What? These are your heros. America needs to do more, Americas not doing enough, whine whine blah blah....
A Bush dynasty?
#31
Posted 20 July 2005 - 11:24 AM
What? These are your heros. America needs to do more, Americas not doing enough, whine whine blah blah....
#32
Posted 21 July 2005 - 01:18 AM
Jeb may or may not be the next republican candidate - and while there was a case that Hillary Clinton would attempt a candidacy, there hasn't been much to follow that up.
From the fact that the Republicans are trying to get the 'natural-born citizen' rule cast out as an outmoded concept it's fairly obvious who an intended future candidate is - possibly not the next election, but probably soon - the Republicans are going to try and get Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for the presidency. If Jeb Bush makes a run for Presidency then there is a problem - George got in because Jeb was able to tip the Florida vote by means fair and foul - if Jeb made a run for it, who would be the Bush to have Jeb covered.
Still - if Schwarzenegger makes it, it'll make watching Demolition Man an entirely new experience again.
#34
Posted 21 July 2005 - 03:55 AM
Why? On the mere basis that she IS a WOMAN? Is that why we should vote for her, to simply have a first female president?
Would you have the Democrats vote for Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin (Yippee, an ethnic minority!) so as to have a woman president in office? Best yet, Condoleeza Rice a black woman, now that will get your gears revving..huh?
Your logic has always been flawed and quite dull. But alas, you are a chyld or at best a bloke/ laddy, or whatever you rather common British subjects call yourself.
#35
Posted 21 July 2005 - 04:57 AM
*reins in his anti-American lines with all his might*
Et tu, Bruté. But seriously, calling me by my name, or by a colloquial term for "man", isn't exactly going to push my Angry buttons.
And as to the matter in hand, being a woman isn't a reason to vote for her, its a reason people won't vote for her. Importent differences, see? Sadly, it isn't much different over here, with the obvious (and rather rule-proving) exception of Margret Thatcher.
And James, you're still talking gobbledygook. Simple as that. When I understand you, I'll reply.
Less Is More v4
Now resigned to a readership of me, my cat and some fish
#36
Posted 21 July 2005 - 07:04 AM
And as to the matter in hand, being a woman isn't a reason to vote for her, its a reason people won't vote for her. Importent differences, see? Sadly, it isn't much different over here, with the obvious (and rather rule-proving) exception of Margret Thatcher.
No, you're wrong. Conservatives won't vote for Clinton because of her politics and shadowy maneuvering, not because she is a woman, just as Democrats and liberals won't vote for Ms. Rice because she is a neocon lacky.
p.s.-You're doing a great disservice to proud American Francis Castle! I think the androgynous Peter Pan is a more fitting British hero for you.
#37
Posted 21 July 2005 - 11:40 AM
Would you have the Democrats vote for Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin (Yippee, an ethnic minority!) so as to have a woman president in office? Best yet, Condoleeza Rice a black woman, now that will get your gears revving..huh?
Your logic has always been flawed and quite dull. But alas, you are a chyld or at best a bloke/ laddy, or whatever you rather common British subjects call yourself.
Hit the nail right on the head
FYI the first woman president will be a conservative
#38
Posted 21 July 2005 - 10:25 PM
Salad: Can you consider Peter Pan a hero, really? And do you think of all boys as androgynous? And define "shadowy maneuvering" is that like discrediting opponents or openly threatening them, or maybe push polling and claiming that everything your lackeys have done is actually the result of the opposing side? To put it another way, does she need some soap or stitching for her shadow?
#39
Posted 22 July 2005 - 05:13 AM
Salad: Can you consider Peter Pan a hero, really? And do you think of all boys as androgynous? And define "shadowy maneuvering" is that like discrediting opponents or openly threatening them, or maybe push polling and claiming that everything your lackeys have done is actually the result of the opposing side? To put it another way, does she need some soap or stitching for her shadow?
No, not an American hero, but a hero fitting for a CHYLD. (entiendes?)
No, it's making complicated and illegal investment deals, destruction and loss of evidence, a carpetbagging Senatorial career which landed her in NY, and a sham marriage maintained out of political convenience just to name a few.
Her questionable political maneuverings need to be exposed to the light and thrust from the shadows. You can save your stitching and soap for Peter Pansy.
#41
Posted 22 July 2005 - 08:51 AM
Definition: an outsider who seeks power or success presumptuously.
It's a post-civil war era term, that has evolved to the definition above.
Clinton has familiar and political roots in Illinois and Arkansas, she made a political career in NY because she knew the liberals in NYC would elect her. That is the only reason why she is in NY, to fill a Democrat party power vacuum.
It would be like you heading over to Mississauga, Ontario from Vancouver only to get elected despite the fact that you have no roots, interests, or familiarity there. You just want a seat in government, the step to power.
#43
Posted 22 July 2005 - 03:20 PM
Jordan you lost your message board privileges
#44
Posted 22 July 2005 - 03:24 PM
And so we're clear, all my heroes are a thousand miles away from politics, so no calling me out on that one, kids.
Less Is More v4
Now resigned to a readership of me, my cat and some fish
#45
Posted 22 July 2005 - 03:53 PM
Yes, I assume that you have a handy time machine, and traveled into the future to find that out? Or maybe you're a psychic! tell me who will fight Seliez in the next issue of Vampire Game. Pretty please?
PM me, we'll talk.