NEWS: Hillary Needs To Shut Her Pie Hole

POLITICS: Hillary Needs To Shut Her Pie Hole

Hillary Clinton is a monster, I proved that months ago. There can be no debate. But now the beast is picking on poor, little, sweet Barack Obama and that is way over the line. Hillary went after Barack with her lady fangs last week for his response to a foreign affairs question in a debate.

Last Tuesday, the Democrats took part in a CNN/YouTube debate during which Obama was asked whether or not he would meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Obama said he would and then pointed out that not meeting with our enemies is what Bush has been doing for years. And it doesn't seem to be going that well.

Clinton, of course, took the opposite view. She said she would pursue diplomacy, but not until she knew the other countries intent. Hillary claimed it wouldn’t happen in her first year in office. Good answer, dumbshit. Does anyone not know Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea’s intent at this point? It’s not hard to figure out if you have picked up a newspaper or read anything about the countries lately. But thanks for taking the position that has gotten us to the point of being the most hated country in the world. Hillary the moron wasn’t done there.

Really? Are you afraid the bad men might say bad stuff about you? Being a coward is a great presidential quality. And what would be the difference if you met these leaders before or after setting preconditions? They will use the meeting for propaganda either way, if they choose to do so.

The next day, Hillary and her advisors thought it would be a great idea to attack Obama over his remarks. Her campaign sent out a memo saying it was a mistake to commit to meetings without preconditions.

Yeah, I bet you do. I’m sure it’s not as irresponsible and naïve as taking money from Indian companies, who outsource American jobs, but you keep talking. Is it as irresponsible and naïve as voting to authorize the Iraq war without reading the 90-page classified National Intelligence Estimate? Because that is what Hillary did. Wouldn’t want to read the evidence before you vote to send our soldiers to die, would you? Obama is on record that day saying it was a mistake to give Bush the power to move forward. Even I, a moron who writes for an Internet website, knew it would be a disaster because I have read books about Iraq and its religious problems. But you keep bragging, sister.

Barack, of course, hit back.

In-fucking-deed. As a matter of fact, a message is much more powerful when delivered in person instead of through the world’s media. Barack also said Hillary’s no talks stance reminded him of Bush’s approach. He was exactly right.

Hillary then responded.

Ha ha, good one. That’s Obama’s campaign theme. She really got him there. She talked shit about him and he responded, then she attacked him for responding. Hillary seems to be confusing the “politics of hope” with the “politics of being a pussy.” Obama did not.

The American people seem to agree with Obama, according to a Rasmussen poll.

Nice try, Hillary, but you failed. It was a really great move that you took straight out of the Rove playbook, when he had Republicans attack Nancy Pelosi for going to Syria. You keep acting like Bush and I’ll keep disliking you.

Currently Hillary leads Obama in the polls, which is great news for Republicans because she is the only Democrat who will lose in 2008.

Vote for Clinton, Democrats, and you lose the big one.

FearTheReaper will not vote for Obama or Clinton, but he thinks Clinton is the ultimate example of everything that is wrong with the American political system.

Why will FearTheReaper not vote for Obama again? Because he chooses to throw away his vote?

It's like this, say you're on a school field trip and the teacher asks the class to vote on where they will eat that day. Half of the kids want McDonalds, the other half want Pizza Hut. You hate McDonalds more than anything in the world, but can stand Pizza Hut. However, you want Wendy's more than either of them so your vote stays there.

You know there is no way on earth that you can garner enough votes to go to Wendy's, but masochistically stay quiet and end up going to the place you hate most, even though it was fully within your power to go elsewhere.

I'm not endorsing complacency - just common sense. I hope you and the rest of free-thinking America can get your ass to the polls in time to stop another bigot cocksucker from fucking up our country even more.

Although I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, your enthusiasm for politics kind of spilled over into anger and makes people stray away from becoming involved...

Honestly, I like Obama a lot more than I like her, but that's not to say that she isn't capable. Although she has been involved in some things I dislike.

For someone who said he was not a Democrat yesterday, you sure sound like one in every way. You give some good points for why Obama is better than Hillary, but then you end it with "Vote for Clinton, Democrats, and you lose the big one." Whether you are a Dem or a Republican, you should vote on who is the better candidate, and who agrees mostly with your philosophy. Pointing out ration reasons why Democrats should consider Obama is good. Throwing in that last sentence makes you sound like the the whining, "anybody but Bush" crowd. "Anybody but____" (fill in the blank) is no reason to vote for anyone.

Actually, I have to agree with you on most of this article. I don't know much about Obama at this point, but he certainly seems to have some better ideas than the other candidates out there.

Of course, I am waiting to see who the candidates are before I make any decisions. For my two cents, Obama and Guiliani are the best the two parties have to offer at this point in the game. From what I know about them at this point, I don't agree with everything that either one stands for, but I agree with enough to at least feel they are currently the best of the group. That may change once it gets closer to election time, and I start researching them a little more.

I agree that we should meet with enemy heads of state. Meeting face to face does not mean that we have to trade with them and hold hands together singing around the campfire. For some reason, our politicians can't seem to see the difference. At least meeting with them opens up a dialog that could better the situation, and Obama understands that.

I do, however, agree with the Republicans for getting on Nancy's ass for meeting with Syria. Not because we shouldn't have met with them, but because as the House Speaker, it's not her job. If she wants to meet with foreign heads of state because she thinks its' the right thing to do, she should run for President and make it her job.

My two-cents for the day....

Okay...I really fucking HATE defending Bush. I really do, but here I am...forced to do it again. Misinformation called Bush a bigot cocksucker. Can someone please give me a documented example of Bush being a bigot. Hell, the guy wants all of our jobs to go to the very people that most bigots hate. I wish people would stop making racist accusations against politicians they don't like. There's a lot of reasons to dislike Bush. I don't see any proof that bigotry is one of them.

Feel free to read about the US Attorney scandel, particulary the people who Bush chose to run the Civil Rights Division. Also, there was his response to Katrina...

How was his response to Katrina racist. The last time I was in New Orleans, there were people of all races living there. If we want to start going the Katrina route, we can point more fingers at the Mayor and the Governor.

Bush has also placed African Americans in higher positions of power than any other president. Oh, wait...those African Americans don't count because they're not the kind of African Americans you like. I forgot, skin color and dna doesn't matter any longer. You have to be a victim-minded "the world keeps me down" African American to actually be considered one by the white-liberal left these days. I'm sure Condi and Powell's ancestors must have owned slaves rather than been ones themselves in your mind.

You win....I give up. Bush is a racist because his African American friends are not really minorities. They actually think for themselves and decided that maybe liberalism wasn't for them. And they actually used the system to move ahead in life and gain prosperity and stature. So they no longer count as minorities by the white, liberal establishment. And lets not forget that it's white liberals who determine who is, and who is not a minority today.

I knew it would only a matter of time before eGore got provoked into saying something unbelievably stupid.

And he was doing almost well in his first two posts here. Almost. Oh well.

As a Libertarian, this next presidential election is nauseating to me as far as the 2 major parties are concerned, but as far as Obama and Hillary go....

I think I'm going to hell for laughing so hard at that.

Thanks Zarth, for attacking me as saying something stupid without pointing out exactly what that was? Do you treat conservative African Americans any different than liberal ones? Or do they not get a say because they disagree with you? Or maybe worse...you think they are actually racist towards themselves? I have to laugh.

Again, stupidity is subjective. So what you think is stupid, someone else may think is right on the mark. A lot of people thought Galileo was stupid too. And no, I'm not comparing myself to him. Just an analogy to show you that stupidity and write/wrong are subjective.

Bible thumpers are thought of as the ones who think that there are universal rights and wrongs. But people on the far left are just as closed minded in their own beliefs. You don't agree, so it's stupid and wrong.

And again....I respect your right to be close minded and opinionated. Obviously the gesture doesn't swing both ways.

Thanks for proving my point. And by the way, please point out the source of my stupidity rather than just saying it is so.

That's awesome. Personally, I think it would be completely in character for the Democrats to nominate Hillary instead of Obama and once again screw themselves out of what could have been an easy presidential election. They learn from their mistakes just about as much as Bush does.

+1

million

First off, notice your ignorance of what the word bigot actually means. Racism is always bigotry but bigotry is not always racism.

Bigot: is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot

That Bush was and has acted prejudice there is countless evidence. From the preemptive strike against a country he practically swore to wrongly judge, to filling his cabinet with inexperienced buddies (cough.. FEMA...cough), to not giving a damn what his own country's opinion actually is because he has already made up his mind.

Remember this memorable tidbit: "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."

This quote also zones in on the neo-con ethnocentrist attitude. These candidates truly believe that they can survive while 90 percent of the free world completely disagrees with what they do. Right-wing news outlets and politicians practically pissing on the UN's authority to do anything makes them pretty damn intolerant of the opinion of others.

Lastly, neo-con intolerance of the other lifestyles is practically a campaign talking point.

Here's Bush talking about his ban same-sex marriage bill: "Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country"

Serious consequences? Like what, a lifestyle other than his own making a perfectly normal decision that he doesn't morally agree with?

One that he doesn't agree with because he thinks gay love isn't as valid as his straight love? Maybe because he's unwilling to accept and give credence to a lifestyle other than his own?

Therefore, Bush = Bigot. Most candidates running on the right = Bigots.

But before I go, what exactly do you mean by "Hell, the guy wants all of our jobs to go to the people most bigots hate."

By saying this you assume, Bush's immigration plan is pro-immigrant and therefore pro-Hispanic. That most bigots hate Hispanics. And most importantly, you believe Hispanics are here to take all of our jobs.

Hispanics are here to give themselves a better life and in turn stimulate the economy in manners that you can't comprehend.

You want to keep these amazingly low-paying jobs in the hands of Americans? That'll really stimulate our economy. The creation of thousands of over-worked low paying jobs.

Why not worry about giant corporations shipping out high-paying jobs to foreign countries? Corporations that thank the country for their Republican-led tax cuts by robbing the country of its skilled jobs and therefore cutting the balls off the nation's spending cash little by little.

You keep fighting for your orange picking job, I want my programmers back.

Anyone who disagrees with me "gets a say." I'm not controlling anyone's speech - and I wouldn't even if I were in a position to, which, for the record, I'm not, genius. You routinely mistake disagreement with your opinions as censorship. Which, for the record, is stupid. That's not subjective, either. It really is stupid.

And what you said that was stupid first was this:

This is unbelievably stupid. "White liberals" (what, all of them? way to respect peope's individuality) aren't defining blacks. You don't need a "victim mentality" (nice turn of phrase, asshole) to be "really" black. And to talk about Condi or Powell's ancestors as owning slaves is simply repulsive.

Your analysis, as usual, is utterly unsupported by the facts, and consists of nothing more than your blanket negative prejudice against anyone you define as "liberal." Which is not open-minded at all, but rather extremely bigoted.

And again, how THE FUCK am I not respecting your "rights"?

You have every right to say unbelievably stupid and offensive things (not to mention close-minded, bigoted, and outright false). And I, in turn, have every right to call you out on it.

That's called debate, genius.

And just for the record, my stepfather is a celebrated anthropologist and psychologist, a professor emeritus, a landowner, a former marathon-runner, and a talented musician. His children are universally successful and affluent. All of them are liberal. And all of them are Afircan-American.

And fuck you for insinuating that I, as a liberal, have any interest in promoting a "victim mentality" to keep my family oppressed.

Why is this not already a bumper sticker?

Compare FEMA's response time to the post-Katrina flooding of New Orleans' poorest and of course completely coincidentally blackest neighborhoods such as the 9th Ward to FEMA's response time during previous hurricanes in Florida.

Also, bear in mind that Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco did their part in preparing for Katrina, including notifying the federal government well in advance of Katrina's landfall that NOLA was going to be a potential federal emergency disaster area.

But let's say that Bush & Company's response, or slack-ass, overly delayed, nearly useless pretty much lack of a response to the aftermath of Katrina wasn't motivated by racial bigotry. That just leaves it as one of the most tragic and still ongoing examples of inertia and ineptitude by the federal government in response to a natural disaster in our nation's recent history. Feel better?

Also, one can be a bigot and not be racist, and considering how much Bush loves him some homosexuals, I think "bigoted motherfucker" is quite apropos.

Er...yes. He won the 2004 election, at least in part, on a bigoted platform against gay marriage. Considering that only 2 states were even allowing gay marriage to happen in the first place, and California, home of San Francisco, was still nowhere near ratifying any gay marriages, a constiutional amendment banning gay marriage was a completely unwarranted and unnecessary move that played to some of the most base aspects of our society. Even if this is not "proof" that Bush is a bigot, it is at least proof that he is willing to capitalize on the bigotry of other people in order to meet his own political ends. Which is worse than being a bigot.

Ah, but you forget, lavenir - eGore disagrees with homosexuality, and in any event homophobia has to be respected if you're going to claim to be open-minded.

But enough of this gay banter, I'm off to the cinema.

Finally! Miseducation actally put some intelligence into this last post instead of just calling Bush a cocksucker. Bravo.

I want our programmers back too. And I am very anti Bush on that issue. I also think that our borders need to be protected. Not because someone wants to come over here and make a better life for themselves. That I can totally understand. I have spent a lot of time in Mexico and made many wonderful friends down there. I harbor no ill will towards anyone trying to come here and make a better life for themselves.

However, I do have a problem with a flawed system that allows companies to exploit these people for lower than minimum wages, and also allows many to come across and just jump on the welfare roles. Those that come here to work should be paid at least minimum wage, and those that come here to not work, should be sent back home.

As for putting his buddies in cabinet positions, every president does that. Unfortunately for him, there was a real need for leadership by one of those posts this time around and it bit him in the ass. It was not racist, bigoted, or anything other than politics as usual. That's why I mentioned in a separate thread yesterday that nearly all politicians are corrupt. Putting your friends in cabinet positions is a big example of that.

The same sex bill could certainly be an example of bigotry and would have been a nice reference in your first email, rather than just a blanket statement. But given the definition of bigotry that you cite, everyone on this thread is a bigot because no one seems to be tolerant of non left wing opinions. To be intolerant of someone who disagrees with you (even if their opinions could be considered intolerant as well) is still bigotry. See how that works?

And I apologize for equating bigotry with racism, but the term is used to mean racism in most discussions.

And yes, I worry about outsourcing. I happen to be one of those programmers who could lose his job at any time. So if one of the candidates can actually convince me that he/she will do something about it, it will go a long way to garnering my vote.

Actually, I didn't know that. However, I am not particuarly surprised.

I'm mindful of a talk I saw in which bell hooks called Rice a fascist.

CINEMA? What are you, some kind of Librul Europeon?

Zarth, I never said I disagree with homosexuality. Where did you get that pile of shit? My childhood friend that I've been close to for 20 years is gay and I love him as much as I love any of my other friends. I also voted against every measure to ban gay marriage that my old home state put forth. So you may want to think twice before labeling me.

Yes, Katrina was an example of ineptitude from unqualified cabinet members. I covered that in the last post. But it was not racist. The fact is that the people in Florida were not raping, looting, and shooting at rescue helicopters as they tried to come into the towns. That makes things a little harder for relief workers, wouldn't you think. It also meant that the president himself would not be making any early appearances in the city. Oh, how racist!

Yes, the gay marriage thing was bowing to his constituents. But they all do it, no matter how wacko those constituents are. The left and the right have there fair share of wackos in the constituency. I read an article by a christian who worked in the White House and left because he said that every time someone mentioned the christian right or Pat Robertson, Bush would roll his eyes and grumble. It seems to me that the left has the attitude of "win by any means necessary". So I'm sure Bush has a little of that too, and panders to the christian right to keep their vote. Sad, but reality.

I could embrace Republicans if they could do away with the christian right and do away with the big business over all else stance. I could embrace Democrats if they could do away with the victim mentality that they so love to exploit, and the socialist and wacko wings of their party. So instead, I am nothing, probably leaning more Libertarian than anything else, but I have never voted that way. So I really couldn't be labeled as such, other than by my beliefs.

Lavenir, I hope you read my next thread because it really pisses me off that this jack ass said that I disagree with homosexuality. Apprently, he's either a liar who just wants people to get on my shit, or he's taking a lot of my comments out of context. The fact that he addressed you directly and claimed that I personally disagree with homosexuality promped me to reply to you directly.