|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 8, 2006 11:58:01 GMT -8
nationalreview.com/comment/vidino200602060735.aspSen. Clinton Urges Democrats to Speak Up Feb 08 2:30 PM US/Eastern Email this story By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused Republicans of "playing the fear card" of terrorism to win elections and said Democrats cannot keep quiet if they want to win in November. The New York Democrat, facing re-election this year and considered a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Republicans won the past two elections on the issue of national security and "they're doing it to us again."  
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Feb 8, 2006 17:52:49 GMT -8
That's a great pic of Shrill Hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 8, 2006 21:05:07 GMT -8
That's a great pic of Shrill Hill. Yeah, it's GREAT. Cameron posted it to begin with, but I have been using it in tons of e-mails! This is such a sweeeeet shot of that woman. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 8, 2006 21:06:18 GMT -8
That's a great pic of Shrill Hill. We ought to use it for a Caption Contest. |
|
|
|
Post by Merceditas on Feb 8, 2006 21:35:08 GMT -8
omgosh! Doncha hate it when your pic gets taken and you're making a face?
I wonder if she was playing or upset in that photo? LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 9, 2006 6:00:51 GMT -8
Hillary has three basic states , one of which is a very temporary, transitional state. She laughs, she transitions and then she's "normal." Here is Hillary laughing her ass off. This was taken during the SOTU after Bush made a very humorous remark. You can see that she's laughing because of the great mood she's in:  Below we have Hillary in her transitional state. This lasts no more than a fraction of a second and we were very lucky to get this photo: And finally we have Hillary in her natural state. This is the one her husband Bill sees most often:  |
|
|
|
Post by outsydr on Feb 10, 2006 9:31:12 GMT -8
I must say... I'm fascinated by the feedback you're getting, bounce. You post a link and a quote from an interesting article from another 'fair and balanced' news source (National Review) in which Sen. Clinton points out the very real intent of the Republican Party to use fear tactics to solicit votes, and yet all anyone wants to talk about his how she looks in the picture!
No one ever claimed Hilary Clinton was attractive or photogenic, least of which should she be in order to be right or wrong about her statement. So I think what's been stated here thus far is irrelevant. How about commenting on her assertion?
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 10, 2006 10:33:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 10, 2006 10:41:08 GMT -8
I must say... I'm fascinated by the feedback you're getting, bounce. You post a link and a quote from an interesting article from another 'fair and balanced' news source (National Review) in which Sen. Clinton points out the very real intent of the Republican Party to use fear tactics to solicit votes, and yet all anyone wants to talk about his how she looks in the picture! No one ever claimed Hilary Clinton was attractive or photogenic, least of which should she be in order to be right or wrong about her statement. So I think what's been stated here thus far is irrelevant. How about commenting on her assertion? I figured it was obvious enough, but I'm happy to comment on it. First of all, as is common with liberals, they accuse other people of doing EXACTLY what THEY THEMSELVES ARE DOING. Playing the fear card? Like these for instance (paraphrasing): Republicans want to take your SS away! Republicans want to starve your kids! Republicans want you to have to breathe dirty air and drink dirty water! Republicans want to destroy the planet! Vote for Republicans and black churches will burn! Republicans are playing the "fear card?" Give me a break! Secondly, the TERRORISTS are the ones playing the TERROR FEAR CARD. It's the Republicans that want to do something about it and it's the democrats that are standing in the way. Rather than whine that the republicans "are doing it to us again," I might ask... why do you keep standing in the way? The democrats keep setting themselves up for failure. Bush doesn't have to beat you. You're beating yourselves for him and your party leaders are so arrogant and self-absorbed that they can't see it. That's what's so funny about Hillary saying, "They're doing it to us again." When your party's platform for America's future is, "Bush sucks," you can plan on it happening again and again. Like I said to begin with, "It's obvious." |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 10, 2006 10:55:26 GMT -8
Bounce it's a game the Democrats can't win, but they keep playing it anyway. You know I was a little worried that the Democrats might regain control of the Senate, but not no more. They keep attacking the Republicans strengths, something they've done it in the last three election cycles, and are lining up to do it again. The Democrats should never have politicized the decision to go to war in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 10, 2006 11:05:41 GMT -8
Here's another thing outsydr,
Accurate, or not, the Red staters see Hillary as a vicious, power-hungry bitch. That image is clearly something the Republicans are eager to help accentuate.
Hillary cannot win without picking off some red states, but she's not saying ANYTHING they want to hear.
Dick Morris said that she does best when she doesn't say anything. Remember her, "I'm just here to listen" tour? The minute she opens her mouth her poll numbers go down. When she talks, her disdain for people who choose to live in "flyover country" comes out. People still remember the, "I could have stayed at home baking cookies" line. Damn, that was good! We couldn't have paid her to make a better statement than that.
She cannot win in '08 without talking and she cannot win if she talks. She's her own worst enemy and she's not smart enough to see that. Her minders need to keep closer control of that mouth! There is no middle ground with her. People either love her or hate her. She's too polarizing and she drives people away. It's not smart.
Moreover, she still has some interesting questions to answer. New Yorkers may politely look the other way, but the nation is going to want answers to questions she doesn't want asked.
I hope she wins the democrat nomination. I don't think she has a prayer of winning the General election.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 10, 2006 11:09:03 GMT -8
Bounce it's a game the Democrats can't win, but they keep playing it anyway. You know I was a little worried that the Democrats might regain control of the Senate, but not no more. They keep attacking the Republicans strengths, something they've done it in the last three election cycles, and are lining up to do it again. The Democrats should never have politicized the decision to go to war in the first place. I absolutely agree. For a group of people who like to think of themselves as so damn smart, they sure seem to continue stomping on their genetalia with golf shoes! I still don't know how they square these concepts: 1) Bush is an idiot. 2) They are smart. 3) Hillary is a genius. It's laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 10, 2006 11:14:11 GMT -8
I must say... I'm fascinated by the feedback you're getting, bounce. You post a link and a quote from an interesting article from another 'fair and balanced' news source (National Review) in which Sen. Clinton points out the very real intent of the Republican Party to use fear tactics to solicit votes, and yet all anyone wants to talk about his how she looks in the picture! No one ever claimed Hilary Clinton was attractive or photogenic, least of which should she be in order to be right or wrong about her statement. So I think what's been stated here thus far is irrelevant. How about commenting on her assertion? And another thing outsydr... about the cynical "fair and balanced" comment you offered up... Are you disputing the accuracy of their quotes? That's the point of this whole thing. Are you suggesting that their "bias" is so bad that they misquoted her? If not, what's the point behind your cynical comment? |
|
|
|
Post by outsydr on Feb 11, 2006 9:21:42 GMT -8
from bounce:
Extraordinary. Yes, I see that it's paraphrasing and yet... You really believe this is the prevailing view of all Democrats? You honestly believe that the majority of Democrats not only feel this way, but have campaigned and publicly accused Republicans of this?
You know what? Never mind. If thinking this way is what you need to maintain your unwavering loyalty to the Republican Party, then have at it. But if these notions were even a whiff of what Democrats are saying about Republicans, I wouldn't support them.
If this were true, and Democrats did nothing to help Republicans try to secure this nation against threats, you wouldn't even have your stupid fucking war.
I haven't seen a single instance of a Democratic politician showing baseless opposition to a Bush Administration security policy. I don't know of any time that a Democrat has been difficult or combative just for the sake of being partisan.
You keep missing the point of the arguments Democrats make, and then blame us for blocking. If you're not listening, that's your problem. But Democrats will continue to speak their minds, point out where Republicans are making mistakes, and argue to protect rights that are threatened by Republican actions.
"The TERRORISTS are the ones playing the TERROR FEAR CARD."
And the Republicans are using that as well, bounce! To gain political leverage!! You really need to pay closer attention to what's being said by Republican politicians, man. Just this week, Bush suddenly releases news that there was apparently a plot three years ago to drive a plane into a building in Los Angeles on the VERY SAME DAY the Attorney General testifies before a congressional inquiry into the legality of wire tapping.
Three years ago, bounce! And he's just now, on that day, telling us. What happened to our ORANGE ALERT then?? Why is it so important to shove out an unsubstantiated story of a near-miss on that particular day? I guess that's just a coincidence, huh?
Oh, this is trure. Stronger leaders on our side would definately change the climate.
But don't go getting too high and mighty with your "Bush doesn't have to beat you" stuff. Bush has barely beaten ANY Democrat at ANYTHING! I mean, come on, bounce! He lost the popular vote against Al Gore, and then scraped by beating (of all people) John Kerry!
Re-read: He barely beat John Kerry, dude. This is not something to be proud of.
I'm not concerned about that (be it true or not) because Bush is just 24 months from being a lame duck. We'll see that all this means for both parties then.
|
|
|
|
Post by outsydr on Feb 11, 2006 9:29:46 GMT -8
from bounce:
No. National Review is a very credible, and very conservative magazine. I'm just sensitive to conservatives quoting conservative sources, as I'm sure you're sensitive to liberals quoting liberal sources.
... Or would it go without question if I started posting links I got from reading democraticunderground.com?
|
|
