Originally Posted by MontyB

So you are saying that the victims of fraud are as guilty as the perpetrators?

I hear a lot of this "but they voted for the invasion of Iraq now they have jumped ship" argument and it intrigues me as to how it stands up given the majority that jumped ship jumped once it became apparent that the data they made their decision on was dodgy at best.

Source? Cause she stuck with it for a full two years - her denouncement, coincidentally came just 6 months before she stated she'd run for the presidency if given the chance.

Please.

Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry

Source? Cause she stuck with it for a full two years - her denouncement, coincidentally came just 6 months before she stated she'd run for the presidency if given the chance.

Please.

I am talking about the argument in general not the individual, there seems to be a theory that if you vote for something once you are wrong to change your vote even if the data you used to form your opinion in the first place turns out to be wrong.

AZ_infantry

What I said happens to be true, all politicians lie, even the good ones. McCain has been caught in fibs and flip-flops too. I mean McCain wasn't completely forthright about his dealings with lobbyists.

The point I am trying to make is that Hillary's fib had no actual damage to the country while we continue to pay for lies we were told 5 years ago. So why are people getting all worked up about Hillary when they are absolutely silent (either by being too embarrassed or living in denial) about the fact they were conned about the Iraq war? Sounds extremely inconsistent to me.

If you want really want to slam Hillary that do so on the issues that matter, like how shes voted as a senator the past 6 years. Her support for the Iraq war and pathetic attempt to rewrite her role for it are a much better reason for voting against Hillary than this.

I'm going to continue bringing up Bush as long as every lie Hilary has told in her life (including stealing a cookie in 2nd grade or something like that, at the rate this is going) continues to be treaded like a criminal offense.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am talking about the argument in general not the individual, there seems to be a theory that if you vote for something once you are wrong to change your vote even if the data you used to form your opinion in the first place turns out to be wrong.

It isn't the fact she changed her vote. It's the fact she outright denied ever supporting the war, when the first two years of it were sanctioned -- in part -- by her and her liberal cronies, CONVENIENTLY, once political positioning was at stake. Everyone flip-flops - even state supreme courts overturn sentences in light of new evidence; or in light of falsified evidence brought to light during the original trial.

I fully respect and support her right to change her mind. But what she's done is the equivalent of the sentence analogy above but claiming that she wasn't one of the ones that passed the original conviction.

In other words, she's claiming she has no blame, that's she's the purveyor of justice, the superhero who can get this country out of GW's mess - when, in fact, she refuses to even admit she was duped and part of the mess to begin with.

That doesn't sit with me.

There's being sorry that you did something wrong, and then there is being sorry you got CAUGHT for that wrong. Hillary is the posterchild of the latter, as she's always been, as she always will be. She is no president. She wants to be, but we don't elect presidents on race or gender. We elect them on a proven record of honesty, integrity, and the qualities that make this country the best nation on the planet. She wants elected for what's between her legs - it's been her ticket all along.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

AZ_infantry

What I said happens to be true, all politicians lie, even the good ones. McCain has been caught in fibs and flip-flops too. I mean McCain wasn't completely forthright about his dealings with lobbyists.

The point I am trying to make is that Hillary's fib had no actual damage to the country while we continue to pay for lies we were told 5 years ago. So why are people getting all worked up about Hillary when they are absolutely silent (either by being too embarrassed or living in denial) about the fact they were conned about the Iraq war? Sounds extremely inconsistent to me.

If you want really want to slam Hillary that do so on the issues that matter, like how shes voted as a senator the past 6 years. Her support for the Iraq war and pathetic attempt to rewrite her role for it are a much better reason for voting against Hillary than this.

Hey, you'll get no argument from me, brother. McCain has been a RINO from the get-go (that's Republican In Name Only for anyone reading that doesn't recognize the acronym). I've lived in AZ all my life (37 years), and I've watched him turned both faces depending on the winning side - even indignant ones.

Let's face it, ANYONE elected this cycle is bad for this country. Everyone is busy asking, who's better than Bush? when what they SHOULD be asking is, where are we going to find a real leader for this country? 'Cause these three twits ain't it.

I respect McCain's character as a POW - as I'm sure we all do. But that doesn't make him a good politician.

The sheep in this country are led astray so easily, always looking at the wrong things. Being black, being a woman, being a POW, being atheist... NONE of these things makes a president. Period (no offense Hillary, lol). They are peripheals, platforms to sway the stupid.

