JimBob2232 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 The first minute or so is weird... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Wow! What a difference a few years make. Hillary sounded very Bush-like on Iraq. Watching that video is a good reminder that when one speaks, one speaks not just for the present, but for posterity. As for that pink group . . . yes in hindsight they look smart for having opposed the Iraq war. But I get the feeling this group would indiscriminately oppose all wars, whether wise or foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Code Pink is an ultra leftist (communist) group. I have personally had an interaction with Suzie " Medea " Benjamin, the scrawny blond creature at the beginning of the clip. She tried to disrupt an Arnold Schwartenegger campaign stop I was at. I was yelling in her face. Benjamin was one of those that was going to be a "human shield" before the war. They are the idiots that were "supporting the troops" by protesting outside of Walter Reed (before they forgot to renew their permit and got displaced by Free Republic pro-troop people). They are the idiots manipulating Cindy Sheehan. For Christmas they were planning a trip to Cuba to see the "wonderful health care system" and other things. The State department reminded them that travel to Cuba is illegal and they may have some trouble getting back in. Most politicians have the sense to go nowhere near these loons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I don't think that any sane person would vote for Hillary unless he or she actually WANTS a tax increase. She made her position on that very clear at the end of the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 The first minute or so is weird... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8 I couldn't clear the hurdle of the singing part of that video. That being said, Hillary says she based her decision on Bush's statements about the immediate and impending threat of Hussein and his WMDs. I buy that. We had to trust that the intelligence was right but in fact it was wrong. Someone should take the blame for this but Bush refused to point fingers. As payback for a horrid intel gaffe that got us into a nightmare war, Americans chose to vote Republicans out of office in 2006 and will have the chance to do so again in 2008. Americans feel mislead--most supported the war back then and now don't. Don't underestimate people's sympathy for her position. The Iraq war had something like 90+% approval in its infancy. Now it barely gets 35%. People feel as mislead as Hillary. I don't know if she'll win but at the moment, her support for the war and now anger over feeling mislead reflects what a lot of people feel. And also don't forget this: where Bush had the genius of Rove guiding his political hand, Hillary has Bill, who is equally adept at navigating political waters. She's smart and aggressive. She could win. I don't think a sane person could vote Republican unless they want a tax increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I was asking people about this same exact issue yesterday. Some people wanted to hear Hillary apologize this past weekend in Iowa for having voted on the war back in 2002, but an overwhelming majority had forgiven her because of the fact that she and the rest of the American people (politicians included) were mislead by the incorrect intelligence that the Bush Administration provided. Other people have written it off as another politician talking out of both sides of their mouths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I don't think that any sane person would vote for Hillary unless he or she actually WANTS a tax increase. She made her position on that very clear at the end of the video. How else are the record federal debt and deficits rolled up by the "economic conservatives", Bush and the Republican congress, going to be payed for? Entitlement programs can't be cut enough to make up the difference. We're all going to have to pay the price for Bush's budgets and deficit-creating tax cuts. Businesses did pretty good in the late '90s before the cuts, they'll do so again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 How else are the record federal debt and deficits rolled up by the "economic conservatives", Bush and the Republican congress, going to be payed for? Entitlement programs can't be cut enough to make up the difference. We're all going to have to pay the price for Bush's budgets and deficit-creating tax cuts. Businesses did pretty good in the late '90s before the cuts, they'll do so again. Are you telling me that you personally desire to pay more taxes? You can do that now, no? Skip a few deductions that you are entitled to. Support your cause with action, rather than tired rhetoric. Btw, when you say "all," is that what you truly mean? Do you want each and every taxpayer to pay more? Or, at what exact income would you draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Wow! What a difference a few years make. Hillary sounded very Bush-like on Iraq. Watching that video is a good reminder that when one speaks, one speaks not just for the present, but for posterity. She must have been relying on "bad data" from the Bush Administration even back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Free Republic pro-troop people So why did you people send those fake anthrax letters out to people last November? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 So why did you people send those fake anthrax letters out to people last November? What the F are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Are you telling me that you personally desire to pay more taxes? You can do that now, no? Skip a few deductions that you are entitled to. Support your cause with action, rather than tired rhetoric. Btw, when you say "all," is that what you truly mean? Do you want each and every taxpayer to pay more? Or, at what exact income would you draw the line? Life is a "give and take." No... But, I don't mind... I live well below my means and it (taxes) by no means is "breaking me"... And yes, I do skip some deductions that I am entitled to, namely child-care and weekly church donations (not that I don't keep records... )... Just too much of a hassle for what it is worth... And every little bit helps right? So is my part helping? BTW, I love to see them audit me... They would wish they didn't... I would probably come out ahead... The point is, for it to work... Like it or not... All should be forced to pay... How else are things going to be rectified? Seems my few grand or so in "chump change" isn't helping? A unified front would help... Right? Consider yourself patriotic (maybe to some, idiotic )... And cut some extranneous spending out of our lives here in America... Ah... But what the heck... You are just gonna waste it sending it to the gov't, so to some they should just spend it on themselves... NewsFlash, the money has already been spent and the bills are coming due... What should we do as Americans? Delay, delay, don't pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Are you telling me that you personally desire to pay more taxes? You can do that now, no? Skip a few deductions that you are entitled to. Support your cause with action, rather than tired rhetoric. Btw, when you say "all," is that what you truly mean? Do you want each and every taxpayer to pay more? Or, at what exact income would you draw the line? "All" means anyone at my level of pay or above, including myself, even though I'm making much less than I was two years ago when my company closed and moved manufacturing operations to China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 She's already toast. Government Health Care anyone? That single issue alone will end her campaign. All the compassion of the IRS. All the competence of the DMV. Welcome to government health care. Ask a veteran whether they'd go to a civilian doc or a base doc. Bet it's 90/10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 "All" means anyone at my level of pay or above, including myself, even though I'm making much less than I was two years ago when my company closed and moved manufacturing operations to China. Does your breath always smell like vomitus or is that just my imagination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Life is a "give and take." No... But, I don't mind... I live well below my means and it (taxes) by no means is "breaking me"... And yes, I do skip some deductions that I am entitled to, namely child-care and weekly church donations (not that I don't keep records... )... Just too much of a hassle for what it is worth... And every little bit helps right? So is my part helping? I wish more people had the unselfish attitude displayed in your post. The problem is the people in Washington. Yes Tom, that includes you. The sole cause of the federal deficit is the absence of spending discipline. Well, you might say, the deficit could actually be corrected either by cutting spending or by increasing revenue. No. If you increased revenue while keeping the level of federal spending discipline the same, the government would simply spend more. The deficit cannot be meaningfully addressed until you create an environment of spending discipline. Reagan tried to do that in the '80s through his tax cuts. Democrats categorically refused any form of spending discipline whatsoever, except when it came to border security or the military. If Reagan lacked the power to cut spending directly, he could at least push through large tax cuts. Lower taxes plus rapidly increasing levels of Democrat-led spending created massive deficits. It became clear we had to do something. Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party took control of the House in 1994. The Republicans led the way in spending reform; including welfare reform and the line-item veto. Unfortunately, all that discipline went out the window once Bush took office. In Buffalo, if you want to say a little thank-you to someone, you buy him a dinner or something. In Washington, saying a little thank-you to someone could easily involve spending millions or billions of dollars of government money. That means your money and my money. Until strict limits are placed on that culture, we will incur massive deficits. And I don't think the outcry for fiscal displine will be strong enough until things get worse than they already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Does your breath always smell like vomitus or is that just my imagination? It's just your imagination that's vomitus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 It's just your imagination that's vomitus. an uninspired and insufficient retort to AD's quip in layman terms, you got pwnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 She's already toast. Government Health Care anyone? That single issue alone will end her campaign. All the compassion of the IRS. All the competence of the DMV. Welcome to government health care. Ask a veteran whether they'd go to a civilian doc or a base doc. Bet it's 90/10. lol, that'll bring her down? C'mon Darin, you're overestimating people. My official position is that the government should compete and allow people to buy health care plans through them, helping people who otherwise couldn't get insurance. They'd suck at actually giving out healthcare by having their own doctors and sh--. Hell, I'm not opposed to the Bush plan of tax credits, I think its a great idea, I just don't know enough about it yet. But you of all people should know that it wouldn't bring down her campaign. She could make it look sexy and as if it'd really make a difference. Besides, she can just distract people with what they think are the one or two biggest issues to vote on. Distraction issues®, like Abortion, or the Iraq War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 She's already toast. Government Health Care anyone? That single issue alone will end her campaign. Oh, is it still 1993? I thought a few years had gone by. Actually the chances of us getting socialized medicine are increasing as more people are coming on board to the idea. Also, if Hillary is running against McCain, she does have a chance. Has McCain ever seen a war he didn't like? Remember he wanted to send in the ground forces to Kosovo in 1998. The country doesn't want another war and that will help miss tight lips. Hillary will say damn near little to nothing before the election. She will run the Bush 2000 campaign, basically. I'm not saying she will win but she will have a good chance to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts