Hillary Clinton's fondest wish?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sat May 24, 2008 4:28 am

Obama may be in her crosshairs- literally.

\"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it,\" she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Talk about a deranged sense of entitlement. How dare Obama strip her of her coronation?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat May 24, 2008 7:49 am

Yea, talk about a Freudian slip.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sat May 24, 2008 9:26 am

What happen?

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Sat May 24, 2008 10:04 am

TIGERassault wrote:What happen?

I believe they are referring to this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7418142.stm

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat May 24, 2008 10:41 am

I was listening to the radio on Friday and a caller came on with a REALLY paranoid, back door to the presidency idea. He had to notion that since Clinton is losing the primary and looking desperate, she was going to go for the VP slot. If she were to be selected as VP by Obama, she would secretly conspire to have him assassinated after he takes office if he won the election. THEN she would become president!

The other theory was that she was trying to show with her statement that Obama is more likely to be assassinated before the election than she is because racists are more more extreme radicals and thus more likely to commit murder than misogynists.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Sat May 24, 2008 10:45 am

That would send this country up in smoke. We are already unstable as it is.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat May 24, 2008 11:14 am

I don't know. She's looking awfully desperate since she failed at her initial coronation attempt. Sometimes desperate people do whatever it takes to win, dammed the consequences.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun May 25, 2008 12:14 am

And its a shame really, a year ago I assumed I would be voting for her in 08'. But the way she has ran this campaign, I would never vote that name again. Sorry Chelsy.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun May 25, 2008 12:52 am

America will say no the nagging wife.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun May 25, 2008 1:55 am

Hillary reminds me of someone who took one too many knocks to the head.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:07 am

That would send this country up in smoke. We are already unstable as it is.

I was saying this a year ago. If Obama does get elected, and someone assassinates him, we will see the biggest race war ever seen in this country. I think it's unlikely though.
IMO, out of the choices were given, I think he's prob the best candidate. He is young, has less friends, and probably owes less favors than the rest. I like John McCains matter of factness, but I think he's emotionally damaged(prisoner of war for how many years?) and, like Bush, is a product of the cold war.
If everyone was brought to the table, grievances made, the past forgotten, and solutions worked on, that would be a big step towards peace all over.
A man that is happy, has a job, money in his pockets, and a family to take care of, doesn't have the time or the inclination to make war.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:36 am

flip wrote:
That would send this country up in smoke. We are already unstable as it is.

I was saying this a year ago. If Obama does get elected, and someone assassinates him, we will see the biggest race war ever seen in this country. I think it's unlikely though.
IMO, out of the choices were given, I think he's prob the best candidate. He is young, has less friends, and probably owes less favors than the rest. I like John McCains matter of factness, but I think he's emotionally damaged(prisoner of war for how many years?) and, like Bush, is a product of the cold war.
If everyone was brought to the table, grievances made, the past forgotten, and solutions worked on, that would be a big step towards peace all over.
A man that is happy, has a job, money in his pockets, and a family to take care of, doesn't have the time or the inclination to make war.

I am inclined to agree, and I most likely will vote for Obama. The deciding factor for me was a statement he made that if the terrorists attack us he has no problem responding with force, but, and this is a big but, he wants the sit down to discuss other options.

I also am a product of the cold war. I am 50 years old and my uncles who raised me all fought in WW2 and Korea. They had a big impact on my thinking of all this.
This country needs to come to terms with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the role we played in that, dividing up the Middle East, and the deals made with the Palestinian people that we did not live up to. But getting these people to the peace table without admitting our role and putting things right will be almost impossible with the Muslim views of the west right now. But I believe Obama is our best bet for peace or more war depending on weather or not they (Muslims) will sit down and discuss peace. I don't think John McCain will even approach the peace table unless we can declare a victory over them.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:38 am

^ good post

I was saying this a year ago. If Obama does get elected, and someone assassinates him, we will see the biggest race war ever seen in this country.

No way. If he gets elected the message sent is that in America race is no longer an issue that will prevent you from achieving the highest office in the world. It shows that the majority of America looks past race if the candidate is indeed more qualified. It shows that the Al Sharptons of the world best find another job. One crazy assassin wouldn't change that.

