans say.

In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign, and if the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr. McCain’s inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is a reformer taking on special interests in Washington.

“The core image of John McCain is as a reformer in Washington — and the more dominant the story is about the lobbying teams around him, the more you put that into question,” said Terry Nelson, who was Mr. McCain’s campaign manager until he left in a shake-up last fall. “If the Obama campaign can truly change him from being seen as a reformer to just being another Washington politician, it could be very damaging over the course of the campaign.”

LadyMod at scam.com

05-25-2008, 08:54 AM

"MARK SIMKIN, REPORTER: John McCain is the latest candidate to have a preacher problem. Earlier in the campaign, he sought and received the support of Rod Parsley, a prominent evangelical leader. The Senator's now discovered not all endorsements are blessings.

JOHN MCCAIN, REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: "And I'm very honored today to have one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide, Pastor Rod Parsley".

You know Pastor Rod? He's the one who said "Islam is an antichrist religion that intends, through violence, to conquer the world".

Then there is another one who McCain sought endorsement from, Pastor John Hagee, who argued God caused the Holocaust so Jews would go to Palestine.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cLfsG8XKWfw

I know, I know, Mullah... er ... Pastor Rod and Pastor John appeal to the bigots, the torpid, and conservatives, but intelligent free-thinking Americans find that sort of vitriol offensive. Thankfully, and remarkably for a conservative, McCain said "I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, I repudiate them." Good for you, John! But it must be getting difficult to find conservative supporters who you can trust.

.
.

stefan segal

05-25-2008, 02:21 PM

hillary is not trustworthy with making choices for her supporters if they run counter to her own designs.

she is a moral snake...but hides her rattles with whatever words she thinks will be effectual in putting voters to sleep.

I can't express how vicious a threat she is without sounding insane...so I will suffice the delema with simply pointing her out as a supremely accomplished sociopath.

Stefan

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/23/135132/436/427/521304

Hillary stiffs Indiana University for $55,000
by mark1tc
Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM PDT
Evidently this presidential wannabe thinks the people of Indiana should be willing to pay for her visit, since the university is a public institution. This from the Associated Press:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has moved on from Indiana, leaving behind $55,000 in unpaid bills for campaign events at Indiana University.

The debts are for appearances made by Clinton, former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, during March and April leading up to Indiana's May 6 primary.

Barack Obama's campaign, meanwhile, has already paid the $108,142 it owed IU for two Assembly Hall events -- a rally featuring the Illinois senator and an Obama-sponsored concert by Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds.

Thanks Sen. Clinton. I look forward to paying my share next April. This is one of the reasons why so many Americans don't trust her and why I didn't support her in the Democratic primary. Really, I had high hopes for Sen. Clinton when this race began but I have given up on her. How can people support a candidate who stiffs the public?

Betty Blowtorch

05-25-2008, 05:00 PM

I think he will choose a running mate wisely and that
the party will reunite once these primaries are over.
Apparently you missed the point I was implying when
I said I'm curious to see how Obama will handle his
first major decisions: choosing a running mate and
uniting his deeply divided party.

Traditionally, when a party is evenly divided between two
candidates, and the primary race is as close as the one
we have this year, the candidate who wins the nomination
is expected to offer the second-place candidate the right
of first refusal for the Vice President slot.

It's the politically wise move. An Obama-Clinton ticket has
a decent chance of winning. If Obama disses the Clintons
and pisses off Clinton voters, he could lose ten million votes
with his first major decision. That would be real stupid.

The Democratic party is deeply divided between Obama
and the Clintons. If Obama really wants to unite the party
AND gain millions of Clinton voters at the same time,
he should ask Hillary to be his running mate.

But I think the Hillary haters hate Hillary so much, they
can't even stomach the thought of Hillary being V.P.

Arkansas breathed a sigh of relief to see them leave
the Governors mansion. Much like Texans did when
Bush left here.
Hmmm... Hillary won the recent Arkansas primary
by 70% to Obama's 26%. Apparently there are lots
of folks in Arkansas who support the Clintons.

Well, people vote their conscience not necessarily their party.
I wonder how their conscience will feel when McCain attacks
Iran, the price of gas jumps to 10 bucks a gallon and rising,
and lots of people lose their jobs.

I'll start looking to the skies for the second coming.
Armegeddon will be at hand.
I get the impression that the Hillary haters would rather
have Armageddon than Hillary in the White House,
or even in the V.P. slot.

Binky

05-25-2008, 06:16 PM

Not according to my psychiatrist. http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7131/avataryellun1.gif

Apparently you're not acquainted with the concept of sarcasm.

I agree.

That's an easy question to answer. Vote for the Democratic
nominee regardless of who it is, because that's the only way
to prevent 4 more years of neocon rule.

Well, considering that he is going to be the democratic cand. I will vote for him even tho' I'm not convinced he is going to be good for the country. But I sure as hell don't want another republican in office. I enjoy having some money in my wallet rather than cobwebs. The dems are for the little people like you and I. The repubicans are in bed with big business as in montrous corporations. And corporations are taking over the country. Don't believe me? Then how many mom and pop business do you see in this country anymore? The media and big business are in control of America and are working on controlling the rest of the world. Does that put it into perspective for you? If not, then how's this? We are now becoming a country of two classes of people. Those in the upper escheleons of society beating down the ones in the lower. And those in the lower, sitting back and taking it in the ass and doing nary a thing about it. Pretty picture, isnt' it?

stefan segal

05-25-2008, 06:23 PM

Blowtorch...you are missing what Obama is offering. To put hillary in as VP would destroy his basic tenent.

hillary is owned...she's bought and sold herself...provided whe has a self somewhere in all her lies...this is exactly what Obama is running on...he owes NO lobbyist and thereby will administer aa government for the people's interests.

So you see it is not simply the high negatives hillary just being hillary keeps hotly fired...it is because she rates just slimly above mccain as a possible VP canidate...they both, mccain and hillary, are exactly NOT the leading hand we need in this country/world today.

I have trouble understanding why thinking people such as yourself resist trusting Obama's obvious superiority of intellect, caring and personal character. What possible benifit do you acquire by forwarding the government as it is today?

I know you see the corruption and lies, and also regester the harm it has and is doing to the USA, the world and we citizens. So why fight the man who offers the remedy?

In your wildest dreams, do you think Obama could fuck up so completely as the butch bastards have done in these last eight years? Where is the risk???

You are too smart to settle for "the devil you know" crap, so let me in on your thinking...I really would like to know.

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

05-25-2008, 07:47 PM

she is a moral snake...but hides her rattles
with whatever words she thinks will be
effectual in putting voters to sleep.

I can't express how vicious a threat she is
without sounding insane...
That's the kind of crazy talk that wigs me out.

I suspect that Obama could win the nomination,
bring the race to an immediate end, and unite the
Democratic party by making one simple decision:
offer the V.P. slot to Hillary.

Oh my god! http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6987/nun1td0.gif
How can we allow a rattlesnake
into Obama's new Camelot?

Apparently the Hillary haters fail to understand
the first rule of politics: a politician can't do any
good unless he gets elected first.

A politician's job consists of two phases:
1) What he says and does to get elected.
2) What he accomplishes while in office.

Obviously # 2 is what really matters.

The Hillary haters are in deep denial. They insist
on denying the accomplishments of the Clintons
while in office, and focus only on the dirty job of
getting elected.

The fans of Obama crow about the fact that he
doesn't engage in dirty politics. He's too moral.

They seem to forget that Kerry behaved like a
gentleman, didn't engage in dirty politics, and
got his ass kicked by the repugs in 2004.

You accuse Hillary of being a rattlesnake,
as if that's a bad thing. Personally I want
a candidate who fights like a junkyard dog
and brings an AK-47 to a knife fight.

The Clintons have already proven they can
do good things for America when they get
into office.

But I understand how all of the kiddies get
tired of old things, and something new and
exotic always seems more enticing.

LadyMod at scam.com

05-25-2008, 07:57 PM

Apparently you missed the point I was implying when
I said I'm curious to see how Obama will handle his
first major decisions: choosing a running mate and
uniting his deeply divided party.

Traditionally, when a party is evenly divided between two
candidates, and the primary race is as close as the one
we have this year, the candidate who wins the nomination
is expected to offer the second-place candidate the right
of first refusal for the Vice President slot.

It's the politically wise move. An Obama-Clinton ticket has
a decent chance of winning. If Obama disses the Clintons
and pisses off Clinton voters, he could lose ten million votes
with his first major decision. That would be real stupid.

The Democratic party is deeply divided between Obama
and the Clintons. If Obama really wants to unite the party
AND gain millions of Clinton voters at the same time,
he should ask Hillary to be his running mate.

But I think the Hillary haters hate Hillary so much, they
can't even stomach the thought of Hillary being V.P.

Then maybe Hillary should have run a "traditional" campaign? Some traditions are simply outdated.

I'm sure he will choose his running mate wisely.

Hmmm... Hillary won the recent Arkansas primary
by 70% to Obama's 26%. Apparently there are lots
of folks in Arkansas who support the Clintons.

They recently opened that Clinton Library and she campaigned there. The numbers don't surprise me. They have to rely on the tourists. LOL.

I wonder how their conscience will feel when McCain attacks
Iran, the price of gas jumps to 10 bucks a gallon and rising,
and lots of people lose their jobs.

I get the impression that the Hillary haters would rather
have Armageddon than Hillary in the White House,
or even in the V.P. slot.

So? It's their right to want whatever they want.

Lady Mod

LadyMod at scam.com

05-25-2008, 08:12 PM

Maybe Hillary should guard her words better if she wants to be chosen for VP?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/23/clinton_invokes_rfk_assassinat.html

Nice to know she is prone to "hoof in mouth disease" like anyone else. Only when Hillary starts talking assasinations, someone usually gets killed.

.Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the memory of slain Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy as she explained her persistence in the Democratic race on Friday, saying that although the media and the Barack Obama campaign have been trying to usher her from the race, "historically, that makes no sense."

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton said in a meeting with the editorial board of the Argus Leader, a newspaper in South Dakota.

Her advisers later said she was using the historical reference to note that campaigns have stretched until the summer before, not to suggest that Obama might be assassinated. In the previous sentence, she had also noted that her husband's campaign in 1992 lasted until June as well.

But in a campaign in which voters have voiced concerns about the safety of the first African American front-runner in history, it was a surprising choice of words by Clinton, whose best hope for seizing the nomination now would be a major setback for Obama. Clinton has already faced harsh criticism for allegedly exacerbating racial divisions in the nominating process.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x79oO-bOv0s

.

Betty Blowtorch

05-25-2008, 09:39 PM

In your wildest dreams, do you think Obama could fuck up
so completely as the butch bastards have done in these
last eight years?

Where is the risk???
The risk is that Obama's principled, gentlemanly style
of politics will result in a McCain victory and four more
years of neocon control of the White House and the
Pentagon.

I'd feel safer having a couple of junkyard dogs in the
fight. We don't need another gentleman like Kerry.

Yeah, I know, I know... Obama's different. And the
Republican slime machine will be different this year.
They'll throw hugs and kisses at Obama.

I maintain a rational, analytical view of the situation.
I feel no hostility toward Obama or Hillary. I will vote
for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

You can't say the same, Stefan.

You display a truckload of hate and hostility toward
Hillary, and an idealistic infatuation with Obama.

Emotion clouds the rational mind. Your words are
dripping with a deep hatred for the Clintons and an
almost schoolboyish infatuation with Obama.

I started this thread with facts, figures and charts
to back up my opinions. Those facts and figures
are real. They represent actual accomplishments
of the Clintons.

When it comes to Obama, all we have to go on
are his words, speeches and salesmanship...
uhhh... I mean his character and charisma.

Forgive me if I prefer facts and figures instead
of salesmanship. I guess I'm just getting old
and have been around the block a few times.

stefan segal

05-25-2008, 10:41 PM

The risk is that Obama's principled, gentlemanly style
of politics will result in a McCain victory and four more
years of neocon control of the White House and the
Pentagon.

I'd feel safer having a couple of junkyard dogs in the
fight. We don't need another gentleman like Kerry.

Yeah, I know, I know... Obama's different. And the
Republican slime machine will be different this year.
They'll throw hugs and kisses at Obama.

I maintain a rational, analytical view of the situation.
I feel no hostility toward Obama or Hillary. I will vote
for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

You can't say the same, Stefan.

You display a truckload of hate and hostility toward
Hillary, and an idealistic infatuation with Obama.

Emotion clouds the rational mind. Your words are
dripping with a deep hatred for the Clintons and an
almost schoolboyish infatuation with Obama.

I started this thread with facts, figures and charts
to back up my opinions. Those facts and figures
are real. They represent actual accomplishments
of the Clintons.

When it comes to Obama, all we have to go on
are his words, speeches and salesmanship...
uhhh... I mean his character and charisma.

Forgive me if I prefer facts and figures instead
of salesmanship. I guess I'm just getting old
and have been around the block a few times.

Blowtorch...I see you can't even envision a better way of doing politics, OR the possibility of a superior person to orchestrate them.

This is your loss.

I am certain thaat Obama WILL beat mccain resoundingly even with repug voting machines, and he will do do it WITHOUT hillary as VP.

I agree that it would be easier to unite the dem party if hillary were to cheerlead her group she worked diligently to disaffect, but I worry about her vindictiveness and also there is bill...who couldn't help but shoot his wife down...what would he do "inadvertantly" in his "helping" of Obama.

No life incurance company would cover Obama if hillary was "one bullet away" from the office. Obama is smarter than that.

The last item is "my hate for hillary"...unlike those in the butch gang, I wish hillary a long and productive life...but somewhere else...not in the oval office or the white house...maybe debtor's prison...a quiet place noted for its patron's unobtrusive behavior.

In other words, I accept the whole of the human population's bell curve...that includes the clintons...I really hate to think of them running this country and the world. Even benign sociopaths are only safe when without stress, and this country's problems will be highly stressful for the 09 presidency, and Obama's depth of character, social awareness and political savay is what we need in particular.

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

05-26-2008, 01:07 AM

Blowtorch...I see you can't even envision a better way
of doing politics, OR the possibility of a superior person
to orchestrate them.

This is your loss.
It's not my loss or your loss. I can envision anything
you want me to imagine, but it will have no bearing on
what actually happens in reality between now and the
November election.

Only time will tell.

I am certain that Obama WILL beat mccain resoundingly
even with repug voting machines, and he will do do it
WITHOUT hillary as VP.
Hmmm... for Obama to beat McCain resoundlingly even
with repug voting machines, that means Obama would
have to achieve a 5-10 point lead in votes to make up
for any vote tampering.

Obama would have to do this in all of the big blue states
like California and Pennsylvania (which he lost to Hillary
in the primaries) and the big swing states like Florida
and Ohio (which he also lost to Hillary.)

But I'm sure he'll do better against McCain.

Let's not forget about all of those small red states that
went for Obama in the primaries (but will go for McCain
in November.)

The only way a Democrat can win the presidency is to
win the right combination of big blue states and swing
states.

Can you provide us with any polls which predict how
Obama will fare against McCain on a state-by-state
basis? I'd like to see how the numbers add up.

I guess you're counting on all those millions of Hillary
supporters to vote for Obama after he dumps Hillary,
even though you admit you wouldn't vote Democrat
if Hillary was the nominee.

Perhaps I could share your certainty that Obama will
prevail if you could provide me with facts and figures
to bolster your opinion.

I can see you're feeling optimistic, but we'll see how
it pans out over the next 5 months.

stefan segal

05-26-2008, 01:44 AM

I can't give you more poling data than is commonly available, but I can make some observations which point to Obama winning...big time!

The first indicator is that repugs are loosing seats in state races...three so far, and it has the repugs in fits because those seats were historically "safe" in their minds.

The next is the dem voters were split...and yes, hillary voters will vote for Obama by a fair percentage.

The next point is that Obama has brought many new voters to the race...a number that far exceeds the repug numbers.

Next, is that Obama will have a greater financial warchest.

Next, is that mccain is precariously balanced emotionally. The man is short fused and shorter on restraint...he will not tip-toe through an entire campaign without blowing apart.

Next: Obama is superior by many measures...one of them being that he is a considered person...,so unlike the mccain of the previous item.

mccain has an ugly past and a stupid track record...but by far, his voting record reads much more favorably than his campaign statements of today.
The man is a rabid political flip-flopper...he will bury himslef in explanations.

mccain is on the wrong side of the war contraversy. 70% want out...mccain/.bush want to bomb Iran. I hope butch & co gets out of office before they do open another new and disasterous war.

I didn't add the enthuesasim and excitments that is playing big in this race, as it doesn't compute with your computations...but it is there for the rest of us...and it counts bigtime:)

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

05-26-2008, 02:06 AM

I can't give you more poling data than is commonly available,
but I can make some observations which point to Obama
winning...big time!

I didn't add the enthusiasm and excitements that is playing
big in this race, as it doesn't compute with your computations...
but it is there for the rest of us...and it counts bigtime:)
I spent a few minutes googling and came up with some
state-by-state polls from "PresidentElectionPolls.com"
which predict that Hillary would beat McCain in the
general election, but Obama would lose to McCain.

Apparently your "enthusiasms and excitements"
didn't compute with this pollster's computations:

In the Obama vs. McCain matchup, Obama LOSES 290 to 214.

http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/presidential-matchups/barack-obama-vs-john-mccain.html

In the Hillary vs. McCain matchup, Hillary WINS 310 to 211.

http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/presidential-matchups/hillary-clinton-vs-john-mccain.html

stefan segal

05-26-2008, 04:00 AM

There are poles and then there are other poles...one that you overlooked is that hillary has a 59% undavorable rating.

I've seen reports of poles going both ways...but when you restrict your poles to appallatia, then they may be squewed toward the downside.

I just saw a pole that rated Obama 17 points above mccain nationally...but I don't put much stock in these early days before the campaign opens.

hillary is an uncomfortable element in this primary for the next week or so...but after she is disposed of, I bbelieve Obama vrs. mccain poles will begin to take proper shape.

mccain is getting his full numbers, while Obama's numbers are still a bit self conscious while hillary is still mouthing lies in the public ear.

Lets talk about this in about ten days...I believe the conditions will change significantly by then:)

Stefan

Binky

05-26-2008, 09:53 AM

Do any of you think Obama would pick Hilary as his running mate? And do you think she'd accept? I rather have my doubts that she'd accept. She doesn't seem to be the type that would accept the number two position. She's a first in line sort of gal. I think it would be very difficult for her to step back and let him do his job.

It'll be interesting to see how it all unfolds. The muslims will be jumping for joy if he's elected. They'll consider that a victory for them and a giant stepping stone. And how much patriotism are we going to see from him and his wifey? Will he be respectful to our country and flag and put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegience? Anyway, given all that, it remains to be seen just how much he is actually going to do and how much were lies as with all presidents. Lying, cheating and robbing from one group (such as soc. sec.) and giving to another and never giving back, seems to be a job requirement. Anyway, from my view, all three candidates suck. Not one is worthy of my vote. Yet I will once again have to cast it for the least evil of them.

It sure would be great, if just once, we could have some candidates running that were above reproach and just one of us common folk. Someone without money. As it stands now, the only people able to run are the wealthy. And right there, from the very first day, the people have lost. Because all the rich care about are their agendas and wealth and who they can screw over next. They don't give a crapola about the people and country. It's a game only the rich are able to play. Because it takes an obscene amount of money to get in the race and stay there.

kres24GT

05-26-2008, 04:45 PM

Obama would be pretty stupid to make Hillary his running mate, no doubt in my mind she'd have him killed to take over.

Funny Bush haters support Hillary, she is basically a Bush clone.

Betty Blowtorch

05-26-2008, 06:58 PM

Funny, Bush haters support Hillary, she is
basically a Bush clone.
Only a seriously deluded Hillary hater could look
at the 8 years of peace and prosperity under the
Clintons, then look at the mess created by Bush,
and then make the ludicrous accusation that the
Clintons are Bush clones.

The differences aren't small and subtle, they're
huge and obvious, but apparently not visible to
you or the Hillary haters.

Spend some time studying the charts at the
beginning of this thread. You can plainly see
that the Clinton years were as different from
the Bush years as night and day.

Obama would be pretty stupid to make Hillary
his running mate, no doubt in my mind she'd
have him killed to take over.
So now Hillary is an assassin?
The depth of Hillary hate runs deep indeed.

Silly me, I actually feel gratitude for what the
Clintons accomplished in office and wouldn't
mind seeing them turn the economy around
like they did before.

But then I'm not blinded by Hillary hate.

Binky

05-26-2008, 08:07 PM

Obama would be pretty stupid to make Hillary his running mate, no doubt in my mind she'd have him killed to take over.

Funny Bush haters support Hillary, she is basically a Bush clone.

Oh please......she wouldn't have him killed to take over. Good grief! And as for being a clone, it's funny you mention that because that is EXACTLY what McCain is. Same policies. Same party. Same line of bullpucky! Only difference is they have different faces and McCains cheeks always look like he's storing food for the winter like the squirrels do.

Frankg

05-26-2008, 08:29 PM

Vote for Barack Hussein Obama

stefan segal

05-26-2008, 08:54 PM

frankg...YOU ARE WAY OVER THE LINE!

/Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

05-26-2008, 09:11 PM

frankg...YOU ARE WAY OVER THE LINE!
But... but... but... he said to vote for Obama!
What's wrong with that?

JCBoston11

05-26-2008, 09:33 PM

I'd like to point out that it is illegal for Bill Clinton to serve a 3rd term. While "the Clintons" and more specifically Bill Clinton managed the economy well during his 2 terms, a return by him into the white house would be a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution, not that there is anything wrong with that...oh wait.

I mean, rules are rules, and its a charade that Bill is trying to pull by installing Hillary as his heir apparent. She didn't divorce him after his many affairs, so really who needs who here, she needs him more than he needs her.

JCBoston11

05-26-2008, 09:35 PM

So much for having a civil discussion. Any educated person knows blatant racism when they see it.

frankg...YOU ARE WAY OVER THE LINE!

/Stefan

LadyMod at scam.com

05-26-2008, 10:28 PM

frankg...YOU ARE WAY OVER THE LINE!

/Stefan

LOL, He was only posting a self portrait. Only Neocons are Chimps.

LM

LadyMod at scam.com

05-26-2008, 11:03 PM

So much for having a civil discussion. Any educated person knows blatant racism when they see it.

Unfortunately, the folks who call themselves "Conservatives" here, (I use the description with reservation) are woefully shy of having any members who can actually have a civil discussion.

The only one who can is Smurfherder and he's more of a Moderate. BUT, he doesn't like OBama. LOL.

Lady Mod

kres24GT

05-26-2008, 11:29 PM

Only a seriously deluded Hillary hater could look
at the 8 years of peace and prosperity under the
Clintons, then look at the mess created by Bush,
and then make the ludicrous accusation that the
Clintons are Bush clones.

The differences aren't small and subtle, they're
huge and obvious, but apparently not visible to
you or the Hillary haters.

Spend some time studying the charts at the
beginning of this thread. You can plainly see
that the Clinton years were as different from
the Bush years as night and day.

So now Hillary is an assassin?
The depth of Hillary hate runs deep indeed.

Silly me, I actually feel gratitude for what the
Clintons accomplished in office and wouldn't
mind seeing them turn the economy around
like they did before.

But then I'm not blinded by Hillary hate.

I think Bill is awesome, but his wife is a power hungry bitch. I am smart enough to understand they are two totally different people.

Frankg

05-26-2008, 11:29 PM

frankg...YOU ARE WAY OVER THE LINE!

/Stefan
How so Stefan?

Just, because I think that your savior , Barack Hussein Obama looks like chimp ?

You better get used to it .

FYI, you people have been comparing George W Bush to a chimp for the last seven years so tunabout is fair play , yes ?

By the way , how's that glass house working out for you ?

kres24GT

05-26-2008, 11:30 PM

Oh please......she wouldn't have him killed to take over. Good grief! And as for being a clone, it's funny you mention that because that is EXACTLY what McCain is. Same policies. Same party. Same line of bullpucky! Only difference is they have different faces and McCains cheeks always look like he's storing food for the winter like the squirrels do.
I agree, but we weren't talking about McCain, but yes both are basically 4 more years of Bush.

stefan segal

05-26-2008, 11:57 PM

How so Stefan?

Just, because I think that your savior , Barack Hussein Obama looks like chimp ?

You better get used to it .

FYI, you people have been comparing George W Bush to a chimp for the last seven years so tunabout is fair play , yes ?

By the way , how's that glass house working out for you ?

frankg...you sling shit indescriminately of information or thought. What makes you think in terms of "savior"?

I have never felt the need of a savior...physicaly or spiritually.

I do have a deep seated patriotism for the well being of this country, coupled with some well deserved shame for allowing our heritage and culture go to shit...a lot like yourself...on my watch. What we hand over to our kids has far fewer options and far more bills to pay our debts for our lack of responsibility.

My disaffection for maccain and clinton stems from their wholely cynical view of truth and honesty. These two canadates are "ends justify the means" mentalities...and our country and culture cannot afford more years of turning a blind eye to leaders without charcter or honesty or designs that reflect only upon themselves.

frankg...you exhibit the most primative expression of bigotry with your chimp photo. I am surprised that your effort was not blocked by the monitors of this site,

It was not dealt with normally, and I can't do anything to rectify your ignorance...but I hope you like the company you've joined...german mental defectives from 1937-8, who made posters of Jews to look like rodents...nice folks to look up to frankg.

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

05-27-2008, 12:02 AM

frankg...YOU ARE WAY OVER THE LINE!
No, actually he's well within the line.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3384/bushmorphchimpva3.gif

Bush has been routinely characterized as a monkey
and a chimp.

Now that Obama is the Democratic frontrunner, it's fair
for the Republicans to use the same tactics against him
that have been used against Bush.

You can cry racist over every attack, but what the fuck,
when you picked a black guy for President, you made
race an issue.

Get ready for the avalanche of right-wing attacks to come.
If I were Barack Obama, I'd want someone strong like the
Clintons backing me as running mates. That would allow
Obama to take the high road while the Clintons act as his
attack dogs.

But what do I know?

Betty Blowtorch

05-27-2008, 12:56 AM

I think Bill is awesome, but his wife is a power hungry bitch.
If Hillary weren't a woman, she'd just be power hungry,
but because she's a woman, that makes her a power
hungry bitch.

Yeah, I understand. It's your sexism showing through.

I am smart enough to understand they are two totally
different people.
But not smart enough to understand they're a team.

Bill Clinton had a famous campaign slogan in 1992:
"It's the economy, stupid."

Well, this year his campaign slogan could have been:
"The Clintons are a TEAM, stupid!" (Except that the
22nd amendment prevents him from coming right out
and saying it.)

If you take Hillary, you get Bill as a free bonus, along
with his prodigious intelligence, experience and skills.

The Clintons were hoping the American people would
be smart enough to figure it out on their own. But they
overestimated the intelligence (as well as the gratitude
and loyalty) of the voters.

Frankg

05-27-2008, 01:22 AM

frankg...you sling shit indescriminately of information or thought. What makes you think in terms of "savior"?

I have never felt the need of a savior...physicaly or spiritually.

I do have a deep seated patriotism for the well being of this country, coupled with some well deserved shame for allowing our heritage and culture go to shit...a lot like yourself...on my watch. What we hand over to our kids has far fewer options and far more bills to pay our debts for our lack of responsibility.

My disaffection for maccain and clinton stems from their wholely cynical view of truth and honesty. These two canadates are "ends justify the means" mentalities...and our country and culture cannot afford more years of turning a blind eye to leaders without charcter or honesty or designs that reflect only upon themselves.

frankg...you exhibit the most primative expression of bigotry with your chimp photo. I am surprised that your effort was not blocked by the monitors of this site,

It was not dealt with normally, and I can't do anything to rectify your ignorance...but I hope you like the company you've joined...german mental defectives from 1937-8, who made posters of Jews to look like rodents...nice folks to look up to frankg.

Stefan

You still haven't explained why its ok to compare President George W Bush (who by the way has protected this country from terrorism since 9/11)to a chimp but not ok to compare Barack Hussein Obama to a chimp.

Its not racist to compare anyone to a chimp.

Binky

05-27-2008, 01:22 AM

Vote for Barack Hussein Obama

That's a mighthy handsome dude you have there. YeHaw! LOL!

Betty Blowtorch

05-27-2008, 01:57 AM

President George W Bush (who by the way
has protected this country from terrorism
since 9/11)...
and who, by the way,
FAILED
to protect this country
ON 9-11.

Betty Blowtorch

05-27-2008, 05:42 AM

You still haven't explained why its ok to compare
President George W Bush to a chimp but not ok
to compare Barack Hussein Obama to a chimp.

Its not racist to compare anyone to a chimp.
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/2654/obamamonkeymedry5.jpg

Stefan is right when he says your picture smacks
of the lowest form of racist caricature. I was just
telling him to get ready for a lot more of this kind
of attack from the right-wing in this election.

The reason it's not racist to make Bush look like
a monkey is because he's a white guy. Whites
are the dominant majority race in America.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/4982/bushfuriousgeorge2ai1.jpg

If blacks were the dominant majority race, and
whites were a racial minority, then it would be
racist to make Bush look like a monkey.

In either case, the intent is to demean the target
by making him look subhuman and stupid, but
it only becomes racist when it's done to a racial
minority by someone from the racial majority.

At any rate, it's protected by the 1st Amendment.

LadyMod at scam.com

05-27-2008, 07:24 AM

If Hillary weren't a woman, she'd just be power hungry,
but because she's a woman, that makes her a power
hungry bitch.

Except that she really is one. It's common knowledge at the Governors mansion that she went into screaming fits, throwing Bills clothes out the window and onto the lawn, yelling that if he didn't get her to the Whitehouse she would find someone who would. I know this because I know some people who had parents working there and witnessed many of these fits.

Hillary is a sick woman.

Lady Mod

LadyMod at scam.com

05-27-2008, 07:27 AM

You still haven't explained why its ok to compare President George W Bush (who by the way has protected this country from terrorism since 9/11)to a chimp but not ok to compare Barack Hussein Obama to a chimp.

Its not racist to compare anyone to a chimp.

NO, but can't you come up with something more original? It's been done already and in like most things, it appears that you don't have an original thought. AND, it does make you look as stupid as well, you are.

:lmao2:

Bush was called a chimp because he performed for his masters so well, not because he looked like one.

Lady Mod

.

Frankg

05-27-2008, 07:35 AM

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/2654/obamamonkeymedry5.jpg

Stefan is right when he says your picture smacks
of the lowest form of racist caricature. I was just
telling him to get ready for a lot more of this kind
of attack from the right-wing in this election.

The reason it's not racist to make Bush look like
a monkey is because he's a white guy. Whites
are the dominant majority race in America.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/4982/bushfuriousgeorge2ai1.jpg

If blacks were the dominant majority race, and
whites were a racial minority, then it would be
racist to make Bush look like a monkey.

In either case, the intent is to demean the target
by making him look subhuman and stupid, but
it only becomes racist when it's done to a racial
minority by someone from the racial majority.

At any rate, it's protected by the 1st Amendment.

Look honey ,you need to pay more attention, I have all the respect in the world for Barack Hussein Obama , he may turn out to be a great president should he get elected, and I believe he should play up his middle name , it could help protect us when negotiating with Al-Qaeda.

And for your information I'm not a racist , I said Barack Hussein Obama LOOKS like a monkey , I didn't CALL him a monkey , big difference.

By the way , I noticed you took the time of reposting the picture as well .

Frankg

05-27-2008, 07:36 AM

NO, but can't you come up with something more original? It's been done already and in like most things, it appears that you don't have an original thought. AND, it does make you look as stupid as well, you are.

:lmao2:

Bush was called a chimp because he performed for his masters so well, not because he looked like one.

Lady Mod

.

It is original Ladymod, I made that picture myself.

LadyMod at scam.com

05-27-2008, 07:38 AM

Look honey ,you need to pay more attention, I have all the respect in the world for Barack Hussein Obama , he may turn out to be a great president should he get elected, and I believe he should play up his middle name , it could help protect us when negotiating with Al-Qaeda.

And for your information I'm not a racist , I said Barack Hussein Obama LOOKS like a monkey , I didn't CALL him a monkey , big difference.

All I said was that you were unoriginal. I did not call you a racist. That thought never crossed my mind. Unlike a couple of your buddies' here, you don't behave like a racist.

By the way , I noticed you took the time of reposting the picture as well .

?????????????

Lady Mod

LadyMod at scam.com

05-27-2008, 07:38 AM

It is original Ladymod, I made that picture myself.

A self portrait then? Now we understand.

You need to shave Cupcake.

:lmao2:

Frankg

05-27-2008, 07:42 AM

and who, by the way,
FAILED
to protect this country
ON 9-11.

Presiden George W Bush didn't fail on 9/11 BettyBlowtorch he had only been in office a short while and your buddy Bill Clinton said he did as much as he possibly could to protect our airports, what with the way our security agencies were structured at the time there was no way to accurately predict when and where the attack would occur.

If anyone is to blame for 9/11 it would be Bill Clinton, he had multiple chances to take out Bin Laden but had his hands full with Monica.

Frankg

05-27-2008, 07:44 AM

All I said was that you were unoriginal. I did not call you a racist. That thought never crossed my mind. Unlike a couple of your buddies' here, you don't behave like a racist.

?????????????

Lady Mod

Ladymod my last post was meant for BettyBlowtorch. I know that you know that I'm not a racist :angel:

LadyMod at scam.com

05-27-2008, 07:48 AM

Ladymod my last post was meant for BettyBlowtorch. I know that you know that I'm not a racist :angel:

LOL, sorry frank. I just saw that. Too damned early and not enough coffee yet.

I think Betty was being sarcastic though. I don't think she is calling you a racist either.

Lady Mod

kres24GT

05-27-2008, 10:17 AM

If Hillary weren't a woman, she'd just be power hungry,
but because she's a woman, that makes her a power
hungry bitch.

Yeah, I understand. It's your sexism showing through.

But not smart enough to understand they're a team.

Bill Clinton had a famous campaign slogan in 1992:
"It's the economy, stupid."

Well, this year his campaign slogan could have been:
"The Clintons are a TEAM, stupid!" (Except that the
22nd amendment prevents him from coming right out
and saying it.)

If you take Hillary, you get Bill as a free bonus, along
with his prodigious intelligence, experience and skills.

The Clintons were hoping the American people would
be smart enough to figure it out on their own. But they
overestimated the intelligence (as well as the gratitude
and loyalty) of the voters.

Bill and Hillary are not a team. That is probably the stupidest thing on this board ever uttered by someone other than frank.

Binky

05-27-2008, 12:02 PM

This country is built on both racism and reverse racism. Ugly or not, there it be! There's as much reverse racism as there is the other. It just isn't spoken of as much because the powers that be would rather focus on the whites against the blacks issue and not admit that the opposite is true as well. They just love to stir up trouble resulting in tearing our country apart even more. It's ugly, it's a fact and it isn't going to go away because people love touting it. It's convenient to blame racism on our problems. Racism exists as does its reverse side of the coin. At this point in time, with everything that is going on in the world and our country alone, there are much more important things to pick away at.

