Hillary Clinton for President

[Michael Rudd]

Is this another two for one presidency, with Bill this time in the background, it seems that she is the front runner for the Democratic nomination.

In the UK we had our own Lady at the top Maggie Thatcher, and let me tell you she had ***** of steel, she had to be 5X better than any of the men to get there, My question is Hillary from the same mould, if so you could be in for a very interesting time.

 

[hugo]

Is this another two for one presidency, with Bill this time in the background, it seems that she is the front runner for the Democratic nomination. In the UK we had our own Lady at the top Maggie Thatcher, and let me tell you she had ***** of steel, she had to be 5X better than any of the men to get there, My question is Hillary from the same mould, if so you could be in for a very interesting time.

No, she is not. Political opposites. Hillary has no core values, Maggie did.

 

[Michael Rudd]

Hi Hugo, If this is the case, (that Hillary has no core values) why is she riding so high in her parties faviour, I am going of course on what I read not first hand experience, How ever if what you say then it validates another recent post of mine which states that your system does not bring the best people forward for nomination!!! This is more that just passing interest to us in the UK, and weather you like it or not the US is the only possible country that is able to lead the rest of us forward (or backwards), that this is likley to change over the next century only makes it more necessary that You lead well, and to all our benifit.

 

[snafu]

Hillary Clinton is nothing like Margaret Thatcher. Hillary is a is a conniving ****. She will say anything or not say anything to get elected.

 

[Michael Rudd]

Hi snafu. From what you say it would seem that Maggi was popular in the US, this is nice to know, I dont have much time for politicians generaly but Maggi was the exception .

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Hilary Clinton comes from a morally corrupt party... This is why she rides so high on her party's nomination... She is a dog, and like any ***** gone bad, she should be taken out back and shot.

 

[phreakwars]

Hmm, OK devotees, what can the ReNAMBLAcans come up with?

What canidate do they have that shows any promise?

Not a ******* one.

.

.

 

[daddybear]

Is this another two for one presidency, with Bill this time in the background, it seems that she is the front runner for the Democratic nomination. In the UK we had our own Lady at the top Maggie Thatcher, and let me tell you she had ***** of steel, she had to be 5X better than any of the men to get there, My question is Hillary from the same mould, if so you could be in for a very interesting time.

We can hope and vote -- yes.... if we can get the Clinton's back in, we can get the trust of the world back!

HILLARY 2008

 

[snafu]

http://www.offtopic.forum/data/MetaMirrorCache/dab006298bf6927e66cd1077ee84fbc3.jpg

 

[Deathbringer]

You could run a ham sandwich elected this time around, provided you stuck a flag on a toothpick in it that read "I am not a Bush family member or Bush sycophant".

That being said, Obama is probably a better choice. If not him, Hillary is tolerable. McCain is the only Republican with a chance, but he's distanced himself so much from the Republican machine that he may not get the nomination. Ron Paul's immigration policies will create a permanent noncitizen working underclass and his statements about being against high taxes and for a balanced budget just make me want to bang my head against the wall. People might be stupid enough to elect him, but I have faith that Americans are smarter than that. It may be misplaced faith, but hey, if I was completely rational I might go the rest of the way off the deep end.

 

[hugo]

Ron Paul is the best choice. Too bad Americans are too socialist to elect him. Eliminate the welfare state and taxes can be cut and the budget balanced quite easily.

 

[daddybear]

Ron Paul is the best choice. Too bad Americans are too socialist to elect him. Eliminate the welfare state and taxes can be cut and the budget balanced quite easily.

Democrats have several good possibilities; Repugnants have less... McCain was good but he is totally useless now for either side...has NO chance... so many silly ones getting in like Newt G and "Mayor" Gulliani... flesh wastes.... so Hillary/Obama would be the right ticket....for now anyway... though I prefer John Edwards.

Gotta admit that we are stupid enough here though to put another actor in... after the Reagan disaster, you would think we would learn.

The best slogan they have for this go around is "I am NOT a Bush!" THAT'S a win!

 

[Michael Rudd]

Ron Paul is the best choice. Too bad Americans are too socialist to elect him. Eliminate the welfare state and taxes can be cut and the budget balanced quite easily.

Hi Hugo. I have lived in both countries that have and do not have welfare systems, SA had the policy ''dont work dont eat'' a bit hard in a country where unemployment is in the order of 40% but on the other hand where would you get the monby to pay for a welfare state,In the UK we have a system that does try to look after the weeker members of our society, as well as universal medical coverage, I would say the checks and ballances do not work properly here and there is major abuse by the bone idle, But I do believe one of the good measures of a society is how they look after their weekest members. The system in Sweden is incredibly expensive, but the population do not complain about the cost, their system works well, but there again they are a germanic type of people and like to be regimented,and frown on any one abuseing their system. That funding such a state can have a bad effect on GDP growth cant be denied, I am not sure which system in the long run is best for the population as a whole

 

[daddybear]

You could run a ham sandwich elected this time around, provided you stuck a flag on a toothpick in it that read "I am not a Bush family member or Bush sycophant".

Love it -- and so true!!!!

 

[hugo]

Hi Hugo. I have lived in both countries that have and do not have welfare systems, SA had the policy ''dont work dont eat'' a bit hard in a country where unemployment is in the order of 40% but on the other hand where would you get the monby to pay for a welfare state,In the UK we have a system that does try to look after the weeker members of our society, as well as universal medical coverage, I would say the checks and ballances do not work properly here and there is major abuse by the bone idle, But I do believe one of the good measures of a society is how they look after their weekest members. The system in Sweden is incredibly expensive, but the population do not complain about the cost, their system works well, but there again they are a germanic type of people and like to be regimented,and frown on any one abuseing their system. That funding such a state can have a bad effect on GDP growth cant be denied, I am not sure which system in the long run is best for the population as a whole

The welfare state seems to work better with a homogenized population. Minorities tend to abuse the welfare system more frquently. That is the problem that Western Europe is learning with the immigration of Muslims who are not completely assimilating. I have no real problem with short term unemployment insurance and monies for the seriously disabled (blind, quadriplegic, severe retardation or brain injury)