or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Hillary supporters
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hillary supporters - Page 2

post #31 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
Lots of you are forgetting the fact that if we hadn't gone over there to start weeding out the terrorists, then we would be waging war in THIS country on our own soil.

Would you rather have fighting here and this country look like Isreal, Palestine, and the other countries? Because if we were not there, THIS country would be like that. Bombings, etc.

Whether or not you agree it was right or wrong, the simple fact is that since 9/11 there has not been anything destroyed like that in this country. Be thankful for that!
Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11. It has nothing to do with an honest War on Terrorism. This is a War of Greed to stuff the pockets of Bush and his fiends that's right fiends, with lots of money. It's a war of Vengeance. It has NOTHING to do with protecting this country from Terrorists. They are not going after Bin Laden. Why wage war on Iraq for any other reason that to get their hands on money? I'm not thankful for anything Bush and his evil cronies have done. McCain doesn't sound much better than Bush, so as much as I HATE Hillary, I'll be forced to vote for her, if Obama is not elected as the Democratic Nominee.
post #32 of 187
Going to Afghanistan was the correct response to 9/11. Going to Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with any WMDs that were never found there anyway. The terrorists responsible for 9/11 did not come from Iraq. And yet Iraq is the country with the oil, not Afghanistan, which is where the terrorists actually came from. So Iraq was and always will be the focus.

And all that guff about getting rid of Saddam is rubbish, too. If the US wanted to get rid of evil dictators and free people under terrible repression they'd have done something about Zimbabwe by now. But oh yeah, that's right. There's no oil in Zimbabwe.
post #33 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
One can, somewhat, understand being against the war in Iraq. But are you telling me we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistand? Maybe we should just do as Clinton did and hide our heads in the sand when we get attacked by nut-jobs. Yep, wars are costly, freedom doesn't come cheap does it.
I am not talking about the validity or morality of the wars but the cost of them. That is all. I am more concerned about the fiscal ramifications. Let just say, hypothetically for arguments sake, that both wars were unavoidable and just. You still have to pay for them. Right now we are borrowing and borrowing just to pay for the costs. War is costly but the was no and still is no plan to pay for them. Unless we find a way to increase our revenue stream or cut expenses we are going to be in serious trouble. Keeping on the fiscal policies we currently are on and that includes continuing the tax cuts and freewheeling spending, is the fiscal equivalent of sticking our heads in the sand and hope the debt magically goes away before it does any more damage.
post #34 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
You are right with one exception, it is no one's fault but ourselves.

Your "they were not told......" statement insinuates it is the government's fault. It isn't, it is ours.

In your wildest imagining, could you see the American people pullling together for the common good like they did in WWII? I can't. No way, no how.
People are much to self-absorbed, selfish, greedy and without the moral fortitude of the generation of people that lived in this country during WWII.

My mother remembers eating lard sandwiches. My mother remembers hearing her mother crying wondering where the next meal was coming from.
But on the upside, not many people had weight problems.
I will agree with you that the American people share some of the blame. I have protected myself financially when I realized that the boom economy wouldn't last forever. Nor did I believe the hype of our economy. But I am an accountant and not everyone is financially savvy. My husband fought me on some of the financial decisions citing leading economist said the good time will last. He believed the hype. He is grateful now we are protected. And I do remember President Bush telling the American people not to worry the way to support the war on terror was to go out and spend money. As if the personal credit card debt in this country wasn't staggering enough. At no time did the leaders say we have to tighten our purse strings they did the exact opposite telling us to go on with our live and spend, spend, spend. So yes, I do blame the government for a good part of it. And what example do the people have, leadership that also believes on putting things on credit.
post #35 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by binkyhoo View Post
Don't vote for Hillary just because she is a female. I don't want to offend HRC supporters, but have a good reason. And thats all I have to say about that.
Please re-read my post. I do have my reasons for voting for Hillary, and none of them are just because she's a female.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnzoLeya
I'm an Iowa Delegate for Hilary!!!! I'm going to the district convention this week and State in June!
I hope that I can go to the National Convention!
Good for you!!! That's very exciting! I hope you get to the convention!
post #36 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by binkyhoo View Post
Don't vote for Hillary just because she is a female. I don't want to offend HRC supporters, but have a good reason. And thats all I have to say about that.
No, I would not vote for, say, Condaleeza Rice, just because she is a woman.
Hillary gets my vote because she will be outstanding, AND, she is a woman. It is high time we have a woman president. Remember the equal right amendment? It puzzles me that every woman wouldn't vote for her. The younger women don't understand, and think Obama is cute. They don't get the importance of this election, and what it means for women. Apparently, the black population understands how important it is for them. They vote for him en masse. 97% of black males in Phila.
post #37 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by gailuvscats View Post
..... The younger women don't understand, and think Obama is cute. ....
This continues to amaze me, actually. I think it's outstanding that alot of young people (women and men) are getting excited about this election. And yet, when I ask them specifically what points Obama has made that make them want to vote for him, they don't have specific answers.