As for the race card, hell, it was the very families of the blacks of africa that sold their offspring to slave drivers that brought them here. See......their own parents valued a dollar more than their own children.

Binky

05-27-2008, 12:09 PM

I forgot to say that in most cases their families sold them while in others they were kidnapped and whisked away in the night. So very sad and heartbreaking that people thought they had the right to sell and /or steal another human being. A country cannot heal itself when the open wound isn't allowed to heal and is constantly picked at. It will forever remain an open wound.

Betty Blowtorch

05-27-2008, 01:25 PM

Bush was called a chimp because he performed for
his masters so well, not because he looked like one.
No, he looks like one.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/7730/bushmonkeyphotosmedzw5.jpg

Binky

05-27-2008, 01:57 PM

No, he looks like one.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/7730/bushmonkeyphotosmedzw5.jpg

Funny, funny girl. I hadn't paid much attention to his looks before but seeing those pix it sure looks that way. HA! Hilarious!

Betty Blowtorch

05-27-2008, 02:36 PM

President George W Bush didn't fail on 9/11 BettyBlowtorch.
If anyone is to blame for 9/11 it would be Bill Clinton, he had
multiple chances to take out Bin Laden but had his hands full
with Monica.
On August 6th, 2001, five weeks prior to the 9-11 attacks,
Bush and his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice,
received a Presidential Daily Briefing Memo entitled:

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

Some of the highlights of this memo include:

"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate
Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks
in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in
1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of
World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the
fighting to America."

"After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998,
Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington.

"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious
activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings
or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal
buildings in New York."

Your hero, George W. Bush, responded to this serious warning
by going on a month-long vacation. He could have responded
by placing the military and security services on high alert, but
he didn't. He went on vacation instead.

In light of this, it's pretty lame to try to pin the blame on Clinton.
But that's been the right-wing mantra whenever the Bush gang
fucks up: "Blame Clinton." The repugs have used this excuse
so many times, it's a cliche.

And Clinton had his hands full with Monica because the repugs
insisted on spending 40 million dollars to launch a witch hunt
against him over a blowjob. It was the repugs who insisted on
making it the primary focus of the U.S. government for 2 years.

Clinton would have preferred to focus on governing America well,
but the repugs couldn't get their noses out of Clinton's crotch.

Binky

05-27-2008, 04:19 PM

Blowtorches flame........

And Clinton had his hands full with Monica because the repugs
insisted on spending 40 million dollars to launch a witch hunt
against him over a blowjob. It was the repugs who insisted on
making it the primary focus of the U.S. government for 2 years.

Clinton would have preferred to focus on governing America well,
but the repugs couldn't get their noses out of Clinton's crotch.

Hey there Miss Blowtorch, you make me laugh......Of course Clinton preferred to focus on governing America. HA HA! Wouldn't you if that were the case? I know if I'd done something outrageous to draw negative attention to myself as that, I'd sure as hell want the focus to be elsewhere. LOL!

And of course, the repugs and media loved climbing on board that choo choo and rapidly moved on down the track with it. It was certainly an interesting distraction from the mundane bullpucky of politics.

I know I was embarrassed for our country considering the three ring circus that came from it, but have long since found a lot of humor in it. You have to give the man credit......he is still able to move around in that political environment and in public and be able to show his face. LOL! What a fiasco that was! LOL! Men being men, I can hear his cronies now......with a slap on the back and a chuckle or two, saying, "Hey, man, I sure wish that'd been me getting that bj. What a way to go".

Thanks again for the visual.

JCBoston11

05-27-2008, 05:36 PM

And for your information I'm not a racist , I said Barack Hussein Obama LOOKS like a monkey , I didn't CALL him a monkey , big difference.

By the way , I noticed you took the time of reposting the picture as well .
For the unedumacated, there is a long history of racial stereotypes suggesting minorities are an sub-humans and under-class to the White race. These stereotypes involve depicting Blacks and other people of color as animals in film, newspapers, books and magazines. This might also have something to do with monkeys and gorillas residing primarily in Africa and the evolutionary creation of humankind. The use of a monkey to depict Obama has nothing to do with him as a person, but everything to do with his skin color and the historical racist imagery of Black stereotypes.

I don't condone the comparison of Bush to a monkey either, but there has never been any widespread bigotry of comparing Whites to Monkeys. I don't know what images are used to derogatively depict whites.

JCBoston11

05-27-2008, 05:44 PM

Betty Blowtorch

05-27-2008, 05:56 PM

Obama would be pretty stupid to make Hillary
his running mate, no doubt in my mind she'd
have him killed to take over.
LOOK OUT!! She's got a gun!!

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/4549/hillarykillsrfkrv7.jpg

JCBoston11

05-27-2008, 06:01 PM

Whoah, you're saying that we should never nominate a black man because race will always be made an issue? Wow, thats almost worst than racism, by allowing racism to perpetuate rather than nominate the person that the majority likes no matter what race the person is.

The nomination of Ferroro as VP was a greater affirmative action hire since she was barely qualified. But that was Mondale's decision, not the choice the Democratic voters.

As for Team Clinton - voters did know that Bill was the Oz puppet-master evading the 22nd amendment and we did not want a monarchy rule.

No, actually he's well within the line.

Now that Obama is the Democratic frontrunner, it's fair
for the Republicans to use the same tactics against him
that have been used against Bush.

You can cry racist over every attack, but what the fuck,
when you picked a black guy for President, you made
race an issue.

Get ready for the avalanche of right-wing attacks to come.
If I were Barack Obama, I'd want someone strong like the
Clintons backing me as running mates. That would allow
Obama to take the high road while the Clintons act as his
attack dogs.

But what do I know?

Binky

05-27-2008, 06:01 PM

and who, by the way,
FAILED
to protect this country
ON 9-11.

It's not that he failed. It's that he didn't try. Not enough guards and wouldn't add more. And.......as if that wasn't enough, he tied their hands. When they did fire on one they got sent to prison. What's wrong with this picture? Duh!

In order to fail at something, you must first try. He didn't which leads us to where we are today. Illegal aliens sneaking in by the thousands everyday. They enter and leave the land a third world mess. Litter all over peoples property. Steal, rape and then, because our government is full of assholes, they are allowed to stay and will get to mooch off of tax paying citizens. Hey, try that in any other country and you'll be sent to jail or deported. But what the heck.....it isn't Mexicos problem. They've shred dead weight. It's now our problem and we're carrying the load for them.

Since we live in the best country in the world and it's a total mess, I can only imagine what it's like in other countries.

Frankg

05-27-2008, 08:12 PM

On August 6th, 2001, five weeks prior to the 9-11 attacks,
Bush and his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice,
received a Presidential Daily Briefing Memo entitled:

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

Some of the highlights of this memo include:

"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate
Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks
in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in
1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of
World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the
fighting to America."

"After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998,
Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington.

"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious
activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings
or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal
buildings in New York."

Your hero, George W. Bush, responded to this serious warning
by going on a month-long vacation. He could have responded
by placing the military and security services on high alert, but
he didn't. He went on vacation instead.

In light of this, it's pretty lame to try to pin the blame on Clinton.
But that's been the right-wing mantra whenever the Bush gang
fucks up: "Blame Clinton." The repugs have used this excuse
so many times, it's a cliche.

