You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 05:39:38 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2006, 11:03:12 PM »
Asherah for president... ok to young but right on.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2006, 11:10:38 PM »
Hilliary is the best choice for president, not for herself alone but for the brain trust she would bring into the white house.   Plus Bill Clinton has alot of pull overseas and in being able to get things done.   Unlike the current admin of Bush whitehouse.    Condi is not respected at all, and would be a bad choice for president.   S

Cause with the cabinet of Hilliarys it be Bills old one.  The same one that worked with a Republican congress and had a surplus budget.   If he were to bring back some of the first Bush cabinet, it be strong.   But not sure for they be up in age, as already  Sears has been brought in to help bail the failed policys of this current cabinet.

Condi Rice,  the world does not respect her as Secretary of the State, she be a clone of Bush and well another four more years of instead of true governing,  partism politics.  Gee with six years of controling both Executive and Legistrative branchs.  The republicans sure have managed not to get anything done.   

I see myself as a independant,  both convservative and liberal in views.  I think a more sensible middle  of the road candidate that is willing to listen to both sides to get best is what is needed. 

 Hillaryy is a very bad choice for President. The Republucan base hates her with a passion. Her bid to nationalize 1/7 of the US economy (Hillary health care) when she wasn't elected to any office then, and her voting record since then has not endeared her to them. A large number of left/Democrates dislike her too. If she did get elected (Goddess fordbid it) and brought back her husband's Cabinet, I'm not sure they would do well. Within the first few months of Clinton being inogurated he raised taxes. He also waffled on national security enough to make many people wary of him, plus he is a documented lier of epic proportion.

 The surplus was a projected one only. It never existed on anything other than paper. As for working with a Republican Congress, that was bunk. The Reps controlled the House, not the Senate, for most of his term in office. He vetoed many things, including several which were sent to him several times before he signed them, like Welfare reform that really is working. He also let OBL slip by and ignored the many years of constant attacks by OBS.

 Condi, as was Colon, is the President's mouth piece. He selects the Secutary of State, not Congress, as the Depatrtments are the President's to run.

 
Quote
And honestly, i dont think that those who voted for Bush would vote a woman into presidency. They're the same kind of people who vote for the right to bear arms (which is a very outdated idea...back in the 1700's you had to watch out for Indians, Outlaws, and were often in your towns Militia. These days, none of those are an issue), and are the kind of people who would rather kill gay people then let gay people get married. AKA rednecks and the like.

If any of you have seen a detailed map showing who voted for who in the last election, all those in big cities or with in the general area of a city voted for Kerry (even Washington DC voted for Kerry) while Bush mainly got those living in rural areas, religious fanatics, and gun wielding rednecks.

 And Bush still won. Bush got more votes than Clinton ever did on both of his elections. The Right to bear arms is not outdated. The ones trying to remove that right are the ones who do not want their populatiuon armed and able to defend itself. Every time a crime or a accident involving a gun happens, one ofn the first things I hear about is how more laws need to be passed restricting guns for people. The criminals do the crime and the innocents and legal law abiding citizens are the ones to pay for it with more laws and restrictions.
 You mischaracterize the people who voted for Bush to. I voted for Bush, and I am a transgendered bi-sexual woman. I do not want to kill gays. I support gay marriage. I support stem cell research of all types. I support many non-'Republican' things, but I do support them on Nat Security, the Bill of Rights, tax laws and other things.

 Elandra is correct, the right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment) is an important one. If that is taken away, soon others would be, like the Freedom to practice your religion and free speech among them.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2006, 11:14:13 PM »
 B ush had something handed to him that Clinton never did. 9-11. That attack devatated the US economy and required a reaction. Afghanistan was the result of that. Iraq soon followed after. A war, especially a modern war, needs alot of money to fight, so that is where a good deal of the spending it going too. However it is not as bad as it looks economic wise. the economy is doing veryh well. Unemployment is down well below 5%, revenue is pouring into the Congressional Budget Office at a large pace than ever in the boom Clinton years and the Dow Jones closed over 12,100 today.

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2006, 11:21:16 PM »
Ashera, who says that Bill Clinton was popular world wide?

The first Gulf war was as unpopular here as the second is now, we bloody well know that this is money and not ethics, we know why certain middle eatern rulers were placed into power and by whom and we now know why they are wanted out.
Good grief, just because someone served in the militery doesn't mean that they know bugger all about tactics or anything else for that matter, that's what advisers and experts are for.


Elandra, I personally would not trust a word that Ms. Rice said. Her policy of blame first then mumble a quiet retraction later sickens me.....

 

Online Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2006, 11:40:44 PM »
Addressing the thing on Bush 9/11,  yes Afganistan was needed, it was  a training ground for terrorists.  Yet even it is not the reason for the budgets debt that is Iraq,  a dictator that hated us,  and mouthed off sure, but the natural enemy of the ones we should be going after.  Their was a reason Iran and Irag fought a 8 year war.   

Second, if we really wanted to be doing something.  How come are allies are suffering with terrorist attacks from terrorists trained in pakistan.  Yet we do nothing, yet oh Bin hides in their mountains. 

Now on to Bill, I am not talking about popularity of people like you Elvi,  I am talking about the politicians and dilplomats.   This I get from watching the news service shows on sunday morning on demand, such as  bbc.  And perhaps a different choice of words.  Not so much like, but that he will listen,  not come in and say my way or the highway mentality.   

5% lowest unemployement rates.  And tell that to the union workers being brought out,  loosing their sercuritys and retirement as companies downsize.  Tell that to the Grandmother that has to get a job, cause her retirement has been wiped.   Tell that to the Airline workers that had their retirement just wiped.   Numbers can be decieving and misleading.   And as far as sexual orientation, that has no baring on who you like.  Nor does it matter to me. 

And finally I am not advocating I am right, just stating my opinion.  It could be wrong, and others can be right.  But I at least listen, and think.  I will at times try to offer up a devils advocate. 

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2006, 12:06:44 AM »
Wasn't speaking as 'people like me', yes Clinton listened then he still went and did what the hell he liked.

You have raised a great many points that I would like to redress, Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular, however, I feel that this would end in yet another slagging match, (and not neccesserily with yourself Asherah), so will bow out now.

Offline Elandra

Re: Hillary for President??http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?action=help
« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2006, 12:09:20 AM »
Elvi, I agree with you completely...Dr Rice is a scary person.

Zakharra, we can debate all day and all night on the reasons to go into the Iraq. My personal view, the Administration should have waited for the U.N. The simple fact is that the Bush Administration entered into a war without a clear exit strategy. There was no question that the war would be won, but what after? The U.S. is looking a long-term solution with its troops tied up in a country that is perhaps not the greatest threat to it. 

As for the low unemployment rate, perhaps you have forgotten that in most if not all the years that Bush has been President, the U.S. economy has run at a deficit, one of the Clinton administration's greatest accomplishments was balancing the budget and even running at a surplus.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2006, 09:20:41 AM »
5% lowest unemployement rates.  And tell that to the union workers being brought out,  loosing their sercuritys and retirement as companies downsize.  Tell that to the Grandmother that has to get a job, cause her retirement has been wiped.   Tell that to the Airline workers that had their retirement just wiped.   Numbers can be decieving and misleading.   And as far as sexual orientation, that has no baring on who you like.  Nor does it matter to me. 

And finally I am not advocating I am right, just stating my opinion.  It could be wrong, and others can be right.  But I at least listen, and think.  I will at times try to offer up a devils advocate. 

 If this weas a Democratic Presidency, those figures would be lauded. They are better than anything that Clinton had in his terms of office. The tax cuts helped alot to make that happen. Real growth, unlike the fake growth that was the Dot.Com bubble that popped. People loose their securities all the time. Businesses grow, change and die. It's the natural selection of the market. If the businesses cannot survive in a business enviroment, then they do not deserve to survive.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2006, 01:17:34 PM »
I look past the unemployment rate... to who have fallen past that rate into welfare, is it down or up?

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #34 on: October 24, 2006, 01:31:55 PM »
No Barack Obama from the great state of Illinois is the Democrats best hope in 2008. He is young, open minded, a poltician of the next generation and a level headed politician that will put the duty of President first.

So lets hear it for President Obama it has a nice amercian ring to it.  ;D

Barack needs more time in the Senate and to build Political Capital. He's only 2 years into his first Senate Term and doesn't have the experience to become president. His best bet is to wait until the next time around. He doesn't appeal enough to the far left either.

As for Bill Clinton as Hillary's VP, technically he could, but if something happened to her, he couldn't succeed her as President. It's pretty cut and dry that anyone elected to two terms as president cannot be president again.

Quote
As all Vice Presidents must adhere to the same constitutional requirement as that of the President, if a president has been elected twice, such as Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, those individuals are not eligible for the office of Vice President in a future administration, since they are not eligible to seek the office of President again. It is theoretically possible though, for a future administration to nominate one of them as a cabinet member, and have them succeed to the presidency if the president, vice president and other officials preceding them in the chain of command are unable to carry out the duties of the presidency.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2006, 06:47:22 PM »
I look past the unemployment rate... to who have fallen past that rate into welfare, is it down or up?

