• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

FF and you want to vote for this person

hopalong

Well-known member
You want to vote for a person that claims to not have understood what she was voting for? :roll: :roll: :roll:



February 1, 2008
By Michael Goodwin

In the end, as in the beginning, Iraq remains hostile turf for Hillary Clinton. As she proved again last night, she has only herself to blame. And now she has run out of time to fix it.


Clinton used the last showdown before Super Tuesday to trot out her familiar and false claim that her 2002 vote for the war was not really a vote for war. Everybody in the world knows the truth now, yet Clinton still can't admit it.

It is a disheartening spectacle, similar in its own way to President Bush's inability to admit his mistakes in Iraq.

In clinging to a lie that she concocted to protect herself politically, Clinton reinforces years of doubts about her credibility. To do so on the eve of the most important day in the political calendar is arrogant or reckless.

Either way, it was a gift to Barack Obama, who, as a result, came away the big winner last night.

But her claim about the 2002 vote set off my Whopper Alert. She insisted she was voting to send inspectors into Iraq and that the invasion was a "misuse" of the authority Congress gave Bush.

The facts are otherwise. As Obama noted, the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for use of military force against Iraq," and news reports said it meant war was almost certain. There was no ambiguity.


Moreover, that October 2002 vote preceded the March 2003 invasion by nearly six months. During that period, Clinton never objected to the invasion. As our troops massed in the Gulf region and Saddam Hussein continued to defy inspections, war clearly was imminent. If she felt her vote was being misused, why didn't she say so then, when it might have mattered?

She also incorrectly described another vote from that period. Known as the Levin Amendment, it wanted a Security Council authorization before the U.S. and other nations could invade. Clinton voted against it, she said last night, because it ceded American authority to the UN.

Not so. The amendment was clear that if the UN had not "promptly adopted" a war resolution, the U.S. could act alone with congressional approval. As a supporter of the amendment wrote, it ceded "no rights to an international body" and "explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself."

Clinton was not alone in making a mistake about Iraq. The Senate vote was 77 to 23. Governments around the world believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We know now he didn't. We also know Clinton still refuses to accept responsibility for her role.

Source: New York Daily News
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
ff will just point out where somebody else lied, and that justifies everything - she can vote for Hillary with a clear consience. You see, it doesn't matter if your candidate lies everytime the open their mouth or if their history has more smoke in it than a Turkish men's lounge. As long as you can find somebody else who did the same, it's all good.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't have to justify my vote. Yes, I'll vote for Hillary on Tuesday because I think she's the best qualified candidate to run this country. After all, it took a Clinton to clean up after the last Bush. Why not elect another to clean up after this Bush?

You rant and rave about Hillary, but most all of the Republicans on this board are voting against someone instead of for somone. That makes me very happy. :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
So, ff, do you believe her when she says she didn't know what she was voting for?

I haven't heard her say that. As some of us know, posting something on an internet discussion board (especially without a link) doesn't make it true. If it did, Hillary would be rotting away in jail for all the "crimes" the Hillary-haters have been accusing her of for years. But she's not. She's running for president....with a smile. :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
ff said:
Sandhusker said:
So, ff, do you believe her when she says she didn't know what she was voting for?

I haven't heard her say that. As some of us know, posting something on an internet discussion board (especially without a link) doesn't make it true. If it did, Hillary would be rotting away in jail for all the "crimes" the Hillary-haters have been accusing her of for years. But she's not. She's running for president....with a smile. :lol:

Obama heard it. He commented on it. Would it make a difference to you if a link was provided? Maybe other sources?
 

olderroper

Well-known member
ff said:
Sandhusker said:
So, ff, do you believe her when she says she didn't know what she was voting for?

I haven't heard her say that. As some of us know, posting something on an internet discussion board (especially without a link) doesn't make it true. If it did, Hillary would be rotting away in jail for all the "crimes" the Hillary-haters have been accusing her of for years. But she's not. She's running for president....with a smile. :lol:

You say you want a link?
Ask and you shall recieve. :)
http://worldreports.org/news/116_clinton_pardons_exposed_underworld_connections

I've been watching this soap opera for over a year. Hard to not believe some of it.
 

woranch

Well-known member
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.




Don't worry about your house payment or food cost ,that does'nt matter . At least you will have health care................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Oh yea, and they think Bush is bad. Wooo hoooo, how'd you like BIG GOVERNMENT messing with your wages?

They're doing it every day now with with-holding taxes, Social Security, Unemployment, etc. etc...
What would be the big difference if another % based on actual earnings went to guaranteed health/catastrophic disease/long term care insurance for everyone- so that everyone had access to the same medical treatment.....

In the long run- I think the percentage would be less than what us ( YOU & ME THAT ALREADY PAY INTO HALF A DOZEN INSURANCE COVERAGES) that are already paying for our health care costs (that are inflated to cover those that can't pay)- and our health care/catastrophic disease/cancer care/ accident/ long term care/pharmaceutical/dental insurance that everyone needs to have if they don't want to put their family/business/ranch in danger ( which again includes the inflated costs to cover all those with no coverage)......

Health care costs needs a major reform..... Major Tort reform- negotiated pharmaceutical/ medical equipment costs- a planned healthcare program, which includes preventive medicine- long term treatment for/ instead of the emergency room save a life treatment for drug addicts and alcohol addictives, that kick them back out the door to go back to the life they are living/catastrophic care insurance for those that have a major stroke- or are in a severe accident at age 30 and end up in extended care or long term care units ( instead of bankrupting familys/business's)...Those that have nothing-already get it paid for by YOU and ME for nothing thru our taxes.....

We need a PROACTIVE plan- rather than a reactive plan....Even the very CONSERVATIVE AMA has recognized it would be much cheaper with a plan that allowed long term proactive health care working with people over the years - than trying to treat the emergencies/major medical problems that result....

Faster Horses- I don't know how many times in the last 10 years I've sat in the Courtroom and had folks that I really believe were sincere- that had finally hit the bottom and wanted help with their addiction problems (alcohol, drugs, gambling- all a dopamine triggered addiction that take intense treatment to stop- control-- never are cured) - and the programs aren't there....Unless they have the money to put up front for Rimrock of Billings (at over $1000 a day) for a minimum 30 day program...And in the long run these addictions and non treatments of and escalating of diseases cost us a fortune every year.....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
A link was provided Frankie, now what?
You going to shut down this discussion like you do on the other board when some one disagrees with you and proves you wrong?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Oh yea, and they think Bush is bad. Wooo hoooo, how'd you like BIG GOVERNMENT messing with your wages?

They're doing it every day now with with-holding taxes, Social Security, Unemployment, etc. etc...
What would be the big difference if another % based on actual earnings went to guaranteed health/catastrophic disease/long term care insurance for everyone- so that everyone had access to the same medical treatment.....

In the long run- I think the percentage would be less than what us ( YOU & ME THAT ALREADY PAY INTO HALF A DOZEN INSURANCE COVERAGES) that are already paying for our health care costs (that are inflated to cover those that can't pay)- and our health care/catastrophic disease/cancer care/ accident/ long term care/pharmaceutical/dental insurance that everyone needs to have if they don't want to put their family/business/ranch in danger ( which again includes the inflated costs to cover all those with no coverage)......

Health care costs needs a major reform..... Major Tort reform- negotiated pharmaceutical/ medical equipment costs- a planned healthcare program, which includes preventive medicine- long term treatment for/ instead of the emergency room save a life treatment for drug addicts and alcohol addictives, that kick them back out the door to go back to the life they are living/catastrophic care insurance for those that have a major stroke- or are in a severe accident at age 30 and end up in extended care or long term care units ( instead of bankrupting familys/business's)...Those that have nothing-already get it paid for by YOU and ME for nothing thru our taxes.....

We need a PROACTIVE plan- rather than a reactive plan....Even the very CONSERVATIVE AMA has recognized it would be much cheaper with a plan that allowed long term proactive health care working with people over the years - than trying to treat the emergencies/major medical problems that result....

Faster Horses- I don't know how many times in the last 10 years I've sat in the Courtroom and had folks that I really believe were sincere- that had finally hit the bottom and wanted help with their addiction problems (alcohol, drugs, gambling- all a dopamine triggered addiction that take intense treatment to stop- control-- never are cured) - and the programs aren't there....Unless they have the money to put up front for Rimrock of Billings (at over $1000 a day) for a minimum 30 day program...And in the long run these addictions and non treatments of and escalating of diseases cost us a fortune every year.....
Oldtimer how American is it to make those that don't use drugs pay for the stupidity of those that do? How American is it to make those that don't have lung cancer from smoking pay for the treatment for those that do? Some lifestyle choices bring with them heavy consequences and the cost of those consequences should be born by the individual that made the choice.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
woranch said:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.




Don't worry about your house payment or food cost ,that does'nt matter . At least you will have health care................

There's more to come with her socialism.

ff, If I was dumb enough to support her, I sure wouldn't go announce to the world I was that ignorant. No way she'll win.
 

fff

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
woranch said:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.




Don't worry about your house payment or food cost ,that does'nt matter . At least you will have health care................

There's more to come with her socialism.

ff, If I was dumb enough to support her, I sure wouldn't go announce to the world I was that ignorant. No way she'll win.

I thought you wanted everyone to have to pay their share of medical costs? I'm proud to support Hillary. Or I will be proud to support Obama if he's the nominee. If it makes you feel better, keep on preaching the "she can't win" mantra. If she's the Dem nominee, she can win. And I believe she can be an effective president. God knows, she can't be any worse than Bush. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin
Oldtimer how American is it to make those that don't use drugs pay for the stupidity of those that do? How American is it to make those that don't have lung cancer from smoking pay for the treatment for those that do? Some lifestyle choices bring with them heavy consequences and the cost of those consequences should be born by the individual that made the choice.

We (You and I and every person with health insurance) are paying the costs of the consequences of these lifestyles now- in increased health care costs and health care insurance costs to care for these folks when they end up with life threatening illness's/symptoms....

That is the main reason the AMA wants insurance available to all- so that many of these diseases and addictions can be caught and treated early- so like in the case of cancer that you don't end up with the family savings/business being wiped out by initial costs- and then the rest of the cost of treatment (sometimes for months or years) being picked up by everyone else that has insurance or gets medical care......
 

katrina

Well-known member
hopalong said:
You want to vote for a person that claims to not have understood what she was voting for? :roll: :roll: :roll:



February 1, 2008
By Michael Goodwin

In the end, as in the beginning, Iraq remains hostile turf for Hillary Clinton. As she proved again last night, she has only herself to blame. And now she has run out of time to fix it.


Clinton used the last showdown before Super Tuesday to trot out her familiar and false claim that her 2002 vote for the war was not really a vote for war. Everybody in the world knows the truth now, yet Clinton still can't admit it.

It is a disheartening spectacle, similar in its own way to President Bush's inability to admit his mistakes in Iraq.

In clinging to a lie that she concocted to protect herself politically, Clinton reinforces years of doubts about her credibility. To do so on the eve of the most important day in the political calendar is arrogant or reckless.

Either way, it was a gift to Barack Obama, who, as a result, came away the big winner last night.

But her claim about the 2002 vote set off my Whopper Alert. She insisted she was voting to send inspectors into Iraq and that the invasion was a "misuse" of the authority Congress gave Bush.

The facts are otherwise. As Obama noted, the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for use of military force against Iraq," and news reports said it meant war was almost certain. There was no ambiguity.


Moreover, that October 2002 vote preceded the March 2003 invasion by nearly six months. During that period, Clinton never objected to the invasion. As our troops massed in the Gulf region and Saddam Hussein continued to defy inspections, war clearly was imminent. If she felt her vote was being misused, why didn't she say so then, when it might have mattered?

She also incorrectly described another vote from that period. Known as the Levin Amendment, it wanted a Security Council authorization before the U.S. and other nations could invade. Clinton voted against it, she said last night, because it ceded American authority to the UN.

Not so. The amendment was clear that if the UN had not "promptly adopted" a war resolution, the U.S. could act alone with congressional approval. As a supporter of the amendment wrote, it ceded "no rights to an international body" and "explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself."

Clinton was not alone in making a mistake about Iraq. The Senate vote was 77 to 23. Governments around the world believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We know now he didn't. We also know Clinton still refuses to accept responsibility for her role.

Source: New York Daily News

Birds of a feather, flock together........ :wink: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
olderroper said:
ff said:
Sandhusker said:
So, ff, do you believe her when she says she didn't know what she was voting for?

I haven't heard her say that. As some of us know, posting something on an internet discussion board (especially without a link) doesn't make it true. If it did, Hillary would be rotting away in jail for all the "crimes" the Hillary-haters have been accusing her of for years. But she's not. She's running for president....with a smile. :lol:

You say you want a link?
Ask and you shall recieve. :)
http://worldreports.org/news/116_clinton_pardons_exposed_underworld_connections

I've been watching this soap opera for over a year. Hard to not believe some of it.

How are you going to deny/excuse this now?
 

fff

Well-known member
Are you kidding me? :roll:

From the link:

"HILLARY RODOMSKI REPRESENTS"

"U.S. CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE WANTS JEZEBEL"

"INSTALL CIA OPERATIVE JEZEBEL CLINTON"

"As President William Jefferson Clinton’s main CIA handler"

"CLINTON FAMILY DISPLAYS ITS OCCULT, SATANIC ORIENTATION"
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Try these;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2714.html

http://infinitewisdom.typepad.com/infinite_wisdom/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22634967/page/3/

Let us know what you think.
 
Top