And Clinton had his hands full with Monica because the repugs
insisted on spending 40 million dollars to launch a witch hunt
against him over a blowjob. It was the repugs who insisted on
making it the primary focus of the U.S. government for 2 years.

Clinton would have preferred to focus on governing America well,
but the repugs couldn't get their noses out of Clinton's crotch.

Here's another "highlight" which you convieniently left out Betty , that daily breifing was based on 3 year old information and at the time Clinton , the CIA and FBI were doing all they could to safeguard this county but not knowing exactly when and where Bin Laden was determined to strike made it difficult , which is why it was called "in-actionable" intelligence.

On the other hand ,Clinton had 3 opportunities to prevent the deaths of 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001 when in 96, the Saudi Arabian government togther with the Sudanese offered to hand Bin Laden over .

Clinton said " no thanks" thereby making the single worst presidential decision in US history , read and learn....

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden_files/blackpix.gifSudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.
By MANSOOR IJAZ

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition.

But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden_files/empty.gifhttp://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden_files/empty.gif

Betty Blowtorch

05-28-2008, 12:08 AM

Frankie,

You claim that Clinton blew some easy opportunities to
capture bin Laden in 1996, but there are a few problems
with your story.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission)
stated that "former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan
offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States. Clinton
administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer.
We have not found any reliable evidence to support the
Sudanese claim."

So Bush's 9/11 Commission has exonerated Clinton
of the charge made by the author of your article.

Furthermore, back in 1996, the U.S. government believed
there were no legal grounds on which bin Laden could be
indicted in U.S. courts at the time. Bin Laden wasn't
considered a major threat to the U.S. in 1996.

The author of your article also claims that an "unnamed
official" from an "unnamed country" reportedly made an
offer to lure bin Laden from his hideout in Afghanistan
to this unnamed country to be arrested and extradited
to the U.S.

This is nothing more than an anonymous rumor from an
anonymous source making an uncorroborated charge.
Forgive me if I don't give it much credence.

What we do know for sure is that 9/11 didn't occur on
Clinton's watch. It happened on George Bush's watch,
just five weeks after he received a presidential memo
warning him that "bin Laden was determined to strike
in the U.S." and that the FBI was reporting "suspicious
activity consistent with preparations for hijackings."

Bush responded by going on a month-long vacation.

But what's really crazy is that, even though Bush has
failed miserably to capture bin Laden during the seven
years since 9/11, the author of your article is blaming
Clinton for failing to capture bin Laden in 1996, when
the U.S. had no legal grounds to prosecute him.

Clinton had no legal grounds to go after bin Laden and
al Qaeda until after the August 1998 car bombings at
two U.S. embassies in east Africa.

Clinton responded by ordering Operation Infinite Reach,
a series of cruise missile strikes on targets in Sudan
and Afghanistan on August 20, 1998.

The FBI placed bin Laden on its Ten Most Wanted List.

Frankg

05-28-2008, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by BettyBlowtorch
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission)
stated that "former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan
offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States. Clinton
administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer.
We have not found any reliable evidence to support the
Sudanese claim."

What section is that in ?, all I could find was this :

In February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching officials from the United States and other governments, asking what actions of theirs might ease foreign pressure. In secret meetings with Saudi officials, Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March. Saudi officials apparently wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan.They had already revoked his citizenship, however, and would not tolerate his presence in their country. And Bin Ladin may have no longer felt safe in Sudan, where he had already escaped at least one assassination attempt that he believed to have been the work of the Egyptian or Saudi regimes, or both. In any case, on May 19, 1996, Bin Ladin left Sudan—significantly weakened, despite his ambitions and organizational skills. He returned to Afghanistan.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf

Originally posted by BettyBlowtorch
Clinton had no legal grounds to go after bin Laden and
al Qaeda until after the August 1998 car bombings at
two U.S. embassies in east Africa

Because he made the mistake of treating the 93 attack on the WTC as a criminal case instead of a terrorist attack , he blew it , he could've taken UBL into custody as a terrorist.

Originally posted by Betty Blowtorch
This is nothing more than an anonymous rumor from an
anonymous source making an uncorroborated charge.
Forgive me if I don't give it much credence.

What is not credible about Mansoor Ijaz?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Ijaz

Betty Blowtorch

05-28-2008, 10:48 AM

I found the link to the 9/11 Commission report
you asked for, Frankie, but I have to leave for
work now. I'll answer your questions tonight.

Betty Blowtorch

05-29-2008, 03:27 AM

What section is that in?
Last paragraph at the bottom of page 3:

9/11 Commission (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf)

It reads: "Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan
offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States. Clinton
administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer.
We have not found any reliable evidence to support the
Sudanese claim."

There's more information on page 4 as well:

"According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy
national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism
and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a
hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the U.S.
In that discussion, a Justice Department representative
reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the
United States since there was no way to hold him here,
absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not
aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible
for any act against an America citizen."

"Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment
made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth
pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever
turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been
serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked
something out."

The bottom line is: Sudan offered to extradite bin Laden to
Saudi Arabia (not the U.S.) and the Saudis refused to take him.
That's it. Those are the facts. And yet you're trying to claim
that those facts prove that the Clinton administration blew an
opportunity to capture bin Laden in 1996 [before he had done
anything that warranted being prosecuted and imprisoned by
U.S. authorities.]

Because he made the mistake of treating the 93 attack on the
WTC as a criminal case instead of a terrorist attack, he blew it,
he could've taken UBL into custody as a terrorist.
You might want to blame bin Laden for the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing, but he wasn't responsible. The perpetrators
were captured, convicted and imprisoned.

What is not credible about Mansoor Ijaz?
Near the end of the article you posted by Ijaz, he refers to
an unnamed official from an unnamed country who claimed
to have a plan to lure bin Laden to this unnamed country
to be arrested and extradited to the U.S.

This is nothing but secondhand hearsay from an unnamed
anonymous source from an unnamed country. This kind of
unsubstantiated hearsay evidence wouldn't be allowed in
any court in America.

Mansoor Ijaz can say whatever he wants, but without any
documentation or corroboration (he doesn't even give any
names or details, let alone corroboration) it doesn't amount
to much.

By comparison, the presidential memo which Bush received
five weeks before 9/11, entitled "Bin Laden determined to
strike in U.S." is solid documentary evidence proving that
Bush was warned about bin Laden. No one disputes the
fact that, shortly after receiving this warning, Bush went
on vacation for a month.

Frankie, you're so desperate to absolve Bush of blame and
pin the blame on Clinton, you ignore rock solid evidence of
Bush's negligence, but you eagerly embrace flimsy claims
of Clinton's guilt.

Frankg

05-30-2008, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by BettyBlowtorch
It reads: "Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan
offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States. Clinton
administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer.
We have not found any reliable evidence to support the
Sudanese claim."
I'm not sure which report this is Betty but it isn't the 911 Comission Final Report and it doesn't mention that anywhere in the final report .

Originally posted by BettyBlowtorch
Near the end of the article you posted by Ijaz, he refers to
an unnamed official from an unnamed country who claimed
to have a plan to lure bin Laden to this unnamed country
to be arrested and extradited to the U.S.

This is nothing but secondhand hearsay from an unnamed
anonymous source from an unnamed country. This kind of
unsubstantiated hearsay evidence wouldn't be allowed in
any court in America.

Mansoor Ijaz can say whatever he wants, but without any
documentation or corroboration (he doesn't even give any
names or details, let alone corroboration) it doesn't amount
to much.
So ????
Its highly unlikely Ijaz would make up something like that and then go public with it unless he an ax to grind, but that also seems hard to believe since he actually was a Clinton supporter.

Originally posted by BettyBlowtorch
"According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy
national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism
and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a
hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the U.S.
In that discussion, a Justice Department representative
reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the
United States since there was no way to hold him here,
absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not
aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible
for any act against an America citizen."

Oh come on Betty , you and I both know that UBL was responsible for the Cole , the 93 WTC and Kobar towars and Clinton , Berger and Clarke treated him as a common criminal and because they had to " do the right thing" and not violate Bin Ladens rights as a criminal 3000 Americans died on Sept 11, 2001

I can't believe how anyone would seriously believe that Clinton made the right decision .

LadyMod at scam.com

05-30-2008, 08:06 AM

Betty,

frankie is not the sharpest tool in the shed you know? And he's so far up Bush's ass that escape is impossible for him.

Lady Mod

.

Betty Blowtorch

05-30-2008, 02:03 PM

Frankie,

Now you're just throwing crap against the wall
to see if any of it sticks. If you don't have a
strong argument to make, don't make one.

For example:

I'm not sure which report this is Betty but it
isn't the 911 Comission Final Report and it
doesn't mention that anywhere in the final report.
The report was written by staff members of
the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States" (the 9/11 Commission.)
The official emblem is clearly visible at the top
of page 1 of the report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf).

It should be obvious even to a genius like you
that the 911 Commission's Final Report didn't
include the claim that Sudan offered to expel
bin Laden to the U.S. because they found no
reliable evidence to support this claim.

In their Final Report, the Commission reported
facts that could be verified, and they left out
the unsubstantiated crap.

They reported the fact that Sudan offered to
expel bin Laden to Saudi Arabia (not the U.S.)
and the Saudis refused to take him. But now
I'm just repeating what I already wrote in my
previous post, and I hate having to do that.

If you're confused, go back and re-read my
earlier post and the link I provided.

So ????
Its highly unlikely Ijaz would make up something
like that and then go public with it unless he an
ax to grind, but that also seems hard to believe
since he actually was a Clinton supporter.
Re-read my earlier post.

Oh come on Betty , you and I both know that UBL
was responsible for the Cole , the 93 WTC and Kobar
towars and Clinton , Berger and Clarke treated him
as a common criminal and because they had to
" do the right thing" and not violate Bin Ladens rights
as a criminal 3000 Americans died on Sept 11, 2001
If bin Laden was responsible for the 1993 bombing
of the World Trade Center, please show us any
felony indictments against him for that crime.

I can provide you with links showing that the
actual perpetrators were indicted, convicted
and imprisoned.

Moby

05-30-2008, 04:08 PM

The entire thought process of Sudan, a Muslim country on the US terrorist watch list, with no diplomatic ties to the USA would suddenly offer a Muslim terrorist to the USA. Anyone that thinks this is feasible doesn't understand the hostility during that time.

It does make sense that Bin Laden was offered to King Faad a close business partner of the Bush family.

Moby

05-30-2008, 04:10 PM

Isn't Mansoor Ijaz in business with Neoconservatives that worked for Reagan?
That doesn't sound like a big Clinton supporter to me.

Frankg

05-30-2008, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by BettyBlowtorch
It should be obvious even to a genius like you
that the 911 Commission's Final Report didn't
include the claim that Sudan offered to expel
bin Laden to the U.S. because they found no
reliable evidence to support this claim.

That is absolutely not true.
In February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching officials from the United States and other governments, asking what actions of theirs might ease foreign pressure.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf

The Mukhabarat , the Sudanese intelligence agency, offered Bin Laden's files to the FBI in 96 but the state department wanted nothing to do with them, it wasn't until just a few weeks prior to the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration requested Sudan’s information on al-Qaeda.
http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/58.shtml

Here's an audio of Bill Clinton admitting the Sudanese wanted to talk about handing over Bin Laden and he refused to take him !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk

Originally posted by BettyBlowtorch
If bin Laden was responsible for the 1993 bombing
of the World Trade Center, please show us any
felony indictments against him for that crime.

Fine , I stand corrected on that part , however Ramzi Yousef did
receive financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Shaikh_Mohammed)

Betty Blowtorch

05-31-2008, 12:57 AM

That is absolutely not true.
Hmmm... I don't get it, Frankie.

I said: the 9/11 Commission's final report didn't
include the claim that Sudan offered to expel
bin Laden to the U.S. because the Commission
found no reliable evidence to support this claim.

You responded: "That is absolutely not true."

Then you tried to prove your point by quoting
one sentence from the 9/11 Commission report,
but you conveniently left out several sentences
that followed. Here's the full quote:

"In February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching
officials from the United States and other governments,
asking what actions of theirs might ease foreign pressure.
In secret meetings with Saudi officials, Sudan offered to
expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to
pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret
discussions, certainly by March. Saudi officials apparently
wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan.They had already
revoked his citizenship, however, and would not tolerate
his presence in their country."
Once again I find myself repeating the same facts:
Sudan offered to expel bin Laden to Saudi Arabia
(not the U.S.) but the Saudis refused to take him.

There's nothing in the report to support your claim
that Sudan offered to turn him over to the U.S. in
1996.

As I stated previously (and as Clinton stated in the
YouTube video) the U.S. had no basis for bringing
him to the U.S. in 1996 because he had committed
no crimes against America at that point.

From the 9/11 Commission report:

"Not until 1998 did al Qaeda undertake a major terrorist
operation of its own, in large part because Bin Ladin
lost his base in Sudan."

Betty Blowtorch

05-31-2008, 12:58 AM

Chew on this for awhile, Frankie:

While Bush vacationed, 9/11 warnings went unheard (http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/).

"The 9/11 commission has unveiled many critical problems
in the FBI and the CIA. But the most critical problem may
have been that the president was off duty."

"Throughout that summer [of 2001] CIA Director Tenet,
Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running
around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida
was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6,
Bush was given the now-famous President's Daily Brief
(by one of Tenet's underlings) warning that this attack
might take place inside the United States."

Tenet revealed at the 9/11 Commission hearings that,
two weeks before 9/11, he received an FBI report that
Zacarias Moussaoui had been taking lessons on how to
fly a 747.

When Tenet was asked why he didn't warn Bush about
this threat, Tenet replied:

"BUSH WAS ON VACATION."

Bush was on vacation in Crawford, Texas for a month,
from August 3rd to September 3rd.

"Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that
Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the
peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a
time when action was needed, and orders for action had
to come from the top, the man at the top was resting
undisturbed."

In his first 8 months in office (prior to 9/11) Bush spent
40% of his time on vacation outside of Washington.

Bush was on vacation in Crawford when he received the
August 6th PDB warning that bin Laden was determined
to strike in the U.S.

When he received this warning, did Bush rush back to
Washington to deal with the threat?

Nope. He played golf and rode his bike.