I mean, we all know that there are crazy people out there, black people know this as well. Its also worth mentioning, iirc, that RFK did not have secret service protection in June. I bet at this point Obama has much more then any candidate in history.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun May 25, 2008 10:14 am

No way. If he gets elected the message sent is that in America race is no longer an issue that will prevent you from achieving the highest office in the world. It shows that the majority of America looks past race if the candidate is indeed more qualified. It shows that the Al Sharptons of the world best find another job. One crazy assassin wouldn't change that.

Yes, I agree that it's highly unlikely, yet, considering some people are \"still\" pissed off, it's not entirely out of the question either.

But getting these people to the peace table without admitting our role and putting things right will be almost impossible with the Muslim views of the west right now.

Can't argue with that. I myself am 38 and remember when Islam wasn't near as predominant as it is now, or was at least more peaceful. Is that our fault? Maybe. It will be the biggest challenge to be able to reason with these people, but I feel must at least be attempted. I think Obama is alot like JFK in that respect, as I am. Try for peace with all your heart, then if all else fails, and your forced to fight. Win decidedly.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun May 25, 2008 10:18 am

Gooberman wrote: I bet at this point Obama has much more then any candidate in history.

He does, according to PBS’s News Hour.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun May 25, 2008 1:45 pm

Hillary really stepped on a land mine with this one. Just another misstep in a series of oooooops! Her problem is not that she's a woman, in my opinion, that's not a hit against her. But it's that she just plain WANTS the job SOOOOO bad that she is willing to do anything to achieve that goal, at all costs. She even assumed from the start that she was going to win the nomination by the Iowa primary. Well, tough luck! Secondly, I don't like the idea of Bill lurking around in the White House again sticking his nose into affairs. We had him for eight years, we don't need him around anymore.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun May 25, 2008 2:31 pm

flip wrote:If everyone was brought to the table, grievances made, the past forgotten, and solutions worked on, that would be a big step towards peace all over.
A man that is happy, has a job, money in his pockets, and a family to take care of, doesn't have the time or the inclination to make war.

Cuda68 wrote: ....But I believe Obama is our best bet for peace or more war depending on weather or not they (Muslims) will sit down and discuss peace. I don't think John McCain will even approach the peace table unless we can declare a victory over them.

I understand what you're both saying, but I don't want any kind of peace with Muslim terrorists. I don't want a world where one half is free and all it's people are treated equally, while the other half is run by Muslim clerics who keep their people oppressed and their women in burkas. Would Obama have made peace with Afghanistan to keep 911 from happening? Would he have given me a "bought and paid for" peace at the expense of freedom for all? What will he do when those clerics get nuclear weapons to protect that oppressive way of life from western "meddling".. assuming Obama would even care.

It's this kind of isolationist mindset that will make me vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get in.

Bettina

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:06 pm

I agree with you Bett. I'm just wondering one thing. Are people born terrorists? Of course if they kept on their current course of World Domination, then they should be destroyed. Hmm, is that too harsh?

I think alot of these people choose Islam because it empowers them. For years, just about every powerful government has came to their house, and stirred things up. Then left them in disarray. There is no way to justify that. If any disagree, just pick up a history book. A man that has no hope is a dangerous man.

Do I think that theres a possibility of real peace. Well, as much as I try to be optimistic, I'm also a realist. I do believe that all Islamic GOVERNMENTS should have a seat at the UN. Considering this seems to be the trend nowadays. A forum that Heads of States can argue their causes. Don't get me wrong. I am a Nationalist at heart, but like I said earlier, I'm also a realist.

This is idealistic thinking too probably. I'm not sure that these people could be reasoned with. They will kill themselves just to kill you, but that must be the first thing you do. The only other option is full scale war, where one side loses and the other side wins. That being the case, at this point, someone who is willing to at least hear them is warranted.
Not justifying them in the least, but I don't think people are born terrorists. I think they feel threatened and disenfranchised, and resort to violence to overcome their desperation. This is true also, considering the whole world seems to want to merge into one, if those of legitimate governments do not have a say in world wide decisions, they will surely be slaves.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:53 pm

I don't believe you're born a terrorist, or have it worse off than most. You just get caught up in the Islamic religion and are programmed young to want the world to be a Muslim world.

Bee

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun May 25, 2008 5:07 pm

But that's putting the cart before the horse and presuming that because Obama would sit down with these countries, peace will happen. Even his most staunch supporters would have to admit that a lasting peace is unlikely in that part of the world.