It's some sort of strange charismatic thing, with no substance.....and, yes, they think he's cute. Excuse me......what?!?
post #38 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by gailuvscats View Post
No, I would not vote for, say, Condaleeza Rice, just because she is a woman.
Hillary gets my vote because she will be outstanding, AND, she is a woman. It is high time we have a woman president. Remember the equal right amendment? It puzzles me that every woman wouldn't vote for her. The younger women don't understand, and think Obama is cute. They don't get the importance of this election, and what it means for women. Apparently, the black population understands how important it is for them. They vote for him en masse. 97% of black males in Phila.
But Gail, by saying this, you are advocating voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, and in your being puzzled by not every woman voting for her, is taking away the credibility of those very women - and the ones who vote for Hillary genuinely and not because of her gender.

You talk about equal rights and then you suggest that younger women - as an entire subcategory of your population - don't understand the election and only vote on something like looks - as if that's any different to voting on gender. As a younger woman I would find that very patronising!

Even though I am not American I can see, as everybody can, how important this election is and how informed people are becoming and how many people are coming out to vote. The women, in particular I think, are making very informed decisions and just have the added bonus of having a female candidate they can support. I'm sure there are women out there voting for Hillary just because she's a woman, but I would hope that they are in the minority of her supporters.
post #39 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker View Post
Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11. It has nothing to do with an honest War on Terrorism. This is a War of Greed to stuff the pockets of Bush and his fiends that's right fiends, with lots of money. It's a war of Vengeance. It has NOTHING to do with protecting this country from Terrorists. They are not going after Bin Laden. Why wage war on Iraq for any other reason that to get their hands on money? I'm not thankful for anything Bush and his evil cronies have done. McCain doesn't sound much better than Bush, so as much as I HATE Hillary, I'll be forced to vote for her, if Obama is not elected as the Democratic Nominee.
I really would be interested to know just how this war is, "to stuff the pockets of Bush and his friends".

"Hate" is a pretty strong word.
post #40 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
Going to Afghanistan was the correct response to 9/11. Going to Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with any WMDs that were never found there anyway. The terrorists responsible for 9/11 did not come from Iraq. And yet Iraq is the country with the oil, not Afghanistan, which is where the terrorists actually came from. So Iraq was and always will be the focus.

And all that guff about getting rid of Saddam is rubbish, too. If the US wanted to get rid of evil dictators and free people under terrible repression they'd have done something about Zimbabwe by now. But oh yeah, that's right. There's no oil in Zimbabwe.
I'm still waiting for that "oil", how much longer do you think we will have to wait?
post #41 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by peachytoday View Post
I will agree with you that the American people share some of the blame. I have protected myself financially when I realized that the boom economy wouldn't last forever. Nor did I believe the hype of our economy. But I am an accountant and not everyone is financially savvy. My husband fought me on some of the financial decisions citing leading economist said the good time will last. He believed the hype. He is grateful now we are protected. And I do remember President Bush telling the American people not to worry the way to support the war on terror was to go out and spend money. As if the personal credit card debt in this country wasn't staggering enough. At no time did the leaders say we have to tighten our purse strings they did the exact opposite telling us to go on with our live and spend, spend, spend. So yes, I do blame the government for a good part of it. And what example do the people have, leadership that also believes on putting things on credit.
Blaming the government for one's own poor choices is lame IMO. If someone told me to jump off a bridge, I wouldn't do it.
We all make our own decisions.
The government wasn't at anyone's elbow forcing them to spend and not live within their means. Personal responsibility. No one has to tell me how to spend or not spend my money, it is my decision and only mine and I have no one to blame but myself for my own spending habits.
Why is it that no one can take responsibility for their own actions anymore?
post #42 of 187
My opinion of Hillary has changed over the last year. I used to be very much torn between Hillary and Obama but have swung over to the Obama side.

I've read both Bill and Hillary's autobiographies. Bill's was very interesting in that he talked in depth about the dirty tactics that the republicans used against him to prevent his legislation from going thru, but also to smear his name. Hillary's book was very shallow in comparison and she avoided anything very personal.

I now see Hillary using the tactics she learned thru the Clinton's experience with the republicans in her campaign against Obama. It bothered me that these were used against Bill and it bothers me more to see her using them against her own party members. It's almost like she has taken on a position of "win at any cost".

I like the fact that she has a good plan that not only shows what she wants to do, but how to pay for it in a fiscally responsible way. If she leverages similar expertise that was used when Bill was in office, she can turn around the deficit as her husband did while in office.

Obama is not as detail oriented as Hillary is. That is very obvious to me. But if he finds the staff that can successful execute on the day to day stuff, he has the charisma to lead the country. I personally don't want any president bogged down in every decision, as they wouldn't be effective with anything. A good leader doesn't do the work, a good leader inspires others to do the work. I see Hillary getting too bogged down in the day to day and losing the perspective of the bigger picture.

If it comes down to it, I will vote for Hillary over McCain. McCain has been overly quiet these days and it almost seems like he's taking the tactic of letting the dems shoot themselves in the foot, rather than putting forth any plan to lead the country out of the mess we are in. McCain has a plan, it's simply more of the same.
post #43 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
If it comes down to it, I will vote for Hillary over McCain. McCain has been overly quiet these days and it almost seems like he's taking the tactic of letting the dems shoot themselves in the foot, rather than putting forth any plan to lead the country out of the mess we are in. McCain has a plan, it's simply more of the same.
lol clintons wrote the book on dirty tricks, but then again there are no dirty tricks. Really its been called the clinton machine for a reason

i just wonder what it is that you expect mccain to do?
all the news wants to talk about his the dem at this point. he is out doing a tour and talking, but right now the news is with hillary and obama. They dont even offer any covage of mccain

to call mccain more of the same, is not the truth. He had been a outsider for most of his life. he is more of the old school Dem, then anyone in the DEm party is anymore.

right now, to some degree mccain is talking party line, but i dont expect him to stay there.
post #44 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Blaming the government for one's own poor choices is lame IMO. If someone told me to jump off a bridge, I wouldn't do it.
We all make our own decisions.
The government wasn't at anyone's elbow forcing them to spend and not live within their means. Personal responsibility. No one has to tell me how to spend or not spend my money, it is my decision and only mine and I have no one to blame but myself for my own spending habits.
Why is it that no one can take responsibility for their own actions anymore?
I agree with personal responsibility but that is still not addressing this administration huge budget deficit. How are people to blame? How is the trillion dollar deficit the peoples responsibility? The government decided to cut taxes and increase spending. Their responsibility. I don't understand where you are coming from.
post #45 of 187
I was addressing your previous post blaming the government for American citizens spending habits.

Yes, the wars that our country fights is our responsibility. And yes, we are going to have to pay for them. But if we are bankrupted in the proccess it does no one any good. The current taxes we are paying is quite enough.

I don't believe the wars are costing the billions we are told by the media. It is inflated IMO.
post #46 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I don't believe the wars are costing the billions we are told by the media. It is inflated IMO.
If you don't believe the costs are in the billions, then you're either very, very, very young or living under a rock. War is VERY expensive but some folks get very rich off war so IMO those folks will always find reasons for war somewhere in the world. History pretty much shows this to be true.
post #47 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
But Gail, by saying this, you are advocating voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, and in your being puzzled by not every woman voting for her, is taking away the credibility of those very women - and the ones who vote for Hillary genuinely and not because of her gender.

You talk about equal rights and then you suggest that younger women - as an entire subcategory of your population - don't understand the election and only vote on something like looks - as if that's any different to voting on gender. As a younger woman I would find that very patronising!

Even though I am not American I can see, as everybody can, how important this election is and how informed people are becoming and how many people are coming out to vote. The women, in particular I think, are making very informed decisions and just have the added bonus of having a female candidate they can support. I'm sure there are women out there voting for Hillary just because she's a woman, but I would hope that they are in the minority of her supporters.
YES, I am advocating that all woman vote for Hillary because she is a woman if their alternative is Obama because he is cute. And yes, much of our younger population does vote on looks or charisma. That is partially how JFK beat Nixon. Remember the sweaty debates? You may be as idealistic as you like, I am being realistic, sorry if you find it parionising.
post #48 of 187
Hillary has my support, mainly for one reason. With her, we have the best chance of getting a national health care plan. If she wins the nomination, I really hope my vote counts. I live in Florida.
post #49 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
I really hope my vote counts. I live in Florida.
post #50 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
If you don't believe the costs are in the billions, then you're either very, very, very young or living under a rock. War is VERY expensive but some folks get very rich off war so IMO those folks will always find reasons for war somewhere in the world. History pretty much shows this to be true.

Really? Who got rich off WWI, WWII, The Korean War, The Viet Nam War?
The Persian Gulf War?

I didn't say war is not expensive, I said I do not believe the figures given out by the media.

Just who, in our government is getting rich off of the war in Iraq?
I always hear, OIL, but we have seen no oil from Iraq, I wish we would.
All I get is general statements, that "somebody" is getting rich off this war.
Well, "somebody" just doesn't cut it for me.
post #51 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
i just wonder what it is that you expect mccain to do?
I want him to be fiscally responsible and you can't do that if you assume we will continue this war for the next 100 years. And if that is his expectation, then he needs to create a plan that will get us out of our debt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post

I don't believe the wars are costing the billions we are told by the media. It is inflated IMO.
http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/...l_war_funding/

This is simply math here. If you make $1000 a month and spend $2000 a month, you are going to go bankrupt pretty darn fast. Who will bail out the U.S. when we go bankrupt? China is already doing it. You know China, the one that slipped melanine in our cat's food and carcinogens in our children's toys. Do you really wanted to be indebted to China? I'm trying to find the article, but about 40% of our debt is already owned by China. That is totally insane, IMHO.

And this is why I could vote for Hillary when it comes down to it. She'll pain the taxpayers for a while but we won't go under.

And we are already heading into a recession.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...dHI&refer=news

http://www.reuters.com/article/busin...42729520080425

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...2SPDLvcNXYmyJQ
post #52 of 187
Well, that is a reliable source. And where is the breakdown?
post #53 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I don't believe the wars are costing the billions we are told by the media. It is inflated IMO.
What makes you think that?????
post #54 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Well, that is a reliable source. And where is the breakdown?
That is the problem. They don't publish it so to obtain that information, you have to weed thru the various bills and budget appropriations. People have tried and failed, which is why everything is an estimate.

If you don't like the other sources, let me try some others:

This is dem site, but has links to budget sources from the library of congress and the actual war budget bills:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/mo...d_by_president

This was written by a Nobel prize winner in economics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq

This is old, but even this estimate is way over "billions":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm

I can post a lot more if you like. Not every single source in the world is wrong.
post #55 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I was addressing your previous post blaming the government for American citizens spending habits.

Yes, the wars that our country fights is our responsibility. And yes, we are going to have to pay for them. But if we are bankrupted in the proccess it does no one any good. The current taxes we are paying is quite enough.

I don't believe the wars are costing the billions we are told by the media. It is inflated IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post

I didn't say war is not expensive, I said I do not believe the figures given out by the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Well, that is a reliable source. And where is the breakdown?
All you have to do is check out the official reports at the U.S. Government Accountability Office's website to see that your objections to media reports are wishful thinking on your part:

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/oif.html
post #56 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I want him to be fiscally responsible and you can't do that if you assume we will continue this war for the next 100 years. And if that is his expectation, then he needs to create a plan that will get us out of our debt.

yea, that why you dont commit armed services to a war, Unless its needed.
however once you do commit to it, you cant pack up and just run away.
I would think clinton has already taught you the price that is to be paid for running away,and refusing to deal with a problem.

what you expected a nice little 2 hour war to fit into a friday night after work fun? there are about 2 to 3 million radicals that need to die. that takes time and money.how long has ww2 been over? guess what we are still in japan and germany.

Plus i think mccain learned the lesson from nam, where after the US left
etst 3 million people where killed by the north, If some day i end up walking in some place in iraq, i really dont want some young person asking me why american left us,(yea i had that question asked of me when i visited vietnam)

how i was not a fan of attacking Iraq, we are commited to it. to leave now, would be far worse for both iraq and the west in the long run.
post #57 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by gailuvscats View Post
YES, I am advocating that all woman vote for Hillary because she is a woman if their alternative is Obama because he is cute. And yes, much of our younger population does vote on looks or charisma. That is partially how JFK beat Nixon. Remember the sweaty debates? You may be as idealistic as you like, I am being realistic, sorry if you find it parionising.
I am not being idealistic when I am reluctant to presume that younger women can't think for themselves in any intelligent or considered way.

I was merely observing that for someone who is keen to uphold womens' rights and talks about equality of gender, to lump a whole demographic into one shallow category is remarkably sexist.

It just kind of undermines your message - unless of course your message is that anyone who votes for Obama has no brains or rational viewpoint worth considering.
post #58 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
It just kind of undermines your message - unless of course your message is that anyone who votes for Obama has no brains or rational viewpoint worth considering.
pretty much

However, I might describe it as naive and gullible. Not exactly no brains. Those are your words.
post #59 of 187
Yes they are. And I have to say I giggled over your honesty. It's really great that you are so behind your candidate - the way you feel about Obama is the way I have felt about Bush's supporters for the last eight years, so I guess I can see where you're coming from

I think though that in their efforts to destroy one another (and I have to say, I think Hillary is far more guilty of this than Obama) they are giving McCain a free ticket to the White House.
post #60 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
I think though that in their efforts to destroy one another (and I have to say, I think Hillary is far more guilty of this than Obama) they are giving McCain a free ticket to the White House.
DH and I had this exact conversation last night. DH reminded me: people have very short memories in this country and attention will be drawn away from the current conflict long before the election occurs. Someone is already planning the "October surprise" to draw attention the other way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Hillary supporters