We're in the middle of a congressional season, but its never too early to take a look at the upcoming presidential race. As seen in recent years, liberals have moved from nominating inept presidents like clinton, mondale, and carter to nominating stronger liberals, using slogans like "money for jobs, not war" or "money for education, not war", both areas in which the government should not be active (creating jobs and driving education, we've seen these examples fail over and over). Socialism is creeping into the US thanks to the moveon.org crowd and the typical anti-war crowd. We all know that Hillary Clinton, one of the worst of the socialists, is more than likely going to be the democrat. Now, who out there is the strongest conservative for the job? who will keep us from drifting towards the left? McCain worries me, as he is seemingly a "RINO". Giuliani favors abortion and has not come out on many fiscal issues. Rice has not come out on any issues not related to foreign affairs. Who do we know will be the best for the job, who is strong in their convictions? Discuss.

If youre just going to troll or not discuss the issue seriously (this is aimed at people on both sides on this board who just want to sabotage topics, like treetwista), please STAY OUT.

7/31/2006 11:29:52 PM

oh you wont need me to fuck up this thread, trust me

7/31/2006 11:31:28 PM

ha, i want to see where this goes

stay out, plz

7/31/2006 11:32:40 PM

Your first problem is labeling Bill Clinton as inept. Your second is labeling Hillary a liberal. We'll leave "socialist" alone. She's about as right as you can get in the Dems without being named Liberman.

Anyway, your whole premise sucks and TreeTwista is actually right on this one.

7/31/2006 11:33:38 PM

you're right, i never have anything on topic to say, all i do is fuck up threads...if i dont post back in this thread nobody will nail all your anti-liberal speech in the first post and throw in tons of trolling comments of sarcasm...not as long as i'm not in the thread

7/31/2006 11:33:39 PM

if clinton is inept

bush would be?

7/31/2006 11:39:05 PM

bush cant run again, he was already elected to two terms

liberals always talking about bush this and bush that

7/31/2006 11:40:03 PM

Treetwister : 1

Randy's anti liberal, socialist, everything thats wrong with our country, flame bait, thread : 0

7/31/2006 11:43:20 PM

Apparently The Big Girl is unable to differentiate between political ideologies if they're anything left of National Socialism

7/31/2006 11:45:18 PM

Quote :

"Your first problem is labeling Bill Clinton as inept. Your second is labeling Hillary a liberal. We'll leave "socialist" alone. She's about as right as you can get in the Dems without being named Liberman. "

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck061903.shtml

on her socialized medicine plan

Quote :

"Mrs. Clinton is also associated with the fiasco dubbed “Hillarycare,” the Clinton Administration Socialized medicine scheme that failed to pass Congress. But Mrs. Clinton, who has been greatly underestimated by her critics, has learned her lesson. The plan went down because she did not have big business on her side. In moving forward with her international Socialist agenda, and the transformation of the United Nations and its agencies into a global state, she has enlisted critical support from the U.S. business and religious communities."

interview w/ prominent Hillary biographer:

Quote :

"Barbara Olson, author of Hell to Pay. The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Regnery Publishing, Inc. 1999), is a prominent Washington attorney who served as a congressional investigator and as a general counsel in the United States Senate. She was interviewed by Cliff Kincaid, president of America’s Survival, on December 8, 2000. What follows is an edited transcript of that interview. Q: Do you believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Marxist? A: I believe she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism. In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology...But when you look at her ideas on health and education, you see more government and less individual control. You see very little regard for families... Q: Do you see Hillary as in favor of Socialist-style thinking at the global level? A: We saw that with her activities as First Lady. She traveled more than any other First Lady. She had a global view. She spoke at the Beijing conference on women. She was very active in organizations and conferences that seem to be concerned about human rights but which are also directed toward a centralized governmental view. That is, one world. I looked at her travels and saw what she was doing. I always assumed Hillary was going to run for president. And I assumed that these international travels and her work with the Beijing women’s conference and the U.N. were going to be her way into the White House; that she was going to have a foreign policy platform that not many women have... Q: So you do believe that she will run for president? A: I do. She believes her ideology to the core. She’s worked for it behind Bill Clinton for years. I have thought that Hillary was going to run for the White House since 1993 when I started investigating the Clintons. She doesn’t compromise. She doesn’t come to the center. She believes in a true leftist, Socialist kind of government. Q: She portrays her causes such as children’s rights and women’s rights in such an attractive manner. She has put conservatives on the defensive once again. A: She has. That’s the central focus of her public relations campaign...But her ideas about health care and education have very little to do with women and children. They are the lever she uses to bring the government into the family. Q: She’s been pushing treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Isn’t she promoting global government? A: Yes.We all know about her book, It Takes a Village. She says the future is not family but the larger village of teachers, pediatricians and social workers. She talks about raising children as less of a parental task than a social one...You have the destruction of the family unit. That’s very basic when you study Socialism and Marxism. (30)"

on backing communist regimes through her support for the World Federalist Movement:

Quote :

"In particular, the WFA and its officials strongly opposed the policy of assisting Nicaraguan freedom fighters who were opposing the Soviet- and Cuban-backed Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship. A suit filed by the WFA with the U.N.’s International Court of Justice had declared U.S. support of the freedom fighters, known as “Contras,” to be a violation of international law. If the U.S. had complied with this dictate, Nicaragua would have remained a Communist dictatorship and Communism could have taken over all of Central America. But the Reagan policy forced the Sandinistas into holding free elections that the Communists lost. This defeat led to the Communists in El Salvador giving up their armed struggle and making peace with the government. "

7/31/2006 11:47:11 PM

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/ireland/040706

Quote :

"The Bush tax cuts enabled America to climb out of the Clinton recession despite the financial devastations of 9/11 and stock market downturns. Ten straight months of economic progress and job creation have made the economy robust. So it is incongruous that Hillary Clinton would tell a San Francisco audience recently that Democrats will rescind the Bush tax cuts for the "common good." "

why would she want to turn back tax cuts?

7/31/2006 11:48:34 PM

^^there are so many things wrong w/ that last blurb i dont even know where to start. just go talk to Dr. Moxley in rural sociology here at state. he was in Nicaragua through the revolution, sandinista years, and the contra troubles. it was always a democracy, you twat.

7/31/2006 11:50:24 PM

Ahah.

This unofficial biographer of Clinton says she's a commie.

This uncited source says that the Sandinistas were communist dictators.

And this blog proves that Bush's Tax cuts were responsible for bringing us out of (Clinton's? ) recession.

8/1/2006 12:14:08 AM

Randy, you should be thrown out of NCSU for even suggesting any of these are credible sources

8/1/2006 12:19:03 AM

all of the first set of quotes were from the first link.

im interested in hearing how mediamatters.com and moveon.org are "legitimate sources". tell me again, how was the war in iraq "for oil"?

there is a reason why ann coulter is so successful. when liberals get called out, they go mad and fly into a frenzy of anti-conservative nonsense. its entertaining to many of us.

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:32:03 AM

wtf does that have to do with this?

since when has anyone on this board taken moveon seriously?

since when does mediamatters do anything but post transcripts and videos? Do they falsify these things?

8/1/2006 12:35:21 AM

Quote :

"If youre just going to troll or not discuss the issue seriously (this is aimed at people on both sides on this board who just want to sabotage topics, like treetwista), please STAY OUT."

I AM A TROLL BUT PLEASE DONT TROLL ME

8/1/2006 12:36:00 AM

^^do they not post commentaries critiquing conservatives exclusively?

nice to see all the liberals ganging up on me as usual. lets get back to the subject: who will you people be backing in 2008?

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:38 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:36:41 AM

hiccup

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 12:39 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 12:38:57 AM

Are the videos somehow fabricated? Is it like a CGI Bill O'Reilly saying all that stupid shit?