That said, we get absolutely nowhere without talking. After all, what's the first thing authorities try to do in a hostage situation? The whole concept of \"We're not talking to you unless you give in to our demands\" is childish. As much as Bush demonstrates fluster with this concept, Rice and other members of his Administration actively engage in talks with North Korea and have made real, legitimate progress on that front.

While I want nothing more than for Clinton to get out of the race, I think the importance of her comment is overrated because it fell just before Memorial Day weekend, much like McCain's medical records. The few who were paying attention probably had their minds made up already. Most have no idea it occurred.

Of course, by that same token, the more Clinton devolves into a walking, talking gaffe machine, the more easily her supporters will transition to Obama rather than McCain, I suspect. But then, I cannot profess to understand why backers of Clinton would support McCain in the first place, given the similarity of Obama's voting record to Clinton's and the fact that McCain isn't half the maverick he used to be.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:33 pm

Kyouryuu...

I have no problems talking with communist countries like North Korea, China, etc.. because I can live and trade with communist countries.

That's much different than countries controlled by Muslim fanatics who support the Taliban way of life. I do not accept that so I would continue to \"meddle\" in their affairs for the reasons I already gave.

Obama would, at least from what I see, stop the meddling and coexist. Then he went on to imply that he would have no problem defending this country if attacked. Well, I don't want to coexist and I don't want to wait until we are attacked before we respond.

I have even contemplated not voting at all if Hillary doesn't get in. I don't like \"live and let live\" Obama, and I won't vote for McCain if there's a chance for a president Huckabee or Crist.

Bee

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:44 pm

Isn't Hillary against the war and wanting to pull our troops out?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:16 pm

Being neutral as far as the Democratic race is concerned, I really must point out that it seems to come down to who you prefer, because I have seen enuf “gaffes” from Obama to end his race as well.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon May 26, 2008 10:44 am

McCain has a nice list as well. And I've voted for McCain in every election he ran in since I turned 18.

People just arn't made to be as consistant and perfect as this process requires. But the difference is Obamas gaffs seem incidental, while Hillary's seem stratigic.

For example, what Hillary did before Ohio was pure stratigy. If people followed her record, and listened to what she was saying, (Nafta, accusing Obama of bad mailings, etc) it was absolutely rediculous. It was the biggest act of hipocracy I have seen in a politician to date.

Obamas blunders, \"bittergate, Rev.Wright\", why he was stupid to ever make such comments/assosiations, he would have rathered that they not happen. It wasn't part of his stratigy.

This is where the democratic hate for Hillary comes from.

I am fairly certain that Obama would not hinder her campaign if she was winning just so that he would have a shot at 2012. This is exactly what she is doing.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 26, 2008 3:36 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
I understand what you're both saying, but I don't want any kind of peace with Muslim terrorists. I don't want a world where one half is free and all it's people are treated equally, while the other half is run by Muslim clerics who keep their people oppressed and their women in burkas. Would Obama have made peace with Afghanistan to keep 911 from happening? Would he have given me a "bought and paid for" peace at the expense of freedom for all? What will he do when those clerics get nuclear weapons to protect that oppressive way of life from western "meddling".. assuming Obama would even care.

It's this kind of isolationist mindset that will make me vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get in.

Bettina

OMG! You've drunk the Republican Kool-Aid! Don't get me wrong, I think that all terrorists should be put to death with extreme prejudice. They have no honor.

I firmly believe that leaders of the world should use diplomacy first and aggression last. War should always be the LAST resort.

Unfortunately, terrorism is going to have to be fought on a different tack. If we really want to wipe out the entire Muslim religion to solve the terrorism problem, it's going to be like swatting a hornet's nest, You're only going to get more and more of them fighting mad and stinging you. On top of that, there are a LOT of nests out there and they communicate with each other.

The Western world really needs to figure out WHY the Muslim world hates us to the point of wanting to resort to violence. Until we understand that and act on it, we will constantly have eternal war between our civilizations.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon May 26, 2008 3:43 pm

The Western world really needs to figure out WHY the Muslim world hates us to the point of wanting to resort to violence. Until we understand that and act on it, we will constantly have eternal war between our civilizations.