You want an issue? Senator Clinton (D, New York) supports a nationwide ban on firearms. Look at NYC. She pushes a socialized health care system agenda. She fully supports capping capitalism.

Right there, sir. She's a communist. She has no business in any elected office in this country, period - and CERTAINLY not as the Commander In Chief of the world's most powerful and influential military force.

You make a fair point about McCains war record. I respect his service to his country and the 5 horrible years as a POW in North Korea but none of this has anything to do with being president.

As for Hillary I disagree with what you said.

1. Hillary is certainly pro-gun control (as am I) but she has never advocated a complete ban. This is something the right has imagined she said, but that she never actually said.

2. As for Healthcare, let me tell you, when I lived in NYC I was on the Oxford Plan for 7 years, and I have been on the French UHC system for the past 10 years. UHC wins hands down, its not even close. Let me tell you why, 2 months ago my Grandma had a minor stroke (she was lucky to have it while visiting her doctor by sheer coincidence). So after 2 Ambulance rides, 5 days in the Hospital, all tests, all medicine prescriptions do you have any idea what the cost was to her? ZERO. Thats no BS. UHC is such a better system, its not even close.And when politicans tell you different (with their baloney fears of BIG GOVERNMENT) its because they have been paid off, the HMO industry spends Millions in lobbying every year to insure UHC never becomes law, they actually spend more than the energy companies do, thats how scared they are. The US healthcare system is crap, run by some of the worst bunch of thugs who have used deplorable tactics to avoid paying out. (Like bribing Doctors into denying life-saving treatment that the HMO doesn't want to pay for). So on this issue I actually agree with Hillary about.

3. And for limiting Capitalism, I don't think you can say that about Hillary when she was a member of the board of directors of WAL-MART. She has had very close ties to big business, and she has always been an the side of big business. She worked for one of biggest corporate law-firms in America as a Senior partner. But I support limites on capitalism. Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism both limit freedom. Look whats happened when government doesn't keep Big Business in check. You have global-monopolies, the suppression of both fair competition AND innovation, price-fixing, and worst of all Corruption at all levels. This current sub-prime mortgage mess is because the Government didn't bother to reign in predatory lenders. It also led the the disasters at Enron and Worldcom. So I absolutely support checks to Capitalism.

So the politicains are afraid of BIG GOVERNMENT. Which is run by politicians. Makes sense...

We ran the 2004 election on service records. John Kerry's supposedly tainted one (which wasn't) and George Bush's lack of one. Why should this one be any different.
Socialized healthcare is a much better system than the current one.
As mmarsh said, Clinton banning firearms is a load of bull****.


(is it just me, or is Terrorist the new Communist?)

No, it's not just you. Terrorism is even better than Communism because unlike the Soviet Union, terrorism is an implacable threat that never collapses.

Usually I'm fairly libertarian, but I like the idea of a UHC system. I'd be willing to pay your medical bills, if you agree to pay mine.

Actually he was captured in North Vietnam.

Regardless of this or that I think this man is more qualified than the other two candidates currently.

This is why I think so.
Right now, the country is at a time of war. There is a need for a President who understands what war is. He's fought in one and he's been against war or deployment many times in his career. He's no chickenhawk. He's going to do what's necessary without haphazardly pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan that will probably lead to more larger problems in the near future as well as the distant future.

It also seems like he's a very internationally minded person and I think there really needs to be more of this. The other two candidates may be about the same in this arena, though I'm not so sure about Hillary Clinton.

He's experienced and he's not afraid to go against fellow party members or his own party if he believes they're not doing the right thing. So he's got guts and the skill to survive in politics even when he stands more or less alone against his own party. Many politicians have stood against their own party and ended up in lame duck alley ahead of schedule (read: Noh Moo-hyeon). Obama doesn't have the experience to show us that he can pull off the same thing and Hillary... her rise was mainly by riding along side her husband. The majority of leaders who rose this way ended up being rather ineffective leaders (Benezir Bhutto, a stack load of Filipina Presidents and South Korean presidential candidate Park Gun-hye). They showed a lot of promise but when they took their seat, their weaknesses showed in flying colors.

Also, because the current President has been pretty darn conservative, I think the solution will be to elect a centrist, NOT a leftist President. McCain is about as centrist as you can get along with Joe Liberman.

He's not perfect but out of the candidates we got, I think he's the most fit to lead.

And I agree with the UHC thing being way better.
Basically from what I've seen the only countries that have worse healthcare than the US are 3rd world countries that don't even have enough money to properly pave their roads.