-- STOP HILLARY -- Video

[blackumbrella]

You couldn't be any more wrong. The right disliked her long before Bush took the stage. Her first White House stint saw her try to change the American family in ways that only liberals would approve. She has been a socialist for her entire life, evidenced by her political activism in her youth...

i didn't say the anti-clintonism is new, or even anti-hillarism. i said i agreed with you that she's not going to steal many con votes. but as i said, she's not trying to, esp not by going after bush so hard. she's going after the undecided, nonpartisan voters who decide elections and who, right now, are disenfranchised with the bush admin and to some degree with the republican party. this is so true, i don't think it's even arguable.

 

[blackumbrella]

Because, while he might not be very bright, he has done his level best to focus the world on the problems of global terrorism and the ineffectual UN sanctions that have been used for decades to combat them. He has exposed UN diplomacy as a cover for appeasement. He has started the world down a different path. One that gives us a fair shot at ending government sponsored terrorism.

The UN should be disbanded. The World Courts are a joke. And the socialist agenda incorporated in both needed to be challenged. Let's hope that someone has been paying attention...

noble missions, but despite the size of the banners he prints out, far from being 'accomplished'

 

[NYBamaFan]

i didn't say the anti-clintonism is new, or even anti-hillarism. i said i agreed with you that she's not going to steal many con votes. but as i said, she's not trying to, esp not by going after bush so hard. she's going after the undecided, nonpartisan voters who decide elections and who, right now, are disenfranchised with the bush admin and to some degree with the republican party. this is so true, i don't think it's even arguable.

Agreed, but Bush isn't running again. The Dem's best chance is a fresh face. When forced to compare two fresh choices, the middle will consider their strengths and weaknesses. When one is a "known", unless that one has a great record (which Hillary does not have), the lesser known will have an edge.

I believe that Americans are tired of the same old messages and are looking for a new hope. Hillary does not offer that hope to many...

 

[NYBamaFan]

noble missions, but despite the size of the banners he prints out, far from being 'accomplished'

As for the war on terror, Bush has been consistent and clear in his message that this will be a war fought by multiple generations, not won in a handful of years. It is a global war, fought by cowards on one side who like to hide behind women and children while killing the same in an effort to make governments fear involvement.

The world will never know peace until we find a way to end this threat. Bush was the first US President willing to make the effort. Heck, Reagan left Lebanon when faced with a terrorist threat.

Bush scared Lybia into coming back to the table. It is a step in the right direction...

 

[blackumbrella]

Agreed, but Bush isn't running again. The Dem's best chance is a fresh face. When forced to compare two fresh choices, the middle will consider their strengths and weaknesses. When one is a "known", unless that one has a great record (which Hillary does not have), the lesser known will have an edge.

I believe that Americans are tired of the same old messages and are looking for a new hope. Hillary does not offer that hope to many...

i'm afraid you overestimate us. 'same old messages' are associated with the current/old admin, ie bush and even ie republicans (midterms). btw, do any of the posters on here who said after 04 that the democrats were down forever and so on, still come around and own up to it? the 08 dem candidates hope they can ride the anti-bush wave into office just like the midterm congressfolks. but more to your point, hillary seems to me to be making a big show of her opposition so that she might come across exactly as that new hope when 08 rolls around.

 

[NYBamaFan]

but more to your point, hillary seems to me to be making a big show of her opposition so that she might come across exactly as that new hope when 08 rolls around.

I agree, but Hillary has a track record to point back to. She is a socialist. While America may be becoming more and more socialistic in nature every day, we are not ready to elect a socialist as president (I hope).

Tell me, would you elect a socialist? Not over Bush, but over someone like Rudy?

I just don't see it happening - but I have been wrong before...

 

[blackumbrella]

As for the war on terror, Bush has been consistent and clear in his message that this will be a war fought by multiple generations, not won in a handful of years. It is a global war, fought by cowards on one side who like to hide behind women and children while killing the same in an effort to make governments fear involvement.

The world will never know peace until we find a way to end this threat. Bush was the first US President willing to make the effort. Heck, Reagan left Lebanon when faced with a terrorist threat.

Bush scared Lybia into coming back to the table. It is a step in the right direction...

i don't know enough to talk about this in depth. my intution though is that terrorism is about as beatable an opponent as drugs were. especially so long as there is widespread hatred for us, which breeds more terrorists and terrorist supporters. for me, the leader who wins this 'war' is the one who gets the most people on our side. that's not bush so far, who has divided his own nation on the matter and has squandered the abundance of good will we enjoyed from other nations just after 9/11. your argument isn't without precedent though. lincoln did alot of shady things in making and winning his war, and has been deemed 'great' by history. but that war had more tangible benefits and was easier to win. squashing terrorism will always be a temporary victory, and sustaining democraticishness in iraq will require alot of smart bureaucratic moves by those to come, and if that plays out, then i like they'll get the credit and will in large part be seen as cleaning up bush's mess. bush will, in that case, get credit for having the vision to manufactureenough justification for going to war. the alternative to this is that he was dumb enough to believe his bad intel or incompetent enough to have bad intel. really none of the three alternatives endear him to me, bc i'm not a huge lincoln fan.

 

[blackumbrella]

I agree, but Hillary has a track record to point back to. She is a socialist. While America may be becoming more and more socialistic in nature every day, we are not ready to elect a socialist as president (I hope).

Tell me, would you elect a socialist? Not over Bush, but over someone like Rudy?

I just don't see it happening - but I have been wrong before...

maybe. i need to knwo more about all these guys before i vote. i could see myself voting for rudy, mccain, hillary, edwards, or obama. if i decide i dont like the cons, i'll likely go edwards, who i think can beat either. but i'm attracted to the idea of a woman and of a black man as pres. i think either will do at least as well as bush, and i think the historical significance has alot of intangible value both in terms of how we view ourselves and how the world views us. the danger though, is that any criticism of that president could be spun as racist/sexist, like this admin spins criticism as unamerican. really, i'm pretty sure that would happen, but it's maybe inevitable and something we need to go through to move beyond the race/gender issue for good

 

[rkwilkerson]

Y'all can relax.

Neither Hillary nor Barak will ever be President. In fact, the Democrats will never, ever see a female or black candidate on the top of their ticket get elected.

Ever. Why? Because every last one of them are so far to the left that they make Mondale look like Reagan.

That said, I pray every day that either Hillary or Barak makes it through the primaries and gets nominated. The collective puking of the American electorate will make a Rudy Guiliani administration a slam dunk.

Liberals fear Rudy like SEC rivals fear Saban.

I agree 100%

Every day I pray that the Democrats will put Barak or Hillary on the 2008 Presidential ballot!

The cold hard truth is that this country is not ready for an african american president or a female president. I say...Go Ahead...put one of them on the ballot and watch the Republicans win in a landslide!

Although the Democrats will make a courageous statement, they will once again lose the race for the oval office!

Write that in Stone

 

[rkwilkerson]

Not in this country

Can I borrow your crystal ball...?? :conf3:

 

[NYBamaFan]

i don't know enough to talk about this in depth. my intution though is that terrorism is about as beatable an opponent as drugs were. especially so long as there is widespread hatred for us, which breeds more terrorists and terrorist supporters. for me, the leader who wins this 'war' is the one who gets the most people on our side. that's not bush so far, who has divided his own nation on the matter and has squandered the abundance of good will we enjoyed from other nations just after 9/11. your argument isn't without precedent though. lincoln did alot of shady things in making and winning his war, and has been deemed 'great' by history. but that war had more tangible benefits and was easier to win. squashing terrorism will always be a temporary victory, and sustaining democraticishness in iraq will require alot of smart bureaucratic moves by those to come, and if that plays out, then i like they'll get the credit and will in large part be seen as cleaning up bush's mess. bush will, in that case, get credit for having the vision to manufactureenough justification for going to war. the alternative to this is that he was dumb enough to believe his bad intel or incompetent enough to have bad intel. really none of the three alternatives endear him to me, bc i'm not a huge lincoln fan.

I think that we can end terrorism against the US pretty easily - through the use of blunt force. Start destroying cities/countries. This will not end terrorism directly, but by forcing countries like Saudi Arabia to either take care of their home grown terrorists or risk losing everything if one of their wacko bretheren decides to attack the US.

We win only by forcing countries that harbor/sponsor terrorists to turn them out. It would be easier to do than you might imagine. Just state the new policy and then destroy the first country to step over the line. Don't invade - just destroy them from the air and leave them to be chopped up by their neighbors. After one or two of those, the attacks will stop. If they don't, the entire middle east will find itself under a huge pile of rubble. The UN will whine and moan and impose sanctions that they have no intent or hope of enforcing against the US, but who cares? I'd rather my family be safe than loved by countries that have never liked Americans anyway.

And don't fall for this line that terrorists are not a part of the governments in the countries that they occupy. Who cares? If their governments won't take them out, we will - and the governments with them if we even suspect that they might have been able to prevent the attack through arrests of known terrorists in their country. Loss of innocents? Again, who cares? Better them than us.

It is time for America to stop acting like the big brother to the world and start protecting Americans again. We are, far and away, the most powerful military and economic power in the world. It is time to use both to end terrorism.

At least, that is what I would do...

 

[blackumbrella]

I think that we can end terrorism against the US pretty easily - through the use of blunt force. Start destroying cities/countries. This will not end terrorism directly, but by forcing countries like Saudi Arabia to either take care of their home grown terrorists or risk losing everything if one of their wacko bretheren decides to attack the US.

We win only by forcing countries that harbor/sponsor terrorists to turn them out. It would be easier to do than you might imagine. Just state the new policy and then destroy the first country to step over the line. Don't invade - just destroy them from the air and leave them to be chopped up by their neighbors. After one or two of those, the attacks will stop. If they don't, the entire middle east will find itself under a huge pile of rubble. The UN will whine and moan and impose sanctions that they have no intent or hope of enforcing against the US, but who cares? I'd rather my family be safe than loved by countries that have never liked Americans anyway.

And don't fall for this line that terrorists are not a part of the governments in the countries that they occupy. Who cares? If their governments won't take them out, we will - and the governments with them if we even suspect that they might have been able to prevent the attack through arrests of known terrorists in their country. Loss of innocents? Again, who cares? Better them than us.

It is time for America to stop acting like the big brother to the world and start protecting Americans again. We are, far and away, the most powerful military and economic power in the world. It is time to use both to end terrorism.

At least, that is what I would do...

that sounds a little mr. softee to me. real men would advocate going over there and snatching up a bunch of kids. we keep them in prison and every time anyone burns an american flag, we disembowel 50 kids with coathangers up their urethrum. then we mail the bodies back to their families with their evacuated body cavities filled with mustard gas and red, white, and blue fireworks.

 

[NYBamaFan]

that sounds a little mr. softee to me. real men would advocate going over there and snatching up a bunch of kids. we keep them in prison and every time anyone burns an american flag, we disembowel 50 kids with coathangers up their urethrum. then we mail the bodies back to their families with their evacuated body cavities filled with mustard gas and red, white, and blue fireworks.

Was South America that tough on you?

 

[blackumbrella]

Was South America that tough on you?

well, i was just an hour away from the nica border when ortega was re-elected. and truth be told, i like the guy. socialism gets thrown around like a four letter word in here, but when you take over a country by force, then install a system of elections that see you voted out of office, that's praxis, that's living your beliefs. it's refreshing when so many politicians are justifying their means with ends that rarely come to fruition, regardless of how you feel about the distribution of wealth etc.

 

[Bama Torch in Pcola]

well, i was just an hour away from the nica border when ortega was re-elected. and truth be told, i like the guy. socialism gets thrown around like a four letter word in here, but when you take over a country by force, then install a system of elections that see you voted out of office, that's praxis, that's living your beliefs. it's refreshing when so many politicians are justifying their means with ends that rarely come to fruition, regardless of how you feel about the distribution of wealth etc.

Ortega bowed to the will of the Nicaraguan people because he knew the election results were backed by the will and might of the US. Cuba couldn't arm him, the USSR and France wouldn't arm him, he didn't have a choice. His motives were hardly altruistic.

I will say that the Sandinista revolution was healthy for them in the long run because it cleared the air of the stench of Somoza. But by constently restricting individual rights and monkeying with elections, Ortega showed the Nicaraquan people that socialism wasn't the answer. Oppression is oppression whether it carries the name of dictatorship or socialism.

So now we have a nice little republic down in Nicaraqua. Things turned out very nicely.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Oppression is oppression whether it carries the name of dictatorship or socialism...

Socialism leads to dictatorship, or something so close that you cannot tell the difference. Once the government controls the people economically, the rest is just a matter of time...

 

[It's On A Slab]

that sounds a little mr. softee to me. real men would advocate going over there and snatching up a bunch of kids. we keep them in prison and every time anyone burns an american flag, we disembowel 50 kids with coathangers up their urethrum. then we mail the bodies back to their families with their evacuated body cavities filled with mustard gas and red, white, and blue fireworks.

I'm sorry, but that was one of the funniest posts I've read on Tidefans.

Evil, cynical bastard that I am.

Go BU!

 

[blackumbrella]

Ortega bowed to the will of the Nicaraguan people because he knew the election results were backed by the will and might of the US. Cuba couldn't arm him, the USSR and France wouldn't arm him, he didn't have a choice. His motives were hardly altruistic.

I will say that the Sandinista revolution was healthy for them in the long run because it cleared the air of the stench of Somoza. But by constently restricting individual rights and monkeying with elections, Ortega showed the Nicaraquan people that socialism wasn't the answer. Oppression is oppression whether it carries the name of dictatorship or socialism.

So now we have a nice little republic down in Nicaraqua. Things turned out very nicely.

i was too young to remember the revolucion, but it's not the impression i got from the nicas i talked to while down there, who really like him, that teh sandinistas were akin to castroistas. of course, socialism looks good when thje wealth gap is so huge and the majority are dirt poor with not mush chance to get better, like there now, and not so good when you're comfortable and have agency in improving your lot, like here now. it's the expat business owners there that are so concerned, but from what he says, ortega appreciates the economic help.

 

[Bamaro]

Because, while he might not be very bright, he has done his level best to focus the world on the problems of global terrorism and the ineffectual UN sanctions that have been used for decades to combat them. He has exposed UN diplomacy as a cover for appeasement. He has started the world down a different path. One that gives us a fair shot at ending government sponsored terrorism.

He tried but unfortunately he has failed miserably. History rewards good results, not this. History will religate 43 to the bottom of the pile. The 1st 6 years have been a failure. He better get moving if he wants to be viewed positively by history.

 

[It's On A Slab]

of course, socialism looks good when thje wealth gap is so huge and the majority are dirt poor with not mush chance to get better,.

There's the rub.

For too long, we've coddled right-wing dictators and oligarchs in South/Central America as long as they kept our business interests happy. When the have-nots far outnumber the haves, and when they see their lot never improving, when most of the land and wealth is in the hands of the few, they turn to Castros and Chavezs as their saviors.....with equally disastrous results.