It's important to make the distinction between practicing muslims that want to live in peace DESPITE the teachings of their religion and others that want to follow the words of muhammad in actual practice and wipe out all opposition. Islam exists to reign supreme over all other beliefs and societies even if many of its adherents do not wish us harm.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon May 26, 2008 3:51 pm

tunnelcat wrote: The Western world really needs to figure out WHY the Muslim world hates us to the point of wanting to resort to violence. Until we understand that and act on it, we will constantly have eternal war between our civilizations.

I already know why they hate us, and unless you want to give up support for Israel, and our very way of life, there can be no one sided solution to the problem.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Mon May 26, 2008 4:33 pm

Spidey wrote:
tunnelcat wrote: The Western world really needs to figure out WHY the Muslim world hates us to the point of wanting to resort to violence. Until we understand that and act on it, we will constantly have eternal war between our civilizations.
I already know why they hate us, and unless you want to give up support for Israel, and our very way of life, there can be no one sided solution to the problem.

I am not so sure Israel deserves our support. As I understand it they bought the land in Palestine and then booted them out and renamed it Israel.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:22 am

Cuda68 wrote:I am not so sure Israel deserves our support. As I understand it they bought the land in Palestine and then booted them out and renamed it Israel.

I'm not sure where your going with this. do you have a problem with a land owner dictating who lives on his purchased property and what he names it??

and yes your facts are correct, contrary to popular belief the Palestinians where not "forced" off their land or had it stolen like some would want you to believe, they willingly sold it to the Israeli's and after the new tenants moved in, they decided that once Muslim land always Muslim land. in effect trying to rob the Jews of their $ and keep the land.
IMHO too bad so sad for the Palestinians.

tunnelcat wrote:The Western world really needs to figure out WHY the Muslim world hates us to the point of wanting to resort to violence. Until we understand that and act on it, we will constantly have eternal war between our civilizations.

the Western world already knows that answer.
1. because we are not Muslim. the Koran tells them that they are to kill the infidels, and that would be us.
2. because we support Israel. (see #1)

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:37 am

Bet51987 wrote:Kyouryuu...

I have no problems talking with communist countries like North Korea, China, etc.. because I can live and trade with communist countries.

That's much different than countries controlled by Muslim fanatics who support the Taliban way of life. I do not accept that so I would continue to "meddle" in their affairs for the reasons I already gave.

Obama would, at least from what I see, stop the meddling and coexist. Then he went on to imply that he would have no problem defending this country if attacked. Well, I don't want to coexist and I don't want to wait until we are attacked before we respond.

I have even contemplated not voting at all if Hillary doesn't get in. I don't like "live and let live" Obama, and I won't vote for McCain if there's a chance for a president Huckabee or Crist.

Bee

You're 18, right? I expect you to be signing up for the military now, yes?

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Tue May 27, 2008 9:05 am

tunnelcat wrote:I was listening to the radio on Friday and a caller came on with a REALLY paranoid, back door to the presidency idea. He had to notion that since Clinton is losing the primary and looking desperate, she was going to go for the VP slot. If she were to be selected as VP by Obama, she would secretly conspire to have him assassinated after he takes office if he won the election. THEN she would become president!

The other theory was that she was trying to show with her statement that Obama is more likely to be assassinated before the election than she is because racists are more more extreme radicals and thus more likely to commit murder than misogynists.

In fiction, my favourite character is almost always the treacherous person who plots and schemes to get... whatever they particularly want to get. They always seem to be the most complex character in the story. In real life, those people disgust me.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:04 pm

CUDA wrote:
Cuda68 wrote:I am not so sure Israel deserves our support. As I understand it they bought the land in Palestine and then booted them out and renamed it Israel.
I'm not sure where your going with this. do you have a problem with a land owner dictating who lives on his purchased property and what he names it??

and yes your facts are correct, contrary to popular belief the Palestinians where not "forced" off their land or had it stolen like some would want you to believe, they willingly sold it to the Israeli's and after the new tenants moved in, they decided that once Muslim land always Muslim land. in effect trying to rob the Jews of their $ and keep the land.
IMHO too bad so sad for the Palestinians.

tunnelcat wrote:The Western world really needs to figure out WHY the Muslim world hates us to the point of wanting to resort to violence. Until we understand that and act on it, we will constantly have eternal war between our civilizations.
the Western world already knows that answer.
1. because we are not Muslim. the Koran tells them that they are to kill the infidels, and that would be us.
2. because we support Israel. (see #1)

I suppose my thoughts kinda go this way:

If people from another country buy up land in say New Jersey, kick all the residents out and declare it now goes by another name and not part of the U.S. any more. I would have issues with that.

