TheUnknown 39 Posted June 14, 2007 Good point. I was gonna say he's just a Libertarian extremist. One of those guys who think government intervention is ALWAYS bad...unless it's pork barrel spending for his district. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted July 9, 2007 For the love of god, would my fellow Democrats wake up and realize that Hillary Clinton is both the least trustworthy and the least electable of the top four Democrats (Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Clinton)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ender 8 Posted July 9, 2007 She's evil. I hate living under her control. Demon woman. And was I the only one who found it incredibly funny that the Clintons compared themselves to a notorious crime family? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted July 10, 2007 i'm all for a woman president. that would be great. but not her. i'd almost vote for Pelosi before Hillary. almost. they're both scary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mara 29 Posted July 10, 2007 ........Pelosi??? *gags* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted July 11, 2007 note i said almost. given the choice, i'd really like a "none of the above" option. :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted July 11, 2007 I think the responses from Ender and Jm prove my point. And Hillary illicits similar reactions from many liberals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ender 8 Posted July 11, 2007 I believe the spelling is "elicit," but "illicit" certainly describes Hillary's life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted July 12, 2007 *Slays Ender for correcting his speeling.* :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ender 8 Posted July 12, 2007 *Is slain* That's not very hippy liberal of you. :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted July 12, 2007 I'm closer to the Rage Against the Machine liberal than the "let's smoke weed and listen to the Mamas and the Papas" liberal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chickenman 9 Posted July 19, 2007 The fact that the very name "Clinton" brings redness to most Republicans' faces is a bad sign. If she becomes the candidate, we lose. There is no way. And from what extremely little I know of Pelosi, she's not that bad. Unless you'd care to enlighten me? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted July 19, 2007 No, Hillary will win, but just barely. Edwards, Richardson, Obama, maybe even Dodd and Biden, would win a hell of a lot easier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ana 15 Posted July 19, 2007 I say Obama. He's got charisma, which most of the other candidates are lacking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ender 8 Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) If Hillary wins, I enact my plans and immediately run to the UK or Ireland. Of course, the same could be true of Mike Huckabee or Tancredo or any of those nutso Republicans who don't believe in evolution. Edited July 20, 2007 by Ender Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chickenman 9 Posted August 21, 2007 He's not a nut just because his religious beliefs are wrong. And he is a really funny guy. Huckabee and Colbert Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted August 23, 2007 Why are so many people so goddamn stupid as to vote for or vote against and candidate based (almost) entirely on their reproductive organs? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted August 23, 2007 hey, i'm all for a woman president. just not Hillary. that woman scares the crap outta me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted August 31, 2007 http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/tancre...2007-08-31.html Tom Tancredo is at it again. It pisses me off to hear people making six figure salaries at the taxpayer's expense act like the people in New Orleans are lazy bums looking for handouts. ewok him. Maybe if the federal government run by his own party weren't so ewoking incompetent we could get some things done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted August 31, 2007 he's right though. at some point, the federal aid is going to have to stop. i think more needs to be accomplished before that happens, and they need to make sure that those dollars are going to recovery and rebuilding. the sooner they get it done, the less money they "waste" there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted September 4, 2007 He wasn't saying "at some point." He was saying "now." That's bullsith. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ana 15 Posted September 4, 2007 ^ Agreed. Eventually, yes, the aid will need to stop. But when so many areas are still completely trashed, right now is not the time. We need some way of checking that the aid money is really getting to where it can do the most good, which I suspect is not the case right now. That, however, is absolutely not an excuse to cut off all aid before the streets are completely clear of debris. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites