senerhu Posted July 2, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 2, 2007 After all this time and posting, no one has come up with a good reason why Hillary is the best candidate among everyone else in the country to vote for. Gee, maybe that's because SHE'S NOT!! that's what she was implying.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted July 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.06 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2007 Haha, there is something fun about that, isn't there? I know a lot of people who have met Barack (he's big with college kids, obviously), and I think I'd just be speechless in the event. I know, I know, he's not a rock star...but he has a lot of star power (not that he's not quite substantial as a candidate, clearly....otherwise I wouldn't support him). My boyfriend is working in a student group on his campaign, so maybe one day...haha. Yep, Obama is an attractive and articulate guy; Hilary is an articulate lawyer; Edwards is an attractive and articulate lawyer.......wait a minute, isn't Obama a lawyer too? On the other side....hmmm....any lawyers there? I can't think of any on the Republican side. Wait! Wasn't Lincoln also a lawyer??? Irrelevant! It's my opinion that the whole corral full of candidates are either lawyers or so nondescript that I can't remember anything about them. I won't vote for any one of these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 4, 2007 How about this for a thought: SurveyUSA reports Hillary Clinton's average approval rating as a Senator at 74%, significantly higher than the average for senators (56%). So apparently a good number of her constituents think she's doing a good job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2007 How about this for a thought: SurveyUSA reports Hillary Clinton's average approval rating as a Senator at 74%, significantly higher than the average for senators (56%). So apparently a good number of her constituents think she's doing a good job... Did the survey poll her fellow senators, her constituents or the population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 4, 2007 It was a November '06 poll done through several New York TV stations, I'm assuming, therefore, that it was of her constituents. Her approval rating has typically been just a bit lower than that of Schumer (the NY senior senator). However, if memory serves, it's been at least at the national average for the time she's been in office, which at least starts to lead one to the conclusion that she's not bad at her job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2007 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. Balance, you just made a statement you didn't back up. You said that "99 other Senators have not accomplished just as much as Hillary, and certainly not less." How do you know? Do you have proof that the statement made by Senerhu is wrong? If you do not, then your claim he is wrong is just an assumption on your part. I guess you are looking pretty foolish right now. Well, you're a little premature. You're the first one to ask me to prove my statement. http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/legislation/ VS http://martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cf...FTOKEN=97434392 I would say one of us looks foolish and that is certain. And how do those web-sites prove that 99 Senators did less than Hiliary? If you are making the claim they do, how about giving me the list of Senators, and then show me which ones did less than Hiliary, and how you come to that conclusion. Liberals are very good at bringing in links like this that do not prove their positions, but they assume they do. I want some actual names, the number of bills they sponsored, what they were about, and how you come to the conclusion that makes them less effective than Hiliary? If you can't do that, you gave nothing but your opinion, and you are no better than the person you criticized. Do you need help getting dressed in the morning too? 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. a real behemoth of accomplishments.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2007 It was a November '06 poll done through several New York TV stations, I'm assuming, therefore, that it was of her constituents. Her approval rating has typically been just a bit lower than that of Schumer (the NY senior senator). However, if memory serves, it's been at least at the national average for the time she's been in office, which at least starts to lead one to the conclusion that she's not bad at her job. pelosi and reed managed to change that didn't they... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Managed to change what? By the way, Pelosi's in the House so she's not even relevant here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2007 Managed to change what? By the way, Pelosi's in the House so she's not even relevant here. have you not heard what congress' latest approval ratings are? They'd sell their firstborn to be even close to an average of 56% now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted July 4, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I wasn't talking about the whole Senate, the 56% refers to the average approval rating for one Senator from their constituency. Yeah, Congressional job approval is down (remember we're talking about all of Congress here, not just the Senate)...probably because they're not being aggressive enough, and also because people aren't generally happy with where we are as a nation right now. As a general note, though, Congressional approval ratings tend to be lower than individual ratings. For judging individual Senators, I tend to think that looking at how they're rated by their constituents is a good way of judging their service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts