Why Hillary?

[Smalcald]

I don't base my votes on if someone is a Christian or not. Sometimes if they practice their faith I take it under consideration in the positive column. But beyond that no.

How many of the current administration are practicing Christians for example? I think some are, many are obviously not, and from a job perspective I don't know how relevant it is.

For example I find Mormonism to be a cultish pagan faith founded by a guy who fooled around with the occult, yet I would probably vote for Romney over some others because he shares some of my views politically and socially.

The fact is I just can't get to upset over who wins and loses the Presidency I have preferences but I am not going to lose sleep over the outcome.

[senerhu]

I only needed to prove that one Senator has done less than Hillary to disprove his statement. The links are directly to that one Senators record as well as a link to Hillary's record. The items in question are numbered so all you have to do is go to the last page and if Senator Martinez's list is shorter than Hillary's... Keep working on it though, each new post makes you look more foolish than the last. You could try reading the posts as well so that you don't get the argument wrong as well.

Martinez hasn't been in the Senate as long as Hiliary. In addition, it is not just the number of bills they sponsored, but what the bills accomplished. You haven't proven anything. My guess is that you google searched for a web-site that would give the voting record of the Senate, and likely didn't read it. Then, when I challenged you to prove what you were saying is true, you looked to see the number of bills differen't Senators had sponsored or co-sponsored. The issue raised with Hiliary's time in the Senate was the type of bills she had been involved in, not just quantity.

*sigh* Apparently you you didn't do as I suggested and actually read the posts in question so that you don't get the argument wrong. Here, I'll do the work for you.

In post #129 - http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...336&st=120# - Senerhu stated "...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)...

See the bold portion and the underlined part there? In the very next post #130 - http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...336&st=120#

I said "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."

I only have to provide 1 (one) senator who has accomplished less in order to prove that the statement in post #129 is untrue. Which I have done. "Accomplished" was not in any way defined as legislation which has been passed. You can try to change the point, or redefine words etc. all you want but you are not going to change the facts of the original statement and subsequent challenge. Give it up already, sheesh, you're looking like a person who can't grasp a simple argument or someone who so desperately needs to be right that you will ignore the facts of a discussion.

If Hiliary sponsored 177 pieces of worthless legislation and someone else sponsored none, her accomplishments are no greater. That is the point. The list of so-called accomplishments by Clinton were one worthless bill after another. If one was simply looking at the number, they might by impressed, but if you look at the content, that is quite another thing. That is the point. It is all in how you define accomplishments.

BINGO!!

Yes, it is all in how you define accomplishments... unfortunately, for the argument we got into, the definition was open. Now that I've proven your original statement to be false, you can try a new argument with parameters for "accomplishments" is you'd like.

Accomplishment - anything accomplished; deed; achievement: a career measured in a series of small accomplishments.

Yeah it is in how you define accomplishments. You define it your way and I'll define it mine...

[papasangel]

Hillary was already President. She needs to move on and let someone else serve.

Good one! And true.

Obama hasn't even served one full senate term, has he? How experienced can he be? I don't think Edwards will be in much longer. I'd love to see Algore get in again, so I could see him be defeated again, either in the primary or the election.

How can any Christian support a candidate who is pro-abortion, up to the moment of birth, and even after the birth has begun???

In my opinion Edwards needs to drop out of the race right now and concetrate on his wife who has cancer. I wouldn't vote for somone who would put their spouse who is very ill through the rigors of a presidential bid. Obama on the surface seems to be pretty promising but I agree he does not have enough experience yet.

And any canidate that condones the murder of innocents also should not be in a postition of power. If they hold life so cheaply then how can we trust them to hold American lives sacred?

[undone]

Hillary was already President. She needs to move on and let someone else serve.

Good one! And true.

Obama hasn't even served one full senate term, has he? How experienced can he be? I don't think Edwards will be in much longer. I'd love to see Algore get in again, so I could see him be defeated again, either in the primary or the election.

How can any Christian support a candidate who is pro-abortion, up to the moment of birth, and even after the birth has begun???

In my opinion Edwards needs to drop out of the race right now and concetrate on his wife who has cancer. I wouldn't vote for somone who would put their spouse who is very ill through the rigors of a presidential bid. Obama on the surface seems to be pretty promising but I agree he does not have enough experience yet.

And any canidate that condones the murder of innocents also should not be in a postition of power. If they hold life so cheaply then how can we trust them to hold American lives sacred?