8/1/2006 12:39:20 AM

can things be taken out of context? can jokes be taken seriously? apparently so.

8/1/2006 12:40:44 AM

Look, you might think youre some kind of "moderate" or something on here, but you are only compared to those unwashed masses which are driving groups like moveon and other socialist organizations into the mainstream of america. there is a very real threat of this.







[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 1:02:43 AM

San Francisco deserves a terrorist attack.

8/1/2006 1:03:47 AM

humor is lost on you i guess

8/1/2006 1:08:43 AM

terrorist attacks are funny

8/1/2006 1:09:43 AM

not nearly as funny as people who think raising the minimum wage will make for a strong economy, among other liberal misnomers.

8/1/2006 1:11:52 AM

No, O'Reilly's statement is funnier because it involves wishing death on innocent people.

8/1/2006 1:15:27 AM

and it was a joke. sorry if it wasnt nice enough for you.

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 1:17:11 AM

Quote :

"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead"

comedic gold

I especially loved his dead-serious delivery.

[Edited on August 1, 2006 at 1:21 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2006 1:21:00 AM

someone's sense of humor is not the same as mine! oh no!

8/1/2006 1:22:03 AM

OH NO!

8/1/2006 1:23:34 AM

If I came out in the first post and talked about how important it was to win back congress for the "progressives" in that first post, i bet you a million dollars you wouldnt have attacked me.

8/1/2006 1:28:09 AM

I honestly can't see how anyone in America who makes less than $100k a year is any better off than they were before 2000.

8/1/2006 2:04:56 AM

8/1/2006 2:32:10 AM

Quote :

"I honestly can't see how anyone in America who makes less than $100k a year is any better off than they were before 2000."

Your statement may or may not be true, I suspect it is not true. However, even if it is, it would have nothing to do with the Presidency and everything to do with the incessant productivity boom of the 2000s. Even at almost 5% annual growth the economy just isn't producing sufficient numbers of jobs to keep the job market functioning properly (A shortage of entrepreneurial activity if I had to say anything). It is the 1900s all over again... Hopefully it won't last the whole decade. Regardless, there is nothing to government can do about it but keep inflation in check and hope for the best.

8/1/2006 8:57:04 AM

Quote :

"there is nothing to government can do about it but keep inflation in check and hope for the best"

Not creating tax cuts for the rich and wasting money on a useless war would have been a good start.

8/1/2006 9:08:43 AM

To answer the question originally posed:

The Republican side of the primaries will be a clusterfuck of at least 9 candidates that vary from "old school Republicans" to "Bush-supporting neocons." All 9 of them will be cynical assholes that will parade gay rights around as if that is the greatest threat to democracy in the known universe and they will cannibalize each other in their quest for the nod.

The Democrats will see Kerry and Clinton with a cast of less likely but much, much better candidates(I really wish Edwards could erase his involvement with he Kerry campaign). Eventually, the Democrats will chicken out and go with someone they think is "safe" rather than someone with vision.

The Democrats' "safe" candidate will loose to the Republicans' asshole and I'll be left waiting for a 3rd party that doesn't suck total dick.

Clinton isn't a communist. She's barely a socialist.

Socialized Healthcare makes more sense than cutting the estate tax, that's for damn sure.

8/1/2006 10:06:26 AM

Umm...no it doesn't, but I agree with your political players assessment for the most part.

However, neither McCain or Guiliani (the biggest players by the time primaries come around) will play the gay rights card.

This is why Democrats lose though,

Republicans have a bad image, but good basic support. They will put up a centrist republican candidate. The democrats will put up a pathetic leftists (paging Mrs. Clinton) and the right-leaning democrats will not stand for it. The wack-jobs of the left love it. The moderate-but-still-liberal democrats will be okay with it. The conservative democrats will think its horse-shit and will vote fot the Centrist republican candidate.

If the democats want to win, they simply need to put up a centrist candidate. He doesn't have to be as Right as Lieberman, but for God sake it can't be Hillary. Even if you think she's only mildly socialist, most of the countries voters think she is insane.

(Hell, I know a WAY FAR LEFT vegan, abortion-rights activist that won't vote for Hillary Clinton because of her stance on healthcare...she said she'd simply abstain)

8/1/2006 10:16:26 AM

As someone who sits waaay to the left on almost every issue, let me go on record as saying that I will do whatever I need to in order to keep Hillary away from the nomination. My support for socialized medicine aside, I've seen who she's climbed in bed with(figuratively, in this case) and know that taking care of those fucks will prevent her from doing anything worthwhile. The only thing she really has going for her is how much she pisses off redneck dickholes that are somehow theatened by the thought of a woman with any kind of power.

Let me also say, for the record, that if she does get the nomination she has my vote barring something revolutionary(like, really revolutionary...not Nader claiming to be revolutionary) coming out of the previously-mentioned third party front.

8/1/2006 10:42:59 AM

honestly, china and russia are just asking for a beat down right now

they keep blocking all our un resolutions and shit, i bet they eventually side with iran and north korea, or atleast i hope they do, so we can blow them ALL up

8/1/2006 10:51:15 AM

actually china and russia were both instrumental in recently giving iran a deadline to stop its nuclear program

^^if hillary gets the nomination and wins (god help us), they shouldnt let bill in the white house...cause presidents cant serve more than 2 terms and you know he'd be running shit

8/1/2006 11:06:30 AM

I hope clinton gets nominated and wins

not really because I like her, more because redneck republican hucklebucks hate her so much, so it's sweet justice for 2 terms of bush.

8/1/2006 11:11:52 AM

WHAT ABOUT CLINTON/CLINTON FOR 08?

8/1/2006 11:13:34 AM

this thread is just inane and the worst dribble I've seen in a loong loong time.


Randy I'm sorry to say but you are the exactly what Karl Rove cited earlier this week in his speech to GWU. You're not stupid, and you can easily form and rationalize your own opinions. Yet you are so obessed with labels, being part of the 1-mind party, and shudder at the fact of government not controlling people, you are the perfect GOP stoogie.

Quote :

"not nearly as funny as people who think raising the minimum wage will make for a strong economy, among other liberal misnomers."

The fact that you ignore how inflation has what tripled since 1993, the last minimum wage increase when Congress was Democratic, and its all about the economy is laughable.

You know what nevermind, having a intelligent debate with you over this will be pointless and unattainable.

BearWhoDrive I agree with you 2nd to last post. just fyi.

8/1/2006 11:13:48 AM

Quote :

"I hope clinton gets nominated and wins not really because I like her"

well thats a great reason

^also the economy is in pretty good shape...its easy to look at debt numbers and not percentage of GDP to spin it to your side...the economy being in good shape is just overshadowed by the war on terror

8/1/2006 11:17:04 AM

Quote :

"the worst dribble I've seen in a loong loong time. "

speak english much?

8/1/2006 11:24:39 AM

Quote :

"I hope clinton gets nominated and wins not really because I like her, more because redneck republican hucklebucks hate her so much, so it's sweet justice for 2 terms of bush. "

ahhahahhahha i never thought of it like that but honestly i'd like her to win for that very reason as well

8/1/2006 11:32:13 AM

lets pardon Saddam Hussein for his war crimes and dismiss all international charges

then he can be our President since all the liberals think he would be a better leader than Bush

8/1/2006 11:35:37 AM

^Trolling much?

8/1/2006 11:47:00 AM

BTW, it really doesn't matter who wins as politicians on both sides are scumbags and won't be working for the American people anyway. The only person who I could see myself supporting would be Ron Paul and since he isn't a corporate bitch or a special interest whore, he has no chance. I don't even think I'll bother voting as it will be a complete waste of time.

8/1/2006 11:56:59 AM