Why Hillary?

[undone]

Okay...Hillary's off the list....I nominate....MISS PIGGY !!!

[papasangel]

First let me say this.

I would vote for anyone who would do the job for which they ran for in a moral, upstanding manner.

I don't care what party runs the country but I do care for the person who sits in the chair of decision is the President.

We keep hearing all about the "dirty laundry" of politicians and see so much mud slinging its hard to know who to vote for sometimes. It seems most canidates including Hillary change their stance ased on the whims of whatever is most popular right now.

Why can we not have someone who is not afraid to stand for what is right? Ok Bush is not the best example for this but since he is the president we have to assume he is doing what he thinks is right for America. Right? If you believe that I have piece of land in atlantis I will sell ya. No canidate comes to mind who is capable of withstanding the temptation give in tho the pressures that is brought to bear on them.

We need a choice of canidates who have strong moral foundations, who have shown that they understand how to do the job for which they are elected to and that are not afraid to back up their decisions, based on solid reliable information.

I do not like Hillary. Why? Because I do not trust her one bit. She authored a book that it "takes a village" to raise a child. Since then parents have had their right to rear their children taken away bit by bit. The government has taken on a parental role in a lot of households. If hillary becomes president our families will pay the price.

I also do not care for her moral background either. Adultary, homosexualism etc has no place in the White House.

[kat8585]

Yeah, one of the smartest women in the US, some say the world, and she couldn't explain how her billing records got into her private quarters. And before that she didn't even know where they were.

Let a Republican try this!

How many names would you like me to list because I can't spend all my time looking them all up...

Oh, I think you can. You told me I could.

Be careful of the claims you make Kat, I WILL call you on them.

[kat8585]

Everything he said is true. I have heard Rush Limbaugh play exerpts from Hiliary speeches given at various times where she has flip-flopped on the issue of Iraq, one time supporting the war, then opposing it, and then supporting it again. First, she is on tape saying she voted with conviction to support the war. Later, when it became unpopular, she was on tape opposing it, claiming if she had known now what she didn't know then, she wouldn't have voted for it. Then, after the capture of Sadaam, she came back touting her support for the war. Now, she is against it all over again. This is on tape. All 20 million listeners to Rush Limbaugh's progam have heard her do this. The same tapes can be heard on the Hannity show. They would make great campaign ads to run against her, and I imagine such things will be used. That is not bearing false witness against anyone, it is a fact.

This is true. I've heard them a number of times. I hope they are used against her.

[senerhu]

You're right, Dick Morris knows hilary better than you or I. Also, we're talking about bills sponsored, not committees or subcommittees that she graced their presence on...

Oh, I didn't see that specification anywhere. I thought we were talking about her accomplishments as a Senator. So now you'd prefer to pick and choose which accomplishments you'd like displayed?

Sure why not? A women with her standing in the party should have been able to accomplish alot. I posted em...

I think it was two post offices named instead of one...sorry

Because it's not an effective way of getting out of the bad argument you wish to make, that's why. Nice try though. NOT!

so name her accomplishments then... And if you want to post the links to her senate sites then why don't you post the links to the other 99, they have accomplished just as much or more (certainly not less)...

I don't care to list her accomplishments. That was not the point and you know it. This was not a competition by me to see who's list was longer but rather it was me pointing out that you are being disingenuous in your attack on Hillary Clinton. I posted the link to the Senate website so that people could get actual, real information.

Obviously you haven't learned anything in this post because you went and made another fallacious statement.

why don't you post the links to the other 99, they have accomplished just as much or more (certainly not less)...

Must I prove you wrong again by proving that there are actually many Senators who have accomplished less? I mean, there are Senators who have only been in office 6 months.

Why am I disingenuous? Her record speaks for itself. I posted the accomplishmnets of one of the most powerful women in the senate and you have to go to first term senators to find those with less?

ok...

as far as this topic goes "Why Hillary"

I don't know why, they could do far better...

Maybe I'm being petty but I've had enough of allowing people to say whatever they want regardless of it's validity. When you say

why don't you post the links to the other 99, they have accomplished just as much or more (certainly not less)...

I am then obliged to point out that there ARE senators who have accomplished less, i.e. your statement is untrue.

Will you continue to argue this point? It's pretty cut and dried.

You know what is funny about this is that you believe there is an absolute truth to these issues. You have stated several times that nebulous facts that differ from your beliefs are untrue. What you fail to realize is that almost all these posts are opinions. There are no truths as you would like them to be, only opinions. And just because you believe someones opinion is wrong based on your history, I can almost assure you the person who you disagree with you has ligitiment reason to believe otherwise. Do you honestly believe that you or anyone can sum up literally months of activity on a subject in a few paragraphs no matter how eloquent they sound? Therefore your quest to call out people when you feel they are being untruthful only makes your efforts look foolish and/or idiotic. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one fits you...

[kat8585]

(Anything but) Balance, you claim to be middle of the road, so why do you adamantly defend anything far left, and harshly criticize anything to anything even slightly right of center in tbis thread? Your venom and bitterness come thru loud and clear in every post, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who senses it.

[kat8585]

The only time I believe there should be anti-descrimination laws in place is in cases where something is funded by tax dollars. When it comes to community colleges, or public schools, they are financed by the American public and not privately owned, so there should be no descrimination allowed. Even so, I am opposed to bussing of children from one area to another to create diversity. Children should go to the school closest to where they live.

And Affirmative Action is one of the worst things ever foisted upon us.

[kat8585]

Changing her position of support for the war (as many have done) is not the same thing than his speculation as to her motives. I don't disagree that she has changed her position on the war. So have I, I was all for it in the beginning but as time has gone on and more information has been made available and we've had time to assess the plan (or lack thereof), the progress etc. I have come to realize that I was wrong. It would be unwise to maintain a position on a given subject when the facts of the subject have changed or have been shown to be untenable or untrue.

It's the number of, and timing of her flip flops that give her away.

[undone]

Changing her position of support for the war (as many have done) is not the same thing than his speculation as to her motives. I don't disagree that she has changed her position on the war. So have I, I was all for it in the beginning but as time has gone on and more information has been made available and we've had time to assess the plan (or lack thereof), the progress etc. I have come to realize that I was wrong. It would be unwise to maintain a position on a given subject when the facts of the subject have changed or have been shown to be untenable or untrue.

It's the number of, and timing of her flip flops that give her away.

[senerhu]

You know what is funny about this is that you believe there is an absolute truth to these issues. You have stated several times that nebulous facts that differ from your beliefs are untrue. What you fail to realize is that almost all these posts are opinions. There are no truths as you would like them to be, only opinions. And just because you believe someones opinion is wrong based on your history, I can almost assure you the person who you disagree with you has ligitiment reason to believe otherwise. Do you honestly believe that you or anyone can sum up literally months of activity on a subject in a few paragraphs no matter how eloquent they sound? Therefore your quest to call out people when you feel they are being untruthful only makes your efforts look foolish and/or idiotic. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one fits you...

I'm sorry to have to point out again that you are wrong. I won't get into absolute truth or relative truth, but there is fact. Take for instance the quote above where you claim that 99 other senators have accomplished just as much as Hillary and certainly not less. The FACT is that you are wrong, there are other senators who have accomplished less. That is not opinion, that is fact.

I realize that people express their opinions on the board but you should not be able to get away with presenting your opinion as fact. There is not such thing as nebulous facts, they are either facts or they are conjecture, hyperbole, opinion, theories... If you are going to state your opinion then you should present it as your opinion. That way people don't repeat your opinion as if it were fact. Plain and simple, no reason to argue about it unless you want to try me on facts not being facts.

Therefore my calling people out when they state something in a factual manner or as fact and asking them to prove it does not make me look foolish it makes the person who cannot then provide the facts to back it up, look foolish.

I can feel your pain. It is obvious that you have a problem of discerning sarcasm. I used that remark to underscore the FACT that hilary clinton has done very little given the opportunity she had especially when one takes into consideration the power the woman holds. And it is my opinion that she is doing it for a reason. My opinion is based a number of facts not listed here that I have taken into consideration. You say that I'm wrong? Earth to balance...I agreed with you, there are senators who have done less, they are the new ones...

You say people should not be allowed to express their opinion as fact? Who made you chief judge, jury and excecutioner of fact? Especially when YOU see fact from your own perspective. You have just done exactly what I said you shouldn't do. I'll repeat for you slowly, there is no truth when discussing these issues. There is only opinion based on ones experiences and facts. Who are you to discern what is conjecture, hyperbole, opinion or theories? You ego is taking on a responsibility that your intellect can't handle. Why do you think there are differences of opinion? Because there is no 'truth' in these matters.

I do agree with you though. If someone says something and you ask them for their reasoning behind it, they should be able to provide the source that they used to format that opinion. But please don't try to do us any favors by acting as 'factman'...your hypocrisy becomes exposed when you do so...