On Dec 13, 2:10 pm, wrote:
CNN sandbags the republican candidates with hostile questions provided
by paid plants. No less than 7 of the 33 were known democratic
supporters, advocates, pundits, or employees....... Who knows how many
of the others were plants too. Yesterday PBS continued by not giving
the republicans a debate, asking only questions that democratic voters
would want answered and avoiding, even disallowing questions about
huge republican issues such as immigration. Today PBS is asking only
leading questions designed to give each a platform to campaign with
their own special issues... What a ****ing joke...

Then the dems say they can't go on FOX because they may have to face
real questions. Note, the repubs have stood in and addressed all
Americans, the dems just dismiss the ones that may not agree with
them. Funny seeing the tape of Hillary a few months back kicking a
"suspected republican" out of a news conference for asking a tough
question.

actually the title of the thread says it all.

"What a joke...OT politics" isn't about any politics a joke anymore?

On Dec 16, 7:53 am, wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:39 am, HK wrote:



What are you talking about? Hillary is the toughest guy running.

Uh, no she is not, won't even answer unscripted questions, never has..
That is not tough. Her dirty politics are catching up with her, the
wheels are falling off her campaign thank God.. I would take any or
the other dems over her she is as crooked as a union BA...

Yeah, no republican would ever go to those lengths just to get
elected, would they? I mean, besides Bush, Cheney, Nixon, Reagan, etc,
etc.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:00:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 16, 7:53 am, wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:39 am, HK wrote:



What are you talking about? Hillary is the toughest guy running.

Uh, no she is not, won't even answer unscripted questions, never has..
That is not tough. Her dirty politics are catching up with her, the
wheels are falling off her campaign thank God.. I would take any or
the other dems over her she is as crooked as a union BA...

Yeah, no republican would ever go to those lengths just to get
elected, would they? I mean, besides Bush, Cheney, Nixon, Reagan, etc,
etc.

Do I hear an aspiring Alan Colmes here?

wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:39:30 -0500, HK wrote:

What are you talking about? Hillary is the toughest guy running.

As a hawk you are right about the Democrats but she is neck and neck
with McCain in saying she would spend our last dime and kill our last
soldier to defend Israel ... or the oil companies ... or the Kurds ...
or whatever other silly reason that keeps us in Iraq.


What? We're NOT in Iraq to turn it into a western democracy, keep our
field grade officers in uniform, and steal its oil?

I'm shocked!

On Dec 16, 11:57 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:39:30 -0500, HK wrote:

What are you talking about? Hillary is the toughest guy running.

As a hawk you are right about the Democrats but she is neck and neck
with McCain in saying she would spend our last dime and kill our last
soldier to defend Israel ... or the oil companies ... or the Kurds ...
or whatever other silly reason that keeps us in Iraq.

What? We're NOT in Iraq to turn it into a western democracy, keep our
field grade officers in uniform, and steal its oil?

I'm shocked!

So, please list the wars we have had in the last century where we did
not rebuild and return the country? This "there to steal the oil" is
just a talking point.

On Dec 16, 6:39 am, HK wrote:


What are you talking about? Hillary is the toughest guy running.




you might be onto something there, Harry.


http://hillarynutcracker.com/

On Dec 15, 2:04�am, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:05:07 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:19?pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:08:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:30?pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:53?pm, wrote:
?The democrats are ALL afraid to address real

issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.

Time out.

google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone

or: George Bush Protest Zone

think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.

No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Chuck, are you implying Hillary's crowd doesn't do the same thing?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not in the least. I was responding to JAFM's remark that he wanted a
president that didn't simply "dismiss" people who disagreed with him
or her. Since the current president orders his critics removed to
"free speech zones" and according the the American Conservative
magazine
even allows the local police to arrest them, I guess JAFM and I are on
the same page- neither of us want a president that stifles reasonable
dissent or simply ignores and dismisses opposing viewpoints. We might
even agree that in America the "Free Speech Zone" is everywhere the
Constitution is in effect.

"Hillary's crowd" can't really do the same thing. �Take the case of
the guy in the American Conservative magazine article that was holding
an anti-Bush picket sign. The police told him to move to a particular
area, and after he had been there a minute or two the cops told him he
"wasn't in the free speech zone" (no kidding!) and he would have to
move. According to the magazine article, no matter where one cop told
him he could stand and hold his sign, another cop would come along and
tell him he wasn't in the "free speech zone" and he would have to move
again. Finally, he was arrested for "violating the security zone
surrounding the president"--but by all accounts he was about 200 yards
away. (lots of people were much closer to the president, but they were
expressing "acceptable" thoughts) The poor guy was denied a jury trial
because some judge down south said it was a "minor charge".......a
minor charge that could put the poor guy in prison for several years
if the judge decides he's guilty.

There's no "security zone" that extends for hundreds of yards around
candidates for POTUS, so no- Hillary couldn't do exactly the same
thing.

One good thing, maybe, about next year's election; so far there isn't
an absolutely outstanding candidate on either side. Maybe that will
help depolarize the country......no matter who we pick from the
current crop we're in tough shape. (Some of the R's look better to me
than some of the D's). �The people will have to pull together to solve
common problems, rather than idolize some extremist demagogue on the
left or the right......(I hope).

But she can and does prevent opposition sign holders from entering the
gymnasium, no?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I honestly have no idea, as I'm not following the Hillary campaign. My
favorite person running for POTUS is probably John McCain, but he
stands little chance and my respect for him diminished a lot the last
few years as he turned his back on previous positions in order to
pander to the extremists in his party.

That's the problem with the primary system. To get the nomination a
candidate needs to appeal to the extremists; either to the left or to
the right. To win the general election and to govern well, the
candidate needs to appeal to the middle and bring people together from
both sides. Two different things entirely- and we wonder why elected
candidates seem so bogus all the time.

However,
There's a difference between removing somebody from a venue privately
rented for the purpose of meeting with supporters and kicking a
citizen who expresses a dissenting thought out of the town square.
Bear in mind that CNN, FOX, etc are not public access agencies, they
are private corporations selling a product for a profit. There's
nothing "official" about the made-for-TV news debates. Both networks
promote scripted agendas in their highly editorialized "news"
broadcasts.

wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:03:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

So, please list the wars we have had in the last century where we did
not rebuild and return the country?

Every war in our history except WWII and we won that one
unconditionally.


WWII actually was the last large-scale *war* this country won.
Korea was a draw.
Vietnam was a disaster and a defeat.
Everything else was either small scale or against countries that had no
real ability to fight back for more than a very short time.

On Dec 16, 1:20 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:03:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

So, please list the wars we have had in the last century where we did
not rebuild and return the country?

Every war in our history except WWII and we won that one
unconditionally.

WWII actually was the last large-scale *war* this country won.
Korea was a draw.
Vietnam was a disaster and a defeat.
Everything else was either small scale or against countries that had no
real ability to fight back for more than a very short time.

Yeah, and which ones of those again did we pillage for oil, or
resources again?...I think you missed the point of my question.

wrote:
On Dec 16, 1:20 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:03:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
So, please list the wars we have had in the last century where we did
not rebuild and return the country?
Every war in our history except WWII and we won that one
unconditionally.
WWII actually was the last large-scale *war* this country won.
Korea was a draw.
Vietnam was a disaster and a defeat.
Everything else was either small scale or against countries that had no
real ability to fight back for more than a very short time.

Yeah, and which ones of those again did we pillage for oil, or
resources again?...I think you missed the point of my question.


With logic as convoluted as yours, it is easy to do.