Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hoist!]

If it is, it's pretty scary! This article is undoubtedly anti-Hillary. But are they facts? Have they gone too far, or is this soldier really being coerced? Soldiers take orders, and it wouldn't surprise me if he was ordered to stand with her, and not by choice. What do ya'll think? 

And be nice now!

Hoist!

"Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has already started her 2008 presidential campaign by aligning herself with the military and pretending to be tough on terror. Fortunately, the ultra-liberal Hillary has yet to brainwash all of the voting public in to believing that her symbolism is really substance. Many have never forgotten that when she was co-president for eight years she was quoted as saying : ' I loathe the military.'

The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School and learned his lessons well. He's giving the sign of 'coercion' with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's as a method of posing messages back to our intelligence services who may view the photo or video. This guy was obviously being coerced into shaking hands with Hillary Clinton. It's ironic how little she knew that he would so inform us about the photo---perhaps because she's never understood our military to begin with.

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in Washington D.C is 80.6 per 100,000.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in
the nation, than you are in Iraq.........Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington."

[FNGw/08SERK]

 

[charlie]

THE ARTICAL ABOUT HER  NOT HAVE'ING ANY AND I SAY AGAIN ANY RESPECT FOR OUR MILATAIRY IS TRUE.

[Hoist!]

Thanks to d00d for the link to this!

"Summary of the eRumor
The eRumor includes a picture of a U.S. soldier shaking hands with Senator Hillary Clinton.
He is also crossing the fingers of his left hand, which the email says is a soldier's sign for coercion.
 
The Truth
This eRumor started circulating shortly after Senator Clinton made a Thanksgiving visit to the soldiers in Iraq in 2003.
There was a lot of speculation about what the picture really meant.
Was the soldier really indicating that he didn't like shaking hands with Hillary?
Was the picture doctored to make it look that way?
Was he sending some other kind of message with his crossed fingers?

The answer is that he did intentionally cross his fingers during the handshake and it did mean that he was not thrilled to shake Senator Clinton's hand.
After his discharge from the Army, the soldier posted a personal profile on Yahoo Personals as part of looking for introductions to single females.
In his profile, he includes the picture with Hillary and explains "The picture of me and Hillary Clinton was taken when she came to visit Iraq. I was actually ordered to shake her hand, and I never figured that my friends would circulate it all over the net. I AM NOT a Hillary fan by any stretch."
 

Hoist!

[Hoist!]

Hehe! It did raise this question however:

"Hillary Crossed

Is Hillary Clinton a Witch?

Senator Hillary Clinton travelled to Iraq in 2004, and met with some of the American troops there. This picture of Senator Clinton shows one of the troops appearing with her having "crossed" his fingers. Was he making the "shortcut" sign of the cross?

Since time out of mind, humans have been able to protect themselves from witches, ghosts, supernatural ghouls and other downright evil forces by crossing themselves. The proper way to make the sign of the Christian cross involves four steps — touch the forehead, heart, left shoulder, then right shoulder with your right hand. However, since one never knows when a witch may suddenly appear in one’s path, a cross shortcut was improvised. Crossing one’s index and second finger or the index fingers of both hands, can provide fast protection to ward off evil influences and fight forces of darkness, just like in Dracula movies.

No, says Snopes.com, where this photograph has been verified as genuine, Hillary Clinton is NOT a witch! Snopes says that this soldier has obviously trained at the U.S. military’s survival school (SERES). DUH! Of course he has, he’s in Iraq! Various hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by war prisoners to send messages back to their intelligence services. The "Truth or Spoof" verifiers state that the unfortunate trooper was coerced into holding hands with Hillary, while she was unaware that he was telling that fact to the world by giving the universal sign of "coercion" with his left hand, the "crossed fingers". Yes, believe it or not. † † † † † † † † †"

Well, I guess she's not technically a witch then.

Hoist!

[EAGLE1]

hoist, you trying to get my blood pressure up, you know how much I despise that two faced pandering witch bitch, she has a lot of nerve, that is the ultimate insult right there. If that soldier was me there would have been an accidental discharge of my side arm while taking the photo the only problem would be explaining how a whole clip accidentally discharged 

[FLYNDYNA]

Question,

 What sort of hand signal would he give if he had to shake Obamas hand? It really is getting scary in politics when a first generation American full bore Muslim can run for president...and he is running against the scariest possible female potential. If these are our choices, I'm moving to an island far far away...

[skreminegul07]

Question,

 What sort of hand signal would he give if he had to shake Obamas hand? It really is getting scary in politics when a first generation American full bore Muslim can run for president...and he is running against the scariest possible female potential. If these are our choices, I'm moving to an island far far away...

Hillary tried to shake Obama's hand at the State of the Union Tuesday night, and he snubbed her by turning away.  Teddie Kennedy would never pass up the opportunity to touch even an ugly woman so he shook her hand.  I was hoping Teddie K. drove her home by way of the Potomac!

[grandpadoc]

...as I said in a previous thread, its going to be The Woman, The Black, and an Old White Guy campaigning for a few months. The dems will probably self destruct and it will be the OWG in the end. The drama makes this ex-marine proud to be republican.   Doc

[skreminegul07]

Three liberals, what a choice.  I'll go with the war hero.  Too bad Jane Fonda wasn't endorsing of the other two.

[FNGw/08SERK]

Three liberals, what a choice.  I'll go with the war hero.  Too bad Jane Fonda wasn't endorsing of the other two.

It's still early - careful what you wish for!! 

[Midnight Rider]

I don't really see what the BFD is about this...a soldier is ordered to shake hands with a politician for a photo op.  Whether he wanted to or not is irrelevant...he did what he was told to do.  I'm not defending her at all, but this is grasping at straws...I'm certain that soldiers are told to do many things they'd rather not do.

And Obama is NOT a Muslim...period.  Please show one shred of factual evidence (not an e-mail rumor) to prove the man is a Muslim.  And I don't mean a quote by Rush Flemball, who makes a living off inflamatory remarks, and outright lies.  If you are fathered by a person who handles snakes in their religion, does that make you a snake handler too?

Vote/don't vote for whomever you choose, but this kind of chit is infantile, and has no relevance to where candidates stand on the issues that are important to you.

[RedDevil]

I don't really see what the BFD is about this...a soldier is ordered to shake hands with a politician for a photo op.  Whether he wanted to or not is irrelevant...he did what he was told to do.  I'm not defending her at all, but this is grasping at straws...I'm certain that soldiers are told to do many things they'd rather not do.

And Obama is NOT a Muslim...period.  Please show one shred of factual evidence (not an e-mail rumor) to prove the man is a Muslim.  And I don't mean a quote by Rush Flemball, who makes a living off inflamatory remarks, and outright lies.  If you are fathered by a person who handles snakes in their religion, does that make you a snake handler too?

Vote/don't vote for whomever you choose, but this kind of chit is infantile, and has no relevance to where candidates stand on the issues that are important to you.

Terry,
You're absolutely right on having no relevance to where the candidates stand on the issues.  Unfortunately, I don't hear either Clinton or Obama coming out with any real solutions to the problem facing this nation.  Just a bunch of chest-thumping and mindless rhetoric.  Neither of them, when pressed to disclose what their "real" plans are beyond the finger pointing and rhetoric, will give a clear, concise answer.  How can you vote for someone's stance on an issue that is important to you, when they won't clearly give their position?     It's politics as normal in the Nation's Capital;  "I said maybe, and that's final!!"

   

[Talon]

Hillary says she's an agent of change, I have to agree, she changes her stance on the issues all the time.
As for Obama, I have to agree with TCnBham, if there was any glaring issues with Obama, the Republicans and his opponents for the Democratic nomination would have exploited it already, and he wouldn't be getting any major endorsements.

[Hugh Janis]

Obama is certainly picking up a head of steam.  I admire him but I won't vote for him.  My biggest fear is that if he wins every group suffering some form of perceived oppression will be saying, "NOW it's time for me to get mine!"  he can't make everyone happy which is a set up for failure.

[Talon]

Obama is certainly picking up a head of steam.  I admire him but I won't vote for him.  My biggest fear is that if he wins every group suffering some form of perceived oppression will be saying, "NOW it's time for me to get mine!"  he can't make everyone happy which is a set up for failure.

The oppressed middle class? I'd be for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Midnight Rider]

The oppressed middle class? I'd be for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite honestly, I think Obama's perspective would benefit the working/middle class in this country.  He definitely did not come into this world with a silver spoon in his mouth.  Debates are tonight...

I haven't heard a lot of definitive solutions to problems from either party.  McCain, by his own admission, is not the best economist around, but he's smart enough to surround himself with people who know things, and may actually listen to them,  which is a step in the right direction.  I admire/respect the man, and he at least is not an extremeist.  I think he gets the big picture.  If the Republican Party would step down off their "holier than thou" Platform, it would help everyone in the long run.  Most of the country has moved past some of those polarizing issues, and the party needs to catch up and quit patronizing a relatively small segment of the populace.  Mainstream america has made it's voice heard on those issues many times, so continuing to play to the fringes does more harm than good.

The bottom line is that none of them, regardless of how extreme we may think their positions are running up to the election, can do a damn thing without the cooperation and advice of others, and learn to compromise, which usually brings them all closer to the center.  Unless they are just stuborn and bull headed, which accomplishes nothing....we've had enough of that, IMO.  There are very few things I've ever run across in my lifetime that cannot be dealt with by looking/learning at/about both sides of the issue and hammering out a reasonable compromise that, while not tickling everone to death, is at least something most everyone can live with.  We can no longer afford to be bullies...and I mean that in the literal sense of the word...we cannot afford the $$$$ to go to the extremes in foreign matters.

[Twolanerider]

Not touching this discussion.  Not even with Brian's bike.  But would suggest one interesting thing that is becoming at least potentially apparent this cycle proceeds.

The GOP has changed more than has the Democratic party.

Ever since they were removed from the proverbial "smoke filled rooms" the nominating cycles have been more and more tools through which party rather than national voices were chosen.  That was good to make those within each party happy.  It was too often less good in November.  It also made the November choice more polarized, more divisive and more and more rancorous as the cycles passed.

This was a chicken and egg condition too.  Whether the voice repesenting the more "right" or "left" wing of each party led the party machines to action or whether active "wings" led to candidates that spoke for them didn't matter.  It was still a self-fulfilling activity.

The Senator/Ambassador/Reverend Jack Danforth, no perceived liberal by any means, said and wrote a couple of years ago that the GOP had better change from its evengelical driven, abortion mandated far beyond Reagan right wing base or it would be become less and less relavent.  That that base was a smaller fringe was separate from the fact that it was also an organized base and money heavy.  It was also damaging to the party writ large.

Danforth knew, as did many many others, that being thinking and conservative did not mean being "out there."  Though they were often portrayed as far more "right wing" then they really were people like Gingrich or Armey in the House revolution were examples.  Both PhD's.  Both conservative.  Alan Simpson was another.  Thought out invested conservative voices separate from the farther right wing of their party.  Governance, at least effective governance, can not come from the fringes was Danforth's lesson. 

The GOP is showing signs of learning this lesson.  At least this cycle.  McCain was not a candidate the party base would have selected in cycles past.  The base said so by not selecting him.  Romney would have been relatively quickly dismissed as a nouveau faker.  Others that would have been more darling to the "old" base are fading away this time.  That is a big change in the GOP.  If it continues it is a change the speaks loudly for a cycle or three down the road for legislative elections.

The Democrats have their own "wing."  It's the organized base that chooses Dukakis (as an example).  Senator Obama actually does not seem to be entirely of that mold; though his fit to it would not be discomfiting to the faithful.  Senator Clinton certainly is old guard. 

The Democratic party has not yet moved (at least as much) toward America's great center as has the GOP.  Without stating a preference for either side if that trend continues it is a good thing for the GOP and will be hurtful to Democratic initiatives.  If only one party actually learns and governs from the large, stable, well thought, wealthy, business supported American center while the other party stays farther toward its "wing" the party that has moved/learned has the potential to make the other a truly rather than merely a statistically minority party for a long time.

[Midnight Rider]

That's sort of what I was trying to say, Don, in my clumsy way...


I think Bill made a huge faux pas when he made the "race" comment on Hillary's behalf...one can only imagine what was said between husband and wife that evening.

Oddly, I don't see either candidate as being much more than center left, and actually Senator Obama I see as a bit more towards 1/4 left of true center.  Sorta the same way I view McCain.  Neither are extreme in their views, IMO.  Certainly they are different, and that is a good thing.  I really cannot remember anyone since Nixon who has been so devisive to people than is Senator Clinton. Her intelligence is without question, but the perception of her by most people goes to the absolute extremes...there seems to be no middle ground.  For that reason, I think Obama will be who McCain faces in November.  Selection of a running mate will be critical to both of those people, IMO.

[Twolanerider]

That's sort of what I was trying to say, Don, in my clumsy way...


I think Bill made a huge faux pas when he made the "race" comment on Hillary's behalf...one can only imagine what was said between husband and wife that evening.

Oddly, I don't see either candidate as being much more than center left, and actually Senator Obama I see as a bit more towards 1/4 left of true center.  Sorta the same way I view McCain.  Neither are extreme in their views, IMO.  Certainly they are different, and that is a good thing.  I really cannot remember anyone since Nixon who has been so devisive to people than is Senator Clinton. Her intelligence is without question, but the perception of her by most people goes to the absolute extremes...there seems to be no middle ground.  For that reason, I think Obama will be who McCain faces in November.  Selection of a running mate will be critical to both of those people, IMO.

Agree TC.  Senators Obama and McCain are each closer to the political centers than are major contenders against either.

Senator Clinton is old-line democratic party.  No mask she might attempt will ever hide that.  In cycles past that would have been an absolute benefit.  This time, finally, both sides seem to recognize (at least a little) that their "wings" aren't their best things.  Beyond that Senator Clinton brings her polarizing divisiveness to the mix.

That fact will bring the farther wing of the party to her.  No doubt.  Hopefully (for the Democrats) it will do so at the expense of the rest of their polity.  A lot of money wasn't made by a lot of people this year who normally specialize in opposition research.  Because she's been so divisive for so long that everything is just already out there.  That's not a compliment.

A McCain/Obama November election is by no means a done deal yet.  If someone told me I had to bet money today on what the November race would be that's where I'd have to put it.  But it's not set in stone yet. 

Each party's "wing" is still suasive and persuasive enough that they'll likely have to be recognized in VP choices in some fashion or another.  While Clinton might have taken Obama whether she liked him or not (she's just that mercenary) I don't see Obama offering the position to Clinton nor would I expect her to accept it.  She sees herself as "above" that job.  I would love to see whatever Democratic takes the nomination offer the VP slot to Bill Richardson.

If McCain does take the GOP bid (and who'd have thought that three months ago?) his choice is equally interesting.  He does have to if not cover at least not alienate his right flank.  It's not that they'd vote the other way.  But he has to make sure they still come out and vote. 

He could potentially reach out to Thompson.  Senator Thompson did seem to only be interested in the job if he didn't really have to work at getting it too hard.  So he might be interested in being handed the VP nod.  Mayor Guiliani likely would not accept the nod but is an interesting choice in the electoral equation to make NY state potentially in play for the GOP (though that's a tough nut). 

I just like that it's not been a standard cycle with obvious pre-ordained choices. I like even better that it bodes at least potential for an actual thoughtful November ballot with actual choices.  Has been and might very well continue to be the most interesting election in a long time.

[MJZ]

IMHO, I agree that the GOP has definitely moved toward center but I think the reason is there is no way to try to run on a Bush platform or 4 more years of Bush. The GOP will rightly tread lightly on the present administration, only cherry picking items like the war on terror.
As for Hillary, she is still going to be Hillary and hopefully we have learned not to ever underestimate her again, at least until there is confirmed proof someone has pierced her hollow heart with a wooden stake. (I just rewrote and cleaned that up, I need to quit holding back and say how I really feel about her)
As for the debate tonight, you bet I am going to watch. Can't wait to see if Osama uses the story broken today on MSNBC and in the Times about Slick Willie's 131.3 million payoff (yep, $131,300,000.00) from Frank Giustra to secure him the Uranium mining partnerships with Kazatomprom, the Kazakhstan owned Uranium Mining Ministry. The sparks should be flying tonight.
Just in case you haven't read the story:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/22926743/print/1/displaymode/1098/

[EAGLE1]

Beyond that Senator Clinton brings her polarizing divisiveness to the mix.

Because she's been so divisive for so long that everything is just already out there.  That's not a compliment.

the fact that she's been so divisive is exactly what incites my derisive comments.   

(I just rewrote and cleaned that up, I need to quit holding back and say how I really feel about her)

yes you do, it feels real good when I let it all out     

[MJZ]

Damn was I wrong or what? I just switched the channel from CNN, could not take anymore of the lovefest (debate). Obama was set up like a naive turkey Thanksgiving morning, that Hillary is good. And all those Hollywood socialist clapping in unison after every answer. Hell there was more time taken up clapping for themselves and bashing Republicans than debating anything. Only in Hollywood could this show of shows been produced. Not the least bit enlightening, even my wife who is a democrat told me to go ahead and change the channel.

[greglyon]

I don't know if last night's debate was a lovefest or just the borrowing of Reagan's 11th commandment.  A commandment apparently forgotten the night before.

[Talon]

I try to watch all the debates, Republican or Democrat. I had to go out so I only caught part of the debate last night. It was funny watching Hillary play nice! But in all seriousness, it was nice to see them talk about issues, instead of about eachother.

[Midnight Rider]

I just nuked my own post...no sense discussing this, it will be what it will be.

[Chief]

What post? Party on Garth. 

[ccr]

I'm just quoting my good friend Screamn;

[RedDevil]

I watched the entire debate, and most of the analysis afterwards.  First, they were not playing to the "Hollywood Crowd"...probably one of the most watched, if not THE most watched debate in history, because whether anyone likes it or not, it was an historical event.  There were substantive exchanges, a few subtle barbs, and a laying out of ideas and potential policy.  They did not get into a pissing contest...what is WRONG with that?  Obviously two very bright people, with a grasp on what it's going to take to change some the ways things have been done for the past 7 years.  Whether you agree with that change is another matter.  My personal opinion is that no matter who wins the Republican side, they do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.  More of the same is not going to get it done this time around, and no Republican in their right mind running for President id going to align themselves with GW's policies.  Unless one of the people you saw on TV last night does something to self-destruct, you were looking at the next President.  I predict that it won't even be close next November...