Now this is where my bigotry comes out - I don't like Muslims and have not liked them since I was a child for personal reasons. So for personal reasons I support Israel against the Muslims or Arabs.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:49 pm

I wouldn't say that bigotry. It's the way you feel. You don't seem to ACT on those feelings much, so you're \"safe\" from the B word.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue May 27, 2008 1:37 pm

Testiculese wrote:You're 18, right? I expect you to be signing up for the military now, yes?

I'm 20, and to answer your question, I didn't join because I never gave it a thought, and when I finally gave it a thought I found I was afraid of what would happen to me. I'm not a very brave person but I hope I would go without question if drafted.

So now that you've labeled me a (whatever) are you implying...and you are... that I shouldn't be allowed to comment on the direction my country takes in securing security for future generations? Or, was your moronic post just to make you best buds with Ferno.

Bee

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Tue May 27, 2008 1:53 pm

Just because you're afraid to get killed and so don't join the army doesn't mean you're not brave. I would personally prefer anything rather than risking my own death.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Tue May 27, 2008 3:48 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Testiculese wrote:You're 18, right? I expect you to be signing up for the military now, yes?
I'm 20, and to answer your question, I didn't join because I never gave it a thought, and when I finally gave it a thought I found I was afraid of what would happen to me. I'm not a very brave person but I hope I would go without question if drafted.

So now that you've labeled me a (whatever) are you implying...and you are... that I shouldn't be allowed to comment on the direction my country takes in securing security for future generations? Or, was your moronic post just to make you best buds with Ferno.

Bee

I would think you have been hashing this out in your head for awhile now. Bravery comes in all forms and types. Just to post this of yourself is brave and you kinda know it because you stated you are opening yourself up to ridicule which is a hard thing in itself at your age. Me, I am an old fat fart and I don't really care any more what people think of me, only what I think of myself really matters any more.
One of the hardest things in the world to do is an honest self assessment and then act upon that to improve yourself.
So now that you looked at yourself and saw what's there, what else can you do to deal with it?
Maybe support the war in another way. Be at the airport to help greet them home? Hold benefits or bazaars to assist there family's while they are away? There's all sorts of other things you can do to assist in the fight and show your support.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:11 pm

I'm glad I'm getting old, actually, now that the humanity is beginning to self-implode. The two major religions of the world are going to duke it out to see who's supreme and it's going to end up badly for all of humanity. As long as each side sees themselves as supreme, there is no peace for the future. We may be seeing the twilight of humankind approaching, all over religion and oil.

Bush's little invasion of a sovereign Muslim nation (Iraq) was really for Imperialistic reasons, new airbases on Arab soil and access to more oil. That's surely how the Arab world interpreted the U.S. invasion. (Didn't I read somewhere that the U.S. gave up it's airbases in Saudi Arabia for help with the invasion of Iraq?) Think how the people of the U.S. would feel, if say Canada for example, decided that they didn't like our President and they perceived our country to be a threat to their national security, so they did a preemptive invasion of the U.S. to stop that perceived threat. Preemptive war in other words. Don't you think that every citizen within the U.S. would resort to extreme guerrilla tactics to repel said invaders? I know that I would fight as dirty and hard as possible to get rid of as many foreign soldiers as I could. If Americans could only see the mindset at work here. I don't agree with terrorism, ESPECIALLY against civilians, but it's easy to see how it could get started by a little misguided and targeted FUD by some crazy leader. Sorry for drifting off topic.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:11 pm

So when we leave the middle east, the front line of the war on terror will undoubtedly be right back here on american soil. And american civilians will be dying once more instead of our professional soldiers.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed May 28, 2008 7:09 am

Nope, Bett, I'm just curious since you are so gung-ho for the military, why haven't you joined? You seem perfectly fine with sending other people's kids to die so you can 'meddle in their affairs', why won't you go?

If you read history, you'll find the reason those countries hate us is because we WON'T stop meddling in their affairs. If I lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd feel the same way.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed May 28, 2008 7:25 am

Just what kind of “meddling” justifies murdering thousands of people?

Hillary Clinton's fondest wish?

Hillary Clinton's fondest wish?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: