Hillary Hit Ad-Vote Different

ScanIAm wrote:



jb43081 wrote:  ScanIAm wrote:  brian.shapiro wrote:  But.. not to offend, but honestly W3bbo I think the fact that you think the Republicans are more Orwellian than Democrats is a result of the spin cycle that dominates politics today. Neither party is evil, but both are corrupt and represent some status quo politics. This just happens to be the Republican's turn in power. Add the fact that republicans are conservatives in the USA to the fact that they (neocon(servatives)) seem to want to invade much more of our privacy, I think W3bbo has a point... As opposed to taxing and control anything that moves, which I think is just as bad. If not worse.

Lovely sentiment, genius, but I don't remember reading much about taxing or spending in 1984. 

You know what 1984 is, right?

It's a book by George Orwell.

Hence the term "Orwellian".

How old are you?

Old enough to remember the Carter gas lines, and the recession he handed Regan.

And yes, I know that 1984 is a book by George Orwell, although I prefer Animal Farm.

And as far as you trying to make this a "one issue" debate, it's not. Sorry, but most of us are not as one-dimensional as you. If we are talking about who the next president it is, *I* want to discuss more than how Obama so ripped on her in a one minute YouTube video.

And by the way, insulting someone, no matter how much you liberals seem to love to do it, is no way to convine someone their wrong. Somthing you might want to think about.

And for the record, I am a Libertarian and I don't think the Republicas are "right" (meaning correct) either.

Jack Poison wrote:



jb43081 -

I sense a flamewar coming...

Well, unless you consider speaking your mind, even if you disagree with most of the people in this thread to be causing a flamwar, then I guess you'll blame it on me. Frankly, I don't care. It will prove my point.

For the most part, Liberals cannot stand someone who challenges their point of view. They expect everyone to simply take their opinion as fact and the way things should be. The world is not so simple.

So, flame the person who's not of like mind. How will it be any different than any other vaugly political discussion here?

Oh, be sure to attack any spelling or gramatical errors I make. That's sure to prove how right you are and how wrong I am.

Jack Poison wrote:

But, why is she perceived as so Evil?? Evil is quite strong (AKA  Hitler, etc...). I can see why the neo-cons and fundies hate Bill, being an adulterer (even though Juliani is one X 2), but what did Hillary do to have such negative feelings?

On Bill; I don't care that he cheated on his wife. What I do care about is that he lied under oath, and being a lawyer he knew better. Frankly, HIS lawyer should never have let him answer that question.

On Hillary: First of all, I _think_ I put a smily after that. If not, I ment to, but I know that doesn't change things. The bottom line is that I just don't trust Hillary, and I think this "socialized medicine" she is trying to force on us is a disaster. I think she is a control freak, and is more interested in pandering to her political base than helping people who REALLY make this country work. So no, I wont be voting for Hillary - probably the ONLY candidate I've made a clear decision on yet.

On Obama: I like him, but I'm worried he doesn't have enough experience. I think he would make a great VP for now, and maybe after that he will be ready. He'll have other chances, I just don't think now is the time.

Jack Poison wrote:



Quite a few politicians down in Texas, for one. Do a google search (or Live, if you prefer) for "sodomy Laws" and Texas.. Or Utah, for that matter. Granted, Sodomy by definition isn't just for gays, but you'd never know it, if you read some of the transcripts from the Texas Legislature a while back.

Out of curiousity, why is this SPIN? These are facts, and by definition, facts can be proven or disproven. SPIN is trying to re-define something as a positive when it usually is a big negative. Please be more specific. Granted, I have some very large suspicions why the Neo-Cons are doing this.. But THAT is pure speculation, and I share that privately.

Spin can mean redefining anything to help your politics. It makes it a positive for your politics.

But, sodomy laws are just remnants from decades ago, which I doubt were even enforced much when they were instituted. The point is that they couldn't be enforced today and no serious politician wants them. I don't know that there are people in office trying to enforce them either. And if they are it really doesn't say much for a much larger group of people you're talking about.