McCain stuck both feet firmly in his mouth talking about being in Iraq for an extended period of time...that is not what people want to hear.

Terry,
I have to subtly disagree with that flat statement you made.  Obama, if he gets the nod from the Dems, may get elected as the next president, and if so, it would only be because he's done something that no other politician has been able to do;  get record turn-outs in the African-American population at the polls.  However, experience-wise, I'm not certain Obama has the "right stuff" yet to be president.  He needs some more seasoning, especially in foreign relations.  If Clinton wins, the Dems will not get the presidency.  Clinton is, in my opinion, way too polarizing, even within her own party.  You either love her or hate her, and I don't think there's enough "loving" votes out there to put her over the top.  

Whether GW did a good job or not in the last 8 years, is irrelevent as far as the issues that the politicians should be telling us how they're going to be addressing them if they get elected.  All I see is finger pointing at the current administration and saying how bad of a job he's done.  None of them, at least in my opinion, has given us any reassurances, by clearly stating their cases, that they will do any better.  I can go out and say I'm going to fix Social Security, balance the budget, and end the war...anyone can say that, but I haven't heard a single one of them say how.  That to me is important.  If you don't tell me how you propose to fix something, then you're no more than throwing a bunch of nonsensical rhetoric at me.  I want to know plans, not promises...as we all know, politicians are very bad at keeping promises.  As a registered Independent, I get the pleasure of not going with the party propaganda or have to "hold the party line when I vote".  I will vote for someone, that's for sure, but if Clinton gets the Dem nod, it won't be her, that's for sure.  Obama, is really going to have to convince me that he knows what he's talking about on foreign policy.  

Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, is at this point in time, irrelevent.  We are there, and we have to have planned and purposeful withdrawal from that country.  We will, in my opinion again, always maintain a military presence in that country, probably as an air base or military post of of some sort.  But to just go out there and chest thump and say, "I will end the war in Iraq", as Clinton has pronounced, without saying how, is just that, chest-thumping rhetoric.  

Time and votes (electoral college, actually), will tell.  I don't agree with the sentiment that anyone would be better then what we've had for the last 7 years.  He's not my favorite president by a long shot, but looking at the forest from the trees, he hasn't done as bad of a job as the Dems want everyone to believe he has.  

  

[Midnight Rider]

Terry,
I have to subtly disagree with that flat statement you made.  

   Didn't get it nuked in time.  

Charlie...I respect your opinion.  I have agreed very, very little with anything GW has done, particularly cutting taxes and going to war at the same time, his poor planning, not for the invasion itself, but his total lack of understanding of what was going to be unleashed, and NO plan for dealing with the aftermath.  We are paying for that shortsightedness now, and will continue to do so for as long as we stay there.  It is very difficult for anyone to lay out firm, detailed plans to get us out of there without total and honest access to all the information about what is going on...only by becoming President will all information become available to help formulate a total plan.  However, I did hear what I thought was a methodology for an orderly and sane approach to GTF out of an impossible situation.  Surely, those proposed ideas will change and evolve with a more complete understanding of the situation, after the information is available to them.  I think Obama made a good statement last night when he said that we have gone from intolerable levels, to highly intolerable, now back to barely tolerable...with the measuring bar set so low that it is in the sand.  Please, do not misunderstand...SOME good has been done by our presence there, but more harm, IMO.  I completely and fully support the people who have done what they were asked to do, but it's time to leave, and I am for anyone who can get them, and the tens of thousands of civilians working over there, OUT SAFELY.  As long as we keep holding the Iraq "government" (and I use that term loosely) hand, and do not give them a firm timetable for THEM to take controll of THEIR country, there will be no end in sight.  This approach does not mean that strategic strikes cannot be performed if necessary for quelling terrorist training camps etc (which, by the way, were not a problem in Iraq prior to our opening Pandora's box).  Permanent bases in that country is not a viable solution, IMO.  Future necessary actions can be taken by other means.

The economy is an entirely different subject, and IMO will be the determining factor in who gets elected.  Daily, more and more signs point to a significant downturn, and I think we are already in the big "R" word.  All the chit has not even begun to hit the fan...unemployment applications went up 5 times from previous reports...this morning, they reported 17K FEWER jobs in the country (AFTER allowing for the Xmas temp variable), the first reduction in job growth since 2003; hundreds of thousands are losing their homes (right or wrong, it is still a fact); medical expenses continue to increase...on and on, and on.  Drug companies make obscene profits, AFTER the Fed Gov (us) have already paid to develop the drugs and clinically test them (I work in that environment).  Every drug rep that visits UAB clinicians FEEDS the entire office every time they visit, and I ain't talkin' about chips and nuts.  I see the results of lack of adequate health insurance here every single day.  People squawk loudly about "socialized" medicine or government subsidy, or other forms of health care provision/control...believe me, you can pay me now or pay me later, and the pay me later scenario is MUCH more expensive.  Hospitals WILL NOT leave a sick person laying in the street outside the emergency room...they simply cannot.  Reigning in health care costs is a huge crisis this country faces.  Most of us here have no earthly idea what it is like to have NO health insurance, and be dependent on emergency rooms (very costly to each of us), or the overwhelmed charity health care in whatever area we live in.

I think the record turnout is not only due to the color/gender of the candidate, but because people are taking an interest in this election because they realize how important it is.  Younger voters are more active than any time in decades.

Serious problems/issues.  No simple/easy solutions.  All we can do is wait and see who offers the best, in each person's opinion, plan to solve them.

[RedDevil]

 Didn't get it nuked in time.  
[contents snipped because it resulted in too many characters]
Serious problems/issues.  No simple/easy solutions.  All we can do is wait and see who offers the best, in each person's opinion, plan to solve them.

Terry,
Sorry, that I pre-empted your nuke.    I hear everything you're saying and agree with practically everything you've said.  While I agree that healthcare in this country is running amuk, I don't feel it's the Federal Governments responsiblity (read raising taxes to pay for health insurance for anyone that can't afford it.)  Our social programs, and this is party independent, are badly abused and fraud runs rampant in them.  Adding another Government ran social program is only going to add to the mess.  I don't have the answer to the solution, but I've been stationed in countries with social medicine and that's not the answer.  Regulations to keep costs down and get affordable insurance is one potential avenue.  As far as the pharmaceutical companies go, I couldn't agree with you more...the big companies just gouge us to death.  When I had my staph infection, the only oral antibiotic I could take to reign it in cost $100/tablet and I had to take 14 of them.  My insurance even balked at that and wasn't going to approve getting them until my doctor explained, it's either $1400 for the pills and I discharge him, or I keep him in the hospital for another 4 days at $2000+/day.  The insurance doctor saw his point and approved the meds.  It's rediculous what they get for pills ... I think they're in cahoots with big oil.  I guess you can blame a market-based economy for that.  They'll keep charging whatever the market will bear.   I'm with you, we'll just have to see what happens.   I really hate this time every four years, because for once, I think it would be refreshing to hear a politician actually say something about what he/she wants to do and not point fingers at everyone else....all I hear coming out of all the politicos is blah, blah, blah, blah...nothing of substance.    Sorry to ramble...if you can't tell, I hate all politicians...so I guess in that sense I'm a true Independent.  

  

[Talon]

Well, good jobs have been an issue since around the time NAFTA was signed, 1994. Not directly linked, but that was when large companies started looking at moving good paying jobs over seas. The numbers for employment haven't reflected the number of people work for less money, less or no benefits, or as contarctors. So these numbers haven't been reflecting the true state of employment for some time.

As for health care/prescription drugs, this is just another big mess. Many call for health care for all, but if you don't cause the prices to come down it won't help the lower middle class. If you take a person living pay check to pay check and tell them they need to pay, say $300 a month for health care they don't have now, then they have a $2500 deductable each year, they can't afford, they won't go to the doctor anyway, so now they are paying $300 more than they were and still can't go to the doctor!!!  The new Medicare perscription drug program is just more proof of big business controlling our government, Rep's from both sides have their hands in the pockets of the drug companies. I think the Congress is more at fault for the prescription drug problem then the President. Here's just a blurb from an article from 60 Minutes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml

 It certainly wasn't ugly for the drug lobby which invested more than $10 million in campaign contributions during the last election and has been a source of lucrative employment opportunities for congressmen when they leave office.

Former senators Dennis Deconcini, D-Ariz., and Steve Symms, R-Idaho, and former congressmen like Tom Downey, D-N.Y.; Vic Fazio, D-Calif.; Bill Paxon, R-N.Y., and former House Minority Leader Robert Michel, R-Ill., all registered as lobbyists for the drug industry and worked on the prescription drug bill.

This is why I say that it doesn't matter weather you a Democrate or Republican, there needs to be major changes in our Government. Sadly things will probably keep going as is, different problems, but still the same old statuesque. The rich get richer, the middle class carries the burden because they make to much to get any help, but not enough to be safe from unforeseen catastrophes! Several from this site in the not to distant past can attest to this!

 

That's my 5 cents, you can keep the extra 3 cents! Enough of the soapbox issues, hope it warms up so I can go for a ride!!!

 

[RedDevil]

Well, good jobs ... but not enough to be safe from unforeseen catastrophes! Several from this site in the not to distant past can attest to this!

 

That's my 5 cents, you can keep the extra 3 cents! Enough of the soapbox issues, hope it warms up so I can go for a ride!!!

 

Amen to that Bro.

   

[Midnight Rider]

Terry,
Sorry, that I pre-empted your nuke.    I hear everything you're saying and agree with practically everything you've said.  While I agree that healthcare in this country is running amuk, I don't feel it's the Federal Governments responsiblity (read raising taxes to pay for health insurance for anyone that can't afford it.)  Our social programs, and this is party independent, are badly abused and fraud runs rampant in them.  Adding another Government ran social program is only going to add to the mess.  I don't have the answer to the solution, but I've been stationed in countries with social medicine and that's not the answer.  Regulations to keep costs down and get affordable insurance is one potential avenue.  As far as the pharmaceutical companies go, I couldn't agree with you more...the big companies just gouge us to death.  When I had my staph infection, the only oral antibiotic I could take to reign it in cost $100/tablet and I had to take 14 of them.  My insurance even balked at that and wasn't going to approve getting them until my doctor explained, it's either $1400 for the pills and I discharge him, or I keep him in the hospital for another 4 days at $2000+/day.  The insurance doctor saw his point and approved the meds.  It's rediculous what they get for pills ... I think they're in cahoots with big oil.  I guess you can blame a market-based economy for that.  They'll keep charging whatever the market will bear.   I'm with you, we'll just have to see what happens.   I really hate this time every four years, because for once, I think it would be refreshing to hear a politician actually say something about what he/she wants to do and not point fingers at everyone else....all I hear coming out of all the politicos is blah, blah, blah, blah...nothing of substance.    Sorry to ramble...if you can't tell, I hate all politicians...so I guess in that sense I'm a true Independent.  

  

One thing I have been doing a little "studying" on is the electronic billing, etc for medical care...there is the potential for tremendous savings in that arena, from what I'm hearing/reading.  It is a long term solution, and will require some major investments, but the rewards down the road are potentially huge with regards to efficiency and $$$$ saved.

I really hate politics too...I work in a very "political" environment, get stabbed frequently, and challenge authority regularly over our own policy.  I am not the most popular person on campus because of my questioning, and in the scheme of things, I'm absolutely a peon.  I am not a management supporter, other than when they are doing the right thing...I am more an employee advocate...people in the rarified air of upper ranks, tend to have that portion of their brain that gives a chit about the "little people" quit functioning.  Probably for that reason, I take sides in the political arena more for the "have nots".

Regardless of what happens, we won't all be happy with every result...I do hope most of us in the country are happier in 4 years than we are now.


For now, F it...it's going to be 63 degrees and sunny here tomorrow afternoon, and I'm going to put my knees in the breeze...

[Talon]

I've been doing a little studying too....

Get lobbyist the %$#@ out of Washington, make it illegal for elected officials to take anything from these companies, scrutinize and jobs that officials take for 5 years after they leave office, and prosecute any that take jobs directly linked to their voting records under this new law. I think you see a lot of change in cost of things! 

Until you get the $$$$$$$$$$ out of Congress, things will remain the same!

