Who could beat Hillary in '08?

[WordInterrupted]

Keep backpedalling, braindead. I thought these were just my "pet issues".

Cutting entitlements is your pet issue. How to expand entitlements will be the issue in the presidential campaign. Like it or not, neither of the major parties is going to cut entitlements.

No, I have numerous straw polls conducted. You're simply not worth my time. Whats that make you?

It makes me the only one who has proved his position, my dear. Oh well, I guess I win another argument.

Yawn. We've covered this. I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Libertarian. And as for going bankrupt? Right... Whos party focus is stealing money from the people who actually earn it for the express purpose of giving it to their patsies? That'd be the Demos. Or maybe you forgot about welfare.

My dear, George Bush has expanded the size of government more than any Democratic president in the last half century. You may be a registered libertarian, but you qualify as a Republobot because you continue to support the Republican party even when they prove they're the party of big government. You aren't guided by facts, you're guided by unthinking partisanship.

 

[Buttons]

Cutting entitlements is your pet issue. How to expand entitlements will be the issue in the presidential campaign. Like it or not, neither of the major parties is going to cut entitlements.

No, mental midget, lets review what I said in Post #13.
"1) Illegal immigration/Alien status/Porous Borders
2) Small government/entitlements"
Hmmm... Small government/entitlements. How candidates respond to it is going to greatly affect the election. Oh right. You once again forgot the party talking points didn't you? Whats that? Lets see your later comment. "My dear, George Bush has expanded the size of government more than any Democratic president in the last half century."
Wait... Whats that? SMALL GOVERNMENT and ENTITLEMENTS? OMGOMGOMGOMG... I was right all along, and whats that make you? Once again, wrong. Damn. Have you been right YET in this thread, or for that matter any thread?

It makes me the only one who has proved his position, my dear. Oh well, I guess I win another argument.

No, instead it makes you the only one stupid enough to think one data point "proves" a position. Keep dreaming, braindead.

My dear, George Bush has expanded the size of government more than any Democratic president in the last half century. You may be a registered libertarian, but you qualify as a Republobot because you continue to support the Republican party even when they prove they're the party of big government. You aren't guided by facts, you're guided by unthinking partisanship.

Uh, lets see, you have ONE representative of the party increasing the government, while you have the entire point of the Democratic party about increasing government and creating a nanny state. Hmmm... Talk about not guided by facts, you're not even guided by voices.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Hmmm... Small government/entitlements. How candidates respond to it is going to greatly affect the election. Oh right. You once again forgot the party talking points didn't you? Whats that? Lets see your later comment. "My dear, George Bush has expanded the size of government more than any Democratic president in the last half century."
Wait... Whats that? SMALL GOVERNMENT and ENTITLEMENTS? OMGOMGOMGOMG... I was right all along, and whats that make you? Once again, wrong. Damn. Have you been right YET in this thread, or for that matter any thread?

My point is that he's expanded government, and his ultra-conservative base still likes him. If even the hardcore small government ideologues aren't that upset about it, it isn't going to be an issue. The real issue will be the massive budget deficit.

No, instead it makes you the only one stupid enough to think one data point "proves" a position. Keep dreaming, braindead.

Well, when my position is "Polls show Hillary beating Rice," linking to polls showing Hillary beating Rice does prove my position. I guess it was brave of you to try to bluff your way through this argument, but that sort of thing doesn't work with me.

Uh, lets see, you have ONE representative of the party increasing the government, while you have the entire point of the Democratic party about increasing government and creating a nanny state. Hmmm... Talk about not guided by facts, you're not even guided by voices.

You don't have one person, you have the president and both houses of congress. That's two branches of the United States government. A party IS what they do while they're in power, and the Republican party has expanded government more than at any time in the last half century. That makes them the party of big government, no matter how many excuses you try to make for them.

 

[SilentBtViolent]

What's funny is that nobody in America gives a shit about your conversation.

You are rich white people fighting over details and scrabbling for cash, like the Roman Senate as the sun set on the empire.

Wake up and realize that your government doesn't represent anyone but your oligarchy. The people are sleeping and you should get your house in order for when they wake up.

 

[Anubis]

That's some really good cut&paste pinko wisdom, Silent.

 

[SilentBtViolent]

That's some really good cut&paste pinko wisdom, Silent.

I prefer to think of myself as a populo-fascist.

 

[Anubis]

LOL Hello, Balki.

 

[Air Dawg]

John McCain. No one else has the balls to do so.

 

[Buttons]

My point is that he's expanded government, and his ultra-conservative base still likes him. If even the hardcore small government ideologues aren't that upset about it, it isn't going to be an issue. The real issue will be the massive budget deficit.

yet the Ultraconservative base isn't what got him elected. It was the CENTER. And the center isn't terribly pleased by expanding government. OMG.

Well, when my position is "Polls show Hillary beating Rice," linking to polls showing Hillary beating Rice does prove my position. I guess it was brave of you to try to bluff your way through this argument, but that sort of thing doesn't work with me.

Linking to one current poll, and another poll from FEBRUARY? Brilliance. Terrific job there spanky. Here, my position is that you're a braindead mental reject with the facilities of a collostomy bag. I've alot more than one data point proving my point, as every single post of yours proves this case. So, I guess the proof is in your posting Senior Collostomy.

You don't have one person, you have the president and both houses of congress. That's two branches of the United States government. A party IS what they do while they're in power, and the Republican party has expanded government more than at any time in the last half century. That makes them the party of big government, no matter how many excuses you try to make for them.

No, we have one person who has refused to use the veto. We have that same person who is also in charge of supplying a budget to congress. Hmmm... Whats that mean there, eh, Senior Collostomy?

 

[WordInterrupted]

yet the Ultraconservative base isn't what got him elected. It was the CENTER. And the center isn't terribly pleased by expanding government. OMG.

They aren't? Then why did they vote for Bush after he expanded domestic entitlement programs more than any president since Lyndon Johnson?

Linking to one current poll, and another poll from FEBRUARY? Brilliance. Terrific job there spanky. Here, my position is that you're a braindead mental reject with the facilities of a collostomy bag. I've alot more than one data point proving my point, as every single post of yours proves this case. So, I guess the proof is in your posting Senior Collostomy.

(1) The Fox poll was from September 27, 2005. You obviously have a problem keeping your facts straight.

(2) You can call me a colostomy bag all you want, but you still haven't posted even one poll showing Rice ahead.

(3) How does it feel to be thrashed by the TK Ambassador?

No, we have one person who has refused to use the veto. We have that same person who is also in charge of supplying a budget to congress. Hmmm... Whats that mean there, eh, Senior Collostomy?

I guess you're not aware that congress can amend or reject budget proposals? This is like basic civics class stuff. You might want to actually get an education before you try to debate me.

 

[Buttons]

They aren't? Then why did they vote for Bush after he expanded domestic entitlement programs more than any president since Lyndon Johnson?

because Kerry was an even weaker candidate. Oh right... It couldn't be that the Demos can't field an even remotely worthwhile candidate, could it?

(1) The Fox poll was from September 27, 2005. You obviously have a problem keeping your facts straight.

And the other was from when? Right. Keep up the good work braindead.

(2) You can call me a colostomy bag all you want, but you still haven't posted even one poll showing Rice ahead.

And I won't because you're not worth the time. But keep dreaming Senior.

(3) How does it feel to be thrashed by the TK Ambassador?

I'll let you know when you actually thrash someone, other then being routinely proven wrong. Whats that about my 'pet issues'? Looks like Bush is running to the right of Hillary with the latest Homeland Security announcement...

I guess you're not aware that congress can amend or reject budget proposals? This is like basic civics class stuff. You might want to actually get an education before you try to debate me.

Yes Congress can, however you also forget that most people only vote for their OWN congressmen and senators. Damn. As for an education, uh sonny Jim, one of us already graduated years ago. Keep trying when you actually get out of school.

 

[Starburn]

Hillary in 08, Hillary in 08, Hillary in 08. Thats all you cons ever fantasize about. It will be Jeb Bush vrs Rod Blagojevich in 08. Hillary wont be on the ticket and wont even run in the primaries.

I'll bet she'll run. She may not get nominated, but she'll run. Hillery wants to be president soooo bad.
It's a popularity contest and I doubt mainstream America would be thrilled with her as president. Having all that baggage and not very trustworthy except to the ultra lefties.

 

[WordInterrupted]

because Kerry was an even weaker candidate. Oh right... It couldn't be that the Demos can't field an even remotely worthwhile candidate, could it?

Kerry made balancing the budget a top priority and Bush didn't. But I guess you don't think balancing the budget is "worthwhile."

And I won't because you're not worth the time. But keep dreaming Senior.

If I weren't worth your time, you wouldn't be responding to my posts! Try another excuse!

Yes Congress can, however you also forget that most people only vote for their OWN congressmen and senators.

Yes, people do vote for Congressmen and Senators. How exactly is that relevant to our discussion?

It's time to face facts: the Republican controled executive and the Republican controlled legislature have enacted the largest increases in government in fifty years. That makes the Republicans the party of big government, whether you like it or not.

 

[Momma Wordin]

De you aagh!

Kerry made balancing the budget a top priority and Bush didn't. But I guess you don't think balancing the budget is "worthwhile."

Boah, you been smokin' dat crack ageen, didit you? All tryflin over singular things when Kerry been done wantin' to fight the same damn desert wah. if that demeecrat snake slitherad his way inta de whitehouse, people'd be 'plainin' that bush woulda been a betta leadah and finished bidness with dem a-rabs might quicka.

If I weren't worth your time, you wouldn't be responding to my posts! Try another excuse!

oh mah lordy, you be chafin' again. how many times have ah told you to take care of nether regions before climbing deh treehouse?


Squeaky Cheeks Performance Powder

 

[Buttons]

Kerry made balancing the budget a top priority and Bush didn't. But I guess you don't think balancing the budget is "worthwhile."

And I said that when? Wow, Wordin brings up yet another strawman! Brilliance!

If I weren't worth your time, you wouldn't be responding to my posts! Try another excuse!

Time to respond to your posts, under a minute. Time to go back through previous polls? 2 minutes. Hmmm, seems its another strawman.

Yes, people do vote for Congressmen and Senators. How exactly is that relevant to our discussion?

Last I checked, I don't vote for congressmen and senators not in my district or state... May be different from how Democrats do things, but its the proper and LEGAL way the system works.

It's time to face facts: the Republican controled executive and the Republican controlled legislature have enacted the largest increases in government in fifty years. That makes the Republicans the party of big government, whether you like it or not.

Or it could be that Bush is giving liberals everything they want. And when they realize that the bill is still going to come due, and they're not going to get their dream utopia, that bitter pill will be all the sweeter. But woot. Good thing I'm not Republican, as we've already covered what, twice in this thread already?

 

[WordInterrupted]

And I said that when? Wow, Wordin brings up yet another strawman! Brilliance!

You didn't say it explicitly, but if you backed Bush's budget busting ways instead of Kerry's calls for fiscal responsibility, I can only conclude that you don't care about huge deficiets.

Time to respond to your posts, under a minute. Time to go back through previous polls? 2 minutes. Hmmm, seems its another strawman.

Buttons, you're not fooling anybody. You have no polls, and we all know it.

Last I checked, I don't vote for congressmen and senators not in my district or state... May be different from how Democrats do things, but its the proper and LEGAL way the system works.

What does that have to do with anything? The Republican party controls congress, and congress has passed budgets with huge increases in government. That makes Republicans the party of big government. Trying to argue that the Republicans are the party of small government when they've done nothing but increase the size of government is just nuts.

Or it could be that Bush is giving liberals everything they want. And when they realize that the bill is still going to come due, and they're not going to get their dream utopia, that bitter pill will be all the sweeter. But woot. Good thing I'm not Republican, as we've already covered what, twice in this thread already?

Oh, it's not what I want, my dear. Bush's exapansion in government has largely consisted in massive giveaways to big business. He has ignored the real problems that face this country. That's not what I want at all.

I know you're not a Republican, but you made the claim that Republicans are not the party of big government, and that is manisfestly false.

 

[Buttons]

You didn't say it explicitly, but if you backed Bush's budget busting ways instead of Kerry's calls for fiscal responsibility, I can only conclude that you don't care about huge deficiets.

Uh, no, I backed Bush's foreign policy over Kerry's "Lets appease!" policy. I backed Bush's refusal of Kyoto over Kerry's economy crippling "I have a plan!" plan. But then again, you knew all that since you've claimed to know what I'm not saying.

Buttons, you're not fooling anybody. You have no polls, and we all know it.

Funny, seems you're wrong again, but still not worth my time. Keep digging Wordin. Maybe you'll end up in China, where you can enjoy your wonderful nannystate.

What does that have to do with anything? The Republican party controls congress, and congress has passed budgets with huge increases in government. That makes Republicans the party of big government. Trying to argue that the Republicans are the party of small government when they've done nothing but increase the size of government is just nuts.

No, I voted for small government republicans in all congressional races. What other people vote for is up to them. Thats why its called a democracy. Trying to argue that Democrats aren't the party of a nannystate is both ignorant, and blatantly foolish. But thats par for the course with you.

Oh, it's not what I want, my dear. Bush's exapansion in government has largely consisted in massive giveaways to big business. He has ignored the real problems that face this country. That's not what I want at all.

Funny, I didn't know that prescription drug benefits were giveaways to big business... Same with expansion of government funding of education. But hey... Reality differs from Wordin's little world.

I know you're not a Republican, but you made the claim that Republicans are not the party of big government, and that is manisfestly false.

And compared to Democrats, Republicans still aren't the party of big government. You, once again, have made vapid assumptions based upon ONE data point. run back to basic statistics and it'll show you why that is logically flawed.

 

[davdirks]

I'm enjoying reading this thread. I think Condi either as P or VP nominee would be a brilliant move for the republicans. If Hillary gets the dem nom, I'm voting for her. If the dems put up another wishy washy nominee Kerry or Gore, I'd probably vote for Condi if she were on the ticket. I like McCain and Guliani, but I agree with the folks here who say the Christian right probably would prevent their nominations.

 

[Chiyo-Chan]

If the Dems put Hillary up I'd like to see the Republicans put a female up and yes, Conde would be my choice mainly because, as Mr. Rantel pointed out, I'd like to see the Dems try and tear apart a black woman. Too juicy.

:idea:

Although, I would think that much of the South would vote either for the Democratic party or for a third candidate, since that area of America is still very racist.