For the few extremists that want sodomy laws, you can go to the other side and find extremists who want to put people in jail for having pets. For people who bomb abortion clinics, there are eco-terrorists and animal rights activists who use bombing.

The point is, that its a lot harder to portray one side as evil and the other as good, if you represent things accurately. Because both are really not much different, just represent different interests, mostly with legitimate (though tired and hackneyed) arguments on both sides.

So, only extremists want to wiretap without warrants?

Cool, I feel better now.  I guess I was wrong.

ScanIAm wrote:

So, only extremists want to wiretap without warrants?

Cool, I feel better now.  I guess I was wrong.

um no .. i was talking about a different issue.

there's good reason to oppose measures to allow them to wiretap without warrants. there's also good reason to oppose gun control. there are a lot of issues concerning civil liberties that are fought over by the two parties.

but, despite the fact that wiretapping without warrants is a very bad precedent... if you really think that, as of now, the US is a police state, thats a distorted view.

jb43081 wrote:



Well, unless you consider speaking your mind, even if you disagree with most of the people in this thread to be causing a flamwar, then I guess you'll blame it on me. Frankly, I don't care. It will prove my point.

Jack Poison wrote: But, why is she perceived as so Evil?? Evil is quite strong (AKA  Hitler, etc...). I can see why the neo-cons and fundies hate Bill, being an adulterer (even though Juliani is one X 2), but what did Hillary do to have such negative feelings?

On Bill; I don't care that he cheated on his wife. What I do care about is that he lied under oath, and being a lawyer he knew better. Frankly, HIS lawyer should never have let him answer that question.

On Hillary: First of all, I _think_ I put a smily after that. If not, I ment to, but I know that doesn't change things. The bottom line is that I just don't trust Hillary, and I think this "socialized medicine" she is trying to force on us is a disaster. I think she is a control freak, and is more interested in pandering to her political base than helping people who REALLY make this country work. So no, I wont be voting for Hillary - probably the ONLY candidate I've made a clear decision on yet.

I should have been more clear: I didn't think you'd be the one to perpetuate a flame war.. My own observations show it is either an extremist who started the conversation, or a third-party jumping in and escalating it. I sense the latter.. I hope I'm wrong.

In regards to Bill, he's not my favorite guy. But, lots of people lie about cheating on their spouses, probably under oath as well, given the high frequency of divorces.. I'm not a kind of person who believes, "you lie one time, you can't be trusted at all". Everyone makes mistakes.. Some people might choose not to forgive him. Fine by me, but it takes a bigger person to forgive someone else of something bad. But, to each their own perogative.

But, it's interesting in regards to Hillary. The only things I hear people, especially those people who claim "Evil", or "I just don't trust her..." only mention intuition (which isn't something I think people should judge people on en masse, especially when there is a lot of factual information (to be proven or disproven) on her) or her HealthCare proposal. If that, truely, is a bad thing and more accurately, an "unconservative" thing, then more and more conservatives are buying into Universal Healthcare. Namely because, if created, it makes US businesses much more competitive: more $$$ can go to the bottom line, investments, hiring, etc. The US Automakers (what is left of them) understand this well. So are Air Lines. So, looks like some of our biggest institutions are becoming less and less "conservative" as time goes on.

brian.shapiro wrote:



But, sodomy laws are just remnants from decades ago, which I doubt were even enforced much when they were instituted. The point is that they couldn't be enforced today and no serious politician wants them.

You should do some of the searches I've recommended. Sodomy laws were big news about 6 months ago, when a person called the police on a gay couple upstairs (doing the nasty...) and the police arrested them.

Sodomy laws are very much alive and being enforced in some areas. And there are still plenty of serious politicians serious about them. if you don't believe me, check out James Dobson's radio programs when he politicians on.. Which will be happening more and more as the elections draw near. 

Jack Poison wrote:

I should have been more clear: I didn't think you'd be the one to perpetuate a flame war.. My own observations show it is either an extremist who started the conversation, or a third-party jumping in and escalating it. I sense the latter.. I hope I'm wrong.

OK. Again, I just stated my opinion. Since I don't tote the Liberal or Conservative line, I'm used to getting heat from both sides BUT I notice Liberals tend to be less tolerant of dissent.

Jack Poison wrote:

In regards to Bill, he's not my favorite guy. But, lots of people lie about cheating on their spouses, probably under oath as well, given the high frequency of divorces.. I'm not a kind of person who believes, "you lie one time, you can't be trusted at all". Everyone makes mistakes.. Some people might choose not to forgive him. Fine by me, but it takes a bigger person to forgive someone else of something bad. But, to each their own perogative.

I can forgive him somewhat for lying, but for telling such a BAD lie, I can't. He knew that there was no way he was going to be able to keep a lid on this; too many people around it.

And again, he should have fired his lawyer for not jumping out of his seat and telling Bill to NOT ANSWER!

Frankly, the question had nothing to do with the matter at hand, but once he answered it and lied, it was fair game.

Jack Poison wrote:

But, it's interesting in regards to Hillary. The only things I hear people, especially those people who claim "Evil", or "I just don't trust her..." only mention intuition (which isn't something I think people should judge people on en masse,

Don't underestimate it though. If something just doesn't seem right, it probably isn't.

Jack Poison wrote:

especially when there is a lot of factual information (to be proven or disproven) on her) or her HealthCare proposal. If that, truely, is a bad thing and more accurately, an "unconservative" thing, then more and more conservatives are buying into Universal Healthcare.

Just because they are Conservative (or Liberal for that matter) doesn't make them right. Institutionalized health care is a bad idea. My friend is from Europe, and had it most of her life growing up. She's a HUGE Liberal btw. He feeling is "Yeah, it was free, but the care over here is MUCH better!" I use her as a bit of a "litmus test" on stuff like this given her political view. Basically, if she thinks it's a dodgy idea, they I KNOW it is!

Granted, not very scientific, but it's enough for me.

Jack Poison wrote:

Namely because, if created, it makes US businesses much more competitive: more $$$ can go to the bottom line, investments, hiring, etc. The US Automakers (what is left of them) understand this well. So are Air Lines. So, looks like some of our biggest institutions are becoming less and less "conservative" as time goes on.

But, the money has to come from somewhere, and guess where it will come from? Taxes. And don't believe all of this "only the rich will pay more" crap. You'ld be suprised how low the bar to be considered "rich" can be lowered.

And look at it from the other side; less money for doctors and hospitals. This mean fewer doctors (why spend eight years in school, one year (I think) as an intern and three years (I think) as a resident to get what is essentially a government job paying government wages? With malepractice insurance, a lot of doctors can't make ends meet now! Mine just had to give up her practice because she couldn't make money. Not that she didn't have patients, she did, but student loans and insurance made it impossible.

And while I'm talking about insurance, do you think (mostly bogus) malepractice lawsuits will increase or decline? I think increase since they doctors all work the government, and the government had deep pockets. More tax money gone.

So is the solution to outlas malepractice lawsuits? Get ready for the trial lawyers to go nuts! That's where a lot of these scum bags make their money. And what if a doctor really is a quack? You can't sue them?

I just don't think it's a good idea. I believe medical care is like any other service or commodity, and the market should dictate price and distribution. I know it sounds cold, but it's the only way that it's fair to the ones providing the service in the first place. If you alienate them, then NOBODY will be willing to do it.

Jack Poison wrote:

Sodomy laws are very much alive and being enforced in some areas. And there are still plenty of serious politicians serious about them. if you don't believe me, check out James Dobson's radio programs when he politicians on.. Which will be happening more and more as the elections draw near. 

I used to work with a women who had just gotten out of the Air Force. She told me, and I have nothing to verify this, just her word, but the rules in the force were you were ONLY allowed to have intercourse in the missionary position, woman on bottom. No oral. No anal. If you were caught doing anything else, you could be court martialed.

I'm not sure I believe her, but she swore up and down that's how it was, and she didn't have a knows propensity for "exaggerating."

Any current/former military here who can confirm/deny/give me a copy of the rule book with passages blacked out/whatever on this?

See your local Air Force recruiter.