[RedDevil]

One thing I have been doing a little "studying" on is the electronic billing, etc for medical care...there is the potential for tremendous savings in that arena, from what I'm hearing/reading.  It is a long term solution, and will require some major investments, but the rewards down the road are potentially huge with regards to efficiency and $$$$ saved.

I really hate politics too...I work in a very "political" environment, get stabbed frequently, and challenge authority regularly over our own policy.  I am not the most popular person on campus because of my questioning, and in the scheme of things, I'm absolutely a peon.  I am not a management supporter, other than when they are doing the right thing...I am more an employee advocate...people in the rarified air of upper ranks, tend to have that portion of their brain that gives a chit about the "little people" quit functioning.  Probably for that reason, I take sides in the political arena more for the "have nots".

Regardless of what happens, we won't all be happy with every result...I do hope most of us in the country are happier in 4 years than we are now.


For now, F it...it's going to be 63 degrees and sunny here tomorrow afternoon, and I'm going to put my knees in the breeze...

I'm with ya on that Terry, F it, let's get in the wind.   I work in the "Seat of Democracy" on a daily basis and unfortunately get more than my fair share of politicians and politcal appointees as bosses.  I'm kind of known as malcontent around the work space because I don't kiss the politico's a$$es.  

  

[sefatboyscott]

And Obama is NOT a Muslim...period.  Please show one shred of factual evidence (not an e-mail rumor) to prove the man is a Muslim.  And I don't mean a quote by Rush Flemball, who makes a living off inflamatory remarks, and outright lies.  If you are fathered by a person who handles snakes in their religion, does that make you a snake handler too?

Obviously you do not know much about sharia law. It states that the son of a follower of Islam is Islam by way of birth.

I do understand your view because now we are looking at it from a Faith perspective. But if we are going to do that and use that logic we need to kick the Jews out of Isreal since they think it's a race thing not a Faith thing.........

just depends on who you ask, there are always two ways of looking at things

I am sure there are many who think that all Harleys should be black.......others like the Jester 06 Fatboys. Niether is wrong just have a different viewpoint.

[Twolanerider]

Obviously you do not know much about sharia law. It states that the son of a follower of Islam is Islam by way of birth.

Scott, quit being so damned deterministic and picking and choosing details to jack up the choir.  The Rabbinical determination is that one is Jewish if a convert or born to a Jewish mother.  Muslim tradition and Sharia law say that one is Muslim if he is born to a Muslim father.  Apostasy is even considered punishable by death in the more extreme interpretations of Sharia law.  So those are "the rules." 

Bull.

What's it mean in the real world?  He was a kid born to a Kansan on US territory who bounced around the world some.  Big damn deal. 

If he lived in the middle east in a mixed marriage of a Jewish woman and a Muslim man (it happens) is he both Muslim and Jew?  Do Rabbinical and Sharia guidances coexist, cancel each other out or is there a wink and a nod and the family figures it out as they go?

People leave faiths.  It happens.  Fundamentalists of any faith may not like it.  God knows (pardon the pun) that evangelicals here have conniptions when it happens in their flock.

Those looking to shout from the rooftops may choose to ignore when basic human nature gets in the way of attracting attention by screaming like chicken little.  So the guy was born of a Muslim man who was non practicing then lived awhile longer in the household of another who leaned toward the radical.  Big deal.

The kid was also an American.  American traditions are that eventually when the kid isn't a kid anymore he picks for himself.  And he did.  Big damn deal.  No crisis of international conspiracy.  No fatwah against him for changing either. 

Hell (which is an odd thing to say when to discussing Jews and Muslims), even Imams can't agree on whether apostasy should actually be sanctioned or not.  So it almost never is.  I don't remember the verse but the 2nd Sura of the Koran quotes God saying "there should be no compulsion in religion."   

It is later pronouncements of Mohammed that (sometimes) suggest Muslims shouldn't be allowed to leave their faith.  Many Imams think Mohammed misinterpreted Allah (or was just having a bad day).  That's why outside of more radicalized discussions if someone leaves the faith they just quietly go; especially in Western societies.

If someone is looking for history to tar Obama with it's not his family's religious upbringing.  Truth be told he really didn't have much of one.  He was, however, someone who quickly and effectively fit in to Illinois statewide politics.  This is the state that almost guarantees its governors an indictment for something as part of those post-service retirement package. 

If someone doesn't like Obama then prosecute the case against his opionions and his policy choices, not the name his parents gave a little kid.  This is America.  We don't believe in the sins of the fathers inhabiting the children.  Everyone stands on their own, remember?

So quit twisting crap just for the hell of it.  It's obvious you're enjoying the audience.  But it's gotten boring. 

Obama is an American with a name that opportunistic or unthinking dinks will use against him.  George Washington really was the first President of the United States of America.  What the hell Admiralty had to do with any of that other blather the other night I don't have a freaking clue.   And you wrote of being a "rightwing firing lunatic" (or something like that); you don't have to try so hard to prove the latter by so poorly prosecuting the positions of the former.  It's embarassing to informed, analytic and thinking conservatives everywhere.

[iski]

It's embarrassing to informed, analytic and thinking conservatives everywhere.

I can never be a true conservative because of that thinking deal.  Whenever I try that, all kinds of trouble starts & then I wake up &...

nevermind.


Note:  Did not post a pic of Hitlery as Hitler here, due to uncharacteristic restraint.

[Twolanerider]

I can never be a true conservative because of that thinking deal.  Whenever I try that, all kinds of trouble starts & then I wake up &...

nevermind.


Note:  Did not post a pic of Hitlery as Hitler here, due to uncharacteristic restraint.

Iski, the trick is to only wake up long enough to eat .

[EAGLE1]

 

[CVOJOE]

Which one is the Manchurian Candidate? 

[SPIDERMAN]

Don
     I'm not going to quote you because it's all rather lengthy and surprisingly for you almost opinionated. Not what I've come to expect from you. But as always you made a good case and offer sound advice EXCEPT, Obama doesn't have much of a track record to go on. It would appear that he hit the ground running as a Senator and his votes on the issues of the day have been calculated to him being where he's at today. He's been touted as the future of the Democratic Party since he took his first oath of office. I find all that very troubling. As to all of the fuss about his background, my only point in mentioning it was that I worry about an individual being elected who has a background that would make him sympathetic to Muslim Extremists. Not that he is one himself, I'm sure he's not, simply that he might go weak at the knees when it came time to make a decision involving extreme predjudice. I am sure you don't agree with me and that's ok. As a matter of fact, it's better than ok, it's the American way. But you know, as I read the various posts on threads on the site involving politics I see mostly the same as it's always been. Folks seem bent on smearing the other guy vice speaking up for their guy. I don't have a guy. Wish I did. It disturbs me greatly that I don't. I had seriously hoped someone would run for election I could get behind. Since Linda insists it's my civic duty to vote, I will end up voting for whomever I consider the lesser of two evils. That sucks, that sucks huge.

B B

[iski]

Iski, the trick is to only wake up long enough to eat .

TLR - Ok, now you have me confused.  Not that hard to do, considering. Conservatives are sleepy & hungry?  Or they have narcolepsy & sleep very close to the refrigerator?   


 

[Twolanerider]

EXCEPT, Obama doesn't have much of a track record to go on. It would appear that he hit the ground running as a Senator

Brian, actually on much of what you said we don't disagree at all.  Not even a little bit.  As for Senator Obama I readily agree he's a Senatorial lightweight.  Freshman Senator preceded by a relatively limited amount of time in the Illinois legislature.  Very little national record to go on.  That makes it harder to judge the man.

Makes it even harder for me as I vote for Presidents first on their international and security agendas and only secondarily on the parts of their agenda that wholly or primarily non-security domestic.  Whether it's recognized or not the Congress controls the domestic agenda well enough that I vote for legislators based on that side of their coin.

Obama just doesn't have much of an foreign/security policy track record.  That's a tough thing to swallow at a time when the nation is at war.

Having said that he's a Senatorial lightweight doesn't necessrily mean he'd be a bad President.  They've come from State Gubernatorial mansions without having national lights on them before and done the job (and sometimes not so well either).  Nearly all Senators seem to have that Presidential glint in their eye.  Obama seems to have had it in mind since his DNC address a few years ago.  But the same lack of record that concerns you concerns me too. 

I worry about an individual being elected who has a background that would make him sympathetic to Muslim Extremists. Not that he is one himself, I'm sure he's not, simply that he might go weak at the knees when it came time to make a decision involving extreme predjudice. I am sure you don't agree with me and that's ok.

BB, this is something I don't worry about as you seem to.  If for no other reason then we simply can't know what motivations a man has in the back of his mind.  One could just as easily argue that he's less likely to show radial Islam any great mercy because doing so would make him appear somehow weak or biased based on a heritage that we at least generally agree he doesn't really have.  Sometimes have a history that might be seen as part of or leaning toward a policy choice allows some flexibility the other way.  After all, who would have expected a southern basically redneck Senator from Texas to lead the civil rights charge as he (LBJ) after Kennedy was shot? 

And at the time who else besides Nixon could have made the opening to China?  Our histories can't help us or hurt us.  Which they do depends on our character and insights.  In other words, we're back to judging the man (his character, not his personal heritage).  Just like it should be.

Folks seem bent on smearing the other guy vice speaking up for their guy. I don't have a guy. Wish I did. It disturbs me greatly that I don't.

And again we couldn't agree me.  We both recognize that prosecuted to its natural ends politics at that level is a blood sport.  So that it gets messy should not be unexpected.  But I still hate it when one side only tells me why to hate the other guy (especially when they do it stupidly or badly [because doing so is so insulting {and boring}]) rather than giving me reason to like my guy well enough that I should be willing to take the battle to the opponent for him.

It's easy (and lazy) to say who you hate and come up with all sorts of stupid or real reasons for doing so.  It takes a lot more work and much more reasoned analyses to find who you like; and why.  Not just someone that happens to be in the same party.  Not just someone that agrees on one signal issue.  But someone who, across the gamut of issues you're willing to reason and study, makes sense to your particular view of what is right and wrong.

I agree also that it's often tough to find the right guy (using the term generically).  I tend to be more conservative then you are.  Though on some issues you'd no doubt be surprised.  But I could care less about party affiliation.  Issue/policy is all that should drive the choice for chief executive. 

I had seriously hoped someone would run for election I could get behind. Since Linda insists it's my civic duty to vote, I will end up voting for whomever I consider the lesser of two evils. That sucks, that sucks huge.

B B

This cycle it is harder to get terribly excited about any of them.  That doesn't mean a choice doesn't have to be made though.  After all, greatness has all too often been thrust upon them when they never were perceived to carry it to begin with.  Just ask Lincoln or Truman.

[SPIDERMAN]

I'm gonna get crucified for this I'm sure, but I was really hoping people would get behind Joe Biden. I'm not one of those that thinks having spent a lifetime in politics makes you suspect. Being Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at this juncture in our history certainly got my attention, I don't know why it didn't anyone else's. And you know the RNC Smear machine could only come up with that he failed to properly footnote a source on a college thesis. That's it, although it was made out to be plagerism of the worst sort at the time. Anyway, Joe WAS my guy and he's gone and I can't get behind anyone else.

B B

[Twolanerider]

I'm gonna get crucified for this I'm sure, but I was really hoping people would get behind Joe Biden. I'm not one of those that thinks having spent a lifetime in politics makes you suspect. Being Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at this juncture in our history certainly got my attention, I don't know why it didn't anyone else's. And you know the RNC Smear machine could only come up with that he failed to properly footnote a source on a college thesis. That's it, although it was made out to be plagerism of the worst sort at the time. Anyway, Joe WAS my guy and he's gone and I can't get behind anyone else.

B B

Oh, Brian.... 


The whole Neil Kinnock/crib notes/plagiarism thing aside; he's just not very smart.  Listen to the man conduct hearings.  Almost anytime he has to speak off script actually.  And the few things out there that he's written himself.  Oh my.... 

You had a much better Democratic contendor a lot closer to home.  Any reason you weren't interested in Senator/Ambassador/Governor Richardson?

[iski]

Richardson was the Dem primary candidate that interested me most & whose opinion reflected long political experience.

[SPIDERMAN]

Oh, Brian.... 


The whole Neil Kinnock/crib notes/plagiarism thing aside; he's just not very smart.  Listen to the man conduct hearings.  Almost anytime he has to speak off script actually.  And the few things out there that he's written himself.  Oh my.... 

You had a much better Democratic contendor a lot closer to home.  Any reason you weren't interested in Senator/Ambassador/Governor Richardson?

I DON'T CARE DON - - - -When it comes to Biden, I'm like all those Bushies who don't care that Dubya has an IQ lower than the mean temperature of Nome Alaska.  We've had the GOP's villiage idiot running things for 8 years, why can't we have the DEMS villiage idiot for 4 ?

B B

[HogBreath]

The whole election will be simple this year. There's no way in he$$ I can vote for _________ or _____________ or ____________, so that only leaves ________________. 

[Hoist!]

The whole election will be simple this year. There's no way in he$$ I can vote for _________ or _____________ or ____________, so that only leaves ________________. 

Based on that, I vote for Ken for President!!!

Hoist!

[FNGw/08SERK]

The whole election will be simple this year. There's no way in he$$ I can vote for _________ or _____________ or ____________, so that only leaves ___Hoist_____________. 

[Twolanerider]

I DON'T CARE DON - - - -When it comes to Biden, I'm like all those Bushies who don't care that Dubya has an IQ lower than the mean temperature of Nome Alaska.  We've had the GOP's villiage idiot running things for 8 years, why can't we have the DEMS villiage idiot for 4 ?

B B

Brian, you likely expect someone to tell you your choice is all FUBAR.  Nope, not here.  The choice is as much about the person as about his policies.  No one is ever going to have a policy agenda fully in sync with one's own (especially as "eclectic" as my own agenda would be).  So it's also about whom you (for some reason or another) trust.  If Biden is that guy for you then so be it.

I find myself reflecting on my own opinions or positions any time there has been the rare occasion that mine and the Senator from Delaware's happen to agree.  I just figured if he'd come to the same conclusion I had I must be doing something stupid.  Then would usually remember that even a blind dog occasionally still finds a nice bone or realize he'd staffed it out.

But that's just me and the Senator from Delaware.  You and I know we can perfectly well agree to disagree on anything we might ever need to and then completely enjoy doing it all over again the next day.  So if he's your guy for that level of comfort congrats for having one.  That is no small thing.

[Hoist!]

I like Howie's idea! Vote for me! $1/gal gas, no terrorists and everything is based on motorcyclist's rights first. WTF more do we want!! I'll make that chit happen!!! Don't ask, don't tell about the rest of it! And you thou Gitmo was a secret!!!

Hoist!

[SPIDERMAN]

And the along comes Nader - - - - - - when ?  NOT that I'd vote for him, but just wondering when we get that quadrennial appearance ?

[sefatboyscott]

Vote Bart Simpson, he could not do any worse than Bush.

[SPIDERMAN]

Vote Bart Simpson, he could not do any worse than Bush.

Seems to me even Bart asks Homer for advice one in awhile. No way in hell Dubya ever asked his Dad a damn thing.

 George H.W. Bush is a great man. a man of unquestioned intelligence and courage. His place in history as a military hero, a businessman, a politician and a true patriot is secure.

His son is a fraud, a cheap knockoff worst than a Chinese Rolex. 

[grandpadoc]

  George H.W. Bush is a great man. a man of unquestioned intelligence and courage. His place in history as a military hero, a businessman, a politician and a true patriot is secure.

  

...but he got some bad advise from Powell and didn't finish the job. Saddam thought he had WMD's and his scientist told him they did to to get funding, but after the war they admitted they lied. Saddam wanted to colonize, he needed ports, minerals, oil and labor. Years ago we did it, along with Britain, France, Spain, USSR...but now you can't do that anymore. Some folks are just better off with a thug ruling them until they are ready for something better. These folks think they are still fighting the crusades.  Doc
 

[HogBreath]

Based on that, I vote for Ken for President!!!

Hoist!

We'd be in WWIII within a month. Gas prices would soar to $20 a gallon and motorcycles would get a $19 rebate. Lane splitting would be legalized. No speed limit for Harleys. The ozone layer would be gone within a year. But, We'd have a fix for these 110 engines, cybersex would be free, and Hilary would be exiled to Mexico. 

[RedDevil]

We'd be in WWIII within a month. Gas prices would soar to $20 a gallon and motorcycles would get a $19 rebate. Lane splitting would be legalized. No speed limit for Harleys. The ozone layer would be gone within a year. But, We'd have a fix for these 110 engines, cybersex would be free, and Hilary would be exiled to Mexico. 

Free cybersex huh?  I just might have to consider you a write-in Ken. 

   

[skreminegul07]

Hillary says she's an agent of change, I have to agree, she changes her stance on the issues all the time.
As for Obama, I have to agree with TCnBham, if there was any glaring issues with Obama, the Republicans and his opponents for the Democratic nomination would have exploited it already, and he wouldn't be getting any major endorsements.

I think the Republicans know, that any attack on either at this point will be racial to Obama and sexist to Hillary.
Why not let them play those cards and tear each other apart, until one is left standing.  That's what I'd do.  Unless I faxed info to both sided anonymously.
Scary with Obama is he has motivated the college crowd like RFK.  These are the idealists being bombarded with liberal ideas from liberal professors and living off the backs of their parents paying $40K a year to provide them with a hangover and sex until they are so burned out it requres an annual pilgrimage to Spring Break to get sun poisioning.  Students who never worked or paid taxes are going to votre for someone who is vowing to raise more taxes and continue the hangover of adulthood.

[hogrider98]

if Hillary becomes the president,does that mean Bill is the new first lady?

[Hugh Janis]

if Hillary becomes the president,does that mean Bill is the new first lady?

You could say that!

[iski]

if Hillary becomes the president,does that mean Bill is the new first lady?

Bill already has a frilly frock picked out for his wife's coronation inauguration:

[ak]

if Hillary becomes the president,does that mean Bill is the new first lady?

          Maybe so... I do know MONICA LEWINSKI want to be at the swearing in event if she can find cum stained shoes and purse to go with her BLUE DRESS-------AK credit to c. rock

[Talon]

It's just my opinion, but it's funny watching Hillary make nice in the debates! I think under her breath she's screaming all kids of insults!!

[Talon]