 Compared, percentage wise of the population, to the 90's, it's down.

 
As for Bill Clinton as Hillary's VP, technically he could, but if something happened to her, he couldn't succeed her as President. It's pretty cut and dry that anyone elected to two terms as president cannot be president again.


 I don't think he'd be allowed to be elected if he's in the line of succession to the Presidency.

Online Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2006, 06:56:21 PM »
Compared, percentage wise of the population, to the 90's, it's down.

Is their facts that is no bipartism from either side, but a truely neutral site that lists such facts. 

Now I found this, which shows clearly the proverty rate declined prior to the so called boom of this adminstration, prior to 2000 yet from that time it once again has been on the rise. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04fig03.pdf

I do believe this is pretty non-partism. 

Online Jefepato

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #37 on: October 24, 2006, 08:05:20 PM »
I don't think he'd be allowed to be elected if he's in the line of succession to the Presidency.

It is possible to be in the line of succession without being eligible to be President -- several people are now.  They would just be skipped if succession proceeds that far.  Not sure if the rules for the Vice President specifically are different, though.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?action=help
« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2006, 08:47:35 PM »
Elvi, I agree with you completely...Dr Rice is a scary person.

Zakharra, we can debate all day and all night on the reasons to go into the Iraq. My personal view, the Administration should have waited for the U.N. The simple fact is that the Bush Administration entered into a war without a clear exit strategy. There was no question that the war would be won, but what after? The U.S. is looking a long-term solution with its troops tied up in a country that is perhaps not the greatest threat to it.†

As for the low unemployment rate, perhaps you have forgotten that in most if not all the years that Bush has been President, the U.S. economy has run at a deficit, one of the Clinton administration's greatest accomplishments was balancing the budget and even running at a surplus.

Excuse me what War? The Congress never formally declared war on Iraq or on any other group in this Conflict hence we are not in a state of war. And won what are you smoking all we did was depose the one leader that kept the lid on this religious firestorm we are unleashing. Hussain was not a threat to the United States he was contained as for His People being in danger well lots of leaders now are decimating their populations we have no obligation to them. Afganistan sure Al Queda was there we HAD TO invade in a police action which we also didn't commit enough to to do the job and are losing there as well.

And I voted today we have early voting in FLorida proudly Democrat right down the line. But if Hillary ran in 08 I'm going to have a hard time voting for her in good conscious but likely would since she is the lesser of two evils. But what choice do I have in that case? (sigh-  :()

Offline Elandra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #39 on: October 24, 2006, 10:24:11 PM »
It would appear I gave you the wrong impression. I disagree with the reasons the Bush administration decided to invade and depose Hussein. I however do not think the United States can pull their army out of Iraq without creating a greater problem.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2006, 10:44:06 PM »
I think you are sadly correct elandra... they may push us out. It's coming undone very fast...† ::)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2006, 12:35:32 AM by halspeedyrp »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?action=help
« Reply #41 on: October 25, 2006, 12:17:16 AM »
Excuse me what War? The Congress never formally declared war on Iraq or on any other group in this Conflict hence we are not in a state of war. And won what are you smoking all we did was depose the one leader that kept the lid on this religious firestorm we are unleashing. Hussain was not a threat to the United States he was contained as for His People being in danger well lots of leaders now are decimating their populations we have no obligation to them. Afganistan sure Al Queda was there we HAD TO invade in a police action which we also didn't commit enough to to do the job and are losing there as well.

And I voted today we have early voting in FLorida proudly Democrat right down the line. But if Hillary ran in 08 I'm going to have a hard time voting for her in good conscious but likely would since she is the lesser of two evils. But what choice do I have in that case? (sigh-  :()

 The votes by Congress to go into Afhganistan and Iraq (both which passed overwhelmingly) are all that is needed for war. Especiallly the first one where Congress gave the president the authorization to go anhd do what was neccessry. There is no specific way that war has to be declared by the Constitution. War has been declared.

 
Quote
As for the low unemployment rate, perhaps you have forgotten that in most if not all the years that Bush has been President, the U.S. economy has run at a deficit, one of the Clinton administration's greatest accomplishments was balancing the budget and even running at a surplus.

 Clinton was not fighting a war either. The deficit is a separate issue from the unemployment and taxes. It is purely an issue of too much spending. The surplus that clinton had was a projected one out for 10 years, assuming that the Dot.Com bubble would stay fulll and not collapse like it did.

Online Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2006, 01:28:50 AM »
Actually what do you call Bosnia, however it was done with a coalition much as the first gulf war was done. 

Now we can all debate whether something is called a war or a police action.  But I really don't think it makes a difference to those dying no matter who.   

What troubles me more is the quick cry back to 9/11,  the so called republican campaign ads that hint that if they're not elected.   A dirty bomb will happen.    Last I check the defination of terror was to terrorize.   They do a better job then the real ones do.  Like take the annoucement of a hoax from some geek in wisconin.   Homeland security even said it had no merit when it was released.   So this false illusion we would be better off with a republican to lead us through hard times and a war is a fallecy.   Besides was it not democrats of Roosvelt and Truman that guided us through ww 2.     No party does not matter, only intelligent true leaders that don't play political partism games.   

The other is the amount of outright desperate lies.  In my state the democrat representive canidate for one district.  Is coming under attack by the republican committe for supporting giving ammenisty to all  illigel immigrants.   Thus costing tax payers 50 billion in tax dollars.  Supporting a supposed plan of Teddy Kennedys.   This thou is not the truth, she who is indeed a Irag war veteran who has lost a leg for her country.  And gee a democrat that was in the military supporting her country.    She like Baraka, support the John McCain plan for the dealing with it.  Who I might add is probley the republican front runner for president.   

Who in if the congress falls to the democrats, I may take a good look at for president.  For I truely believe the best goverment is a balanced goverment that has to work at all sides. 

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2006, 02:11:02 AM »
Quote
  She like Baraka, support the John McCain plan for the dealing with it.  Who I might add is probley the republican front runner for president.   

 She supports an  illegal immigration plan that the majority of Americans do not want. Over 60%, closer to 70%, of americans do not want the Bush/Senate plan for dealing with illegal immigration.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2006, 01:13:41 PM »
John McCain won't get elected if he supports Amnesty. Especially given that his own state's population is overwhemlmingly against it.

Any Republican that wants to win with the Republican Base in 2008 as the Presidential Candidate will have to support the House Plan on Immigration. It would be political suicide to go against what a majority of Americans believe on this issue.

Offline MagicalPen

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #45 on: October 25, 2006, 05:12:57 PM »
Re; What I said about Guns

Its one thing to go and buy some form of Pistol, but its an entirely different thing when you but an Uzzi or an AK47. Not to mention how easy it is to procur such a gun. "Back in the day" the only real guns out their were muskets or Rifles, which werent very accurate (hense everyone getting in a line and firing en masse) or all that powerful. Technology has advanced, of course, but some weapons just shouldnt belong amongst Civilians (and especially amongst gangs).

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2006, 06:43:27 PM »
Re; What I said about Guns

Its one thing to go and buy some form of Pistol, but its an entirely different thing when you but an Uzzi or an AK47. Not to mention how easy it is to procur such a gun. "Back in the day" the only real guns out their were muskets or Rifles, which werent very accurate (hense everyone getting in a line and firing en masse) or all that powerful. Technology has advanced, of course, but some weapons just shouldnt belong amongst Civilians (and especially amongst gangs).

 What about hunting rifles? Single shot, or lever action? bolt action? Ex-military rifles from WWII? WWI? Civilian copies of the M-16 and other modern military rifles?

Offline MagicalPen

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #47 on: October 25, 2006, 06:47:21 PM »
Hunting Rifles are mainly used for Hunting. Though people dont rely on hunting as a staple food source these days, most people who buy a gun to go kill some one dont use them. WWI and WWII era rifles are generally harder to come by, along with ammunition for both. The M-16 is one of the worst Assault Rifles ever developed. Its prone to jamming amongst other things, and doesnt fire around as powerful, as accurately, or as far as an AK47. Generally, people arent buying them either but i dont think Assault Rifles should be available to Civilians. Who can honestly say that they need an Assault Rifle for self-defense?

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #48 on: October 25, 2006, 06:59:24 PM »
 Many do say they have a need for it for defense, amny also have them for the fun of target shooting. You can buy or have made ammunition for WWi/II rifles easily. There are millions of rounds left over and they can be readily reloaded.  The M-16 is a decent rifle now. It's earlier issue in Vietnam was problematic, but it's quite reliable now days.
 Besides, It's my right as an American to own a gun. Wether it's a pistol, rifle, ex military or otherwise, it's my Right.

Offline ZK

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #49 on: October 26, 2006, 01:36:26 PM »
I say hell with it all. I'm getting out of this country.