Is there actually a pro-life democratic candidate? If so, who? I couldn't imagine them getting the nomination.

[papasangel]

but she did have to do some things, you know, to maintain the illusion...

yeah don't they all have that excuse. Sorry I measure a persons actions not their personality when it ocmes to trusting them.

I still think we need to hold the elected peoples to high standards before and after elections.

[Hypathia]

1) She'll sign legislation to expand the federal funding of stem-cell research; open up new lines too.

2) She can complete a sentence without mumbling and fumbling all over the English language.

3) She's got policial savvy just like the "guys" and she's very smart.

4) I thought her Universal Health Care thing was a good idea; don't know if she's planning on trying that again though.

5) I think she's more moral than most even if she doesn't make her "personal relationship with God" ultra public, dripping with veiled bible verses and references to "God" every time she speaks.

6) I don't like her husband but he does have charisma so he'd be helpful in mending some fences abroad and improve our Country's image in the world.

7) She can handle the pressure that goes with the job; after the scandal involving her husband's infidelity she's proven she's got what it takes to take on the job of President.

While I'd prefer to see someone who hasn't had a relative already serve as President in recent decades she's probably the best in the field for now. -- Is it just me or is the Presidency starting to look more and more like a "royal succession" or "dictatorship" rather than a "branch" of the govt?

[papasangel]

1) She'll sign legislation to expand the federal funding of stem-cell research; open up new lines too.

yes she will open up stem cell research but not from the cord blood lines but from babies murdered. I don't want any part of anyone who can condone murdering children for the greater good.

2) She can complete a sentence without mumbling and fumbling all over the English language.

She is well spoken I will give you that but remember even satan can do that

3) She's got policial savvy just like the "guys" and she's very smart.

yep she just as sneaky and underhanded as any male counterpart for sure. She suffers from the human condition just like anyone else.

4) I thought her Universal Health Care thing was a good idea; don't know if she's planning on trying that again though.

If in the context it is supposed to be in yes. But I don't beleive the time for that is come yet. The insurance companies will send millions to stop that move. A snowball in hades has a better chance of making it. But yes I agree that would be a plus for Hillary

5) I think she's more moral than most even if she doesn't make her "personal relationship with God" ultra public, dripping with veiled bible verses and references to "God" every time she speaks.

When you say moral are you alluding to no indescretions in her past? The media has reported at least two male indescretions with the men in question dying in mysterious accidents. Also she has mingled with lesbians and condoned their lifestyle. That isn't the type of morality I would want leading my country.

6) I don't like her husband but he does have charisma so he'd be helpful in mending some fences abroad and improve our Country's image in the world.

He has charisma yes, He even has done some good as president. But morally, he is reprehensible. His whole career has had woman chasing in it. How would that improve America's image? Letting him sleep his way in negotions? I would be worried he would put the moves on some leaders wife or daughters and create an international incident to ever give him a power position again. Remember if Hillarey does become President he will have some powers as first husband.

7) She can handle the pressure that goes with the job; after the scandal involving her husband's infidelity she's proven she's got what it takes to take on the job of President.

She did handle the scandal well I admit. But as to the pressures? No she is human and behind the scenes we don't know all that transpired between them. Depending on which media source you get she either handled it with equanimaty or as a screeching banshee.

While I'd prefer to see someone who hasn't had a relative already serve as President in recent decades she's probably the best in the field for now. -- Is it just me or is the Presidency starting to look more and more like a "royal succession" or "dictatorship" rather than a "branch" of the govt?

I agree it seems we have our own monarchy here in America. Once it was the Kennedys, now its clintons, and bush. Why not Smith?

[kat8585]

Satan can get us into a war through deceit too, what's your point?

If I hear one more person say this war was started by deceit.....

Funny how that sin seems to be so much more grave that the sins of those in your own party; like Tom Delay going to the Marianas and promoting the child labor, prostitution and forced abortion there in order to make more money. As just one glaring example...

Proof, please?

[Hypathia]

Papasangel, stem cell aren't babies. You can feed a baby and put a diaper on it or rub it while it's in your belly kicking around. -- A stem-cell is a clump of 150 cells sitting in a petrie dish until they go into the trash.

[senerhu]

In the past I've read threads here of people who object to women being pastors, or being in the ministry, etc. So if those who object to women being in the ministry or being pastors, why do you not object to a woman being president and running this country?