| Dec 24, 2007 @ 12:42 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 10,079
|
If Huckabee is elected, I'm leaving the country. 
|
|
  |
|
| Dec 24, 2007 @ 2:52 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,023
|
Huckleberry Huckabee will never be elected! Besides another delusional idiot like Bush and this country will cease to exist! The country will implode because of all the devisiveness inside!
Clinton '08!! She will win!
|
| |
|
| Dec 24, 2007 @ 3:26 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,066
|
Sounds ok at first but what happens when I go to another state? Does my health care follow me? Who co-ordinates from state to state or am I stuck in one state if I want healthcare?
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Accordingly, my suggestion provides that if you move from one state to another, your basic healthcare package would change to the program that is offered by the state of your new residence. Private insurance supplental policies would be made available to enhance and enlarge the basic healthcare policies offered by the states.
The federal programs would be the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers for qualifying honorably discharged military veterans and also both long term nursing home care, and also catastrophic care, as a federal "rider" above and beyond what hospitalization and family health care, optical care, dental care, surgical care, and pharmaceutical care benefits that your individual state programs will provide.
If people in Mississippi don't like their state medical care provisions, and do the research and determine that Minnesota has a better program for their needs, they simply move to Minnesota. Each ten years, in the first year of each succeeding decade, the federal census determines each state's population and proportionately the 435 seats in the US House of Representatives are allocated among the several states according to their respective populations. If states lose too many people because their state benefits programs are not desirable, the legislatures will enact new laws to attract a migration of Americans moving to that state specifically to regain lost seats or to gain new seats in Congress.
We are all used to seeing the vacation wonderland commercials that the differing states air suggesting that Americans should vacation in Arkansas, Oklahoma, or Maryland, and in like manner the states will air broadcast messages in market cities that are situated in other states suggesting that jobs are plentiful and available and the schools are great in whatever state is running the advertisements, with 800 phone numbers to call about state aid to move to such and such a state.
For instance, can you imagine the interest if a state started a program to build starter homes with free community provided labor like Amish barn raisings (actually a state funded construction-industries apprenticeship program utilizing state grants to pay the student laborers and coupling the state university architectural educational classes and utilizing for stone fireplaces and stone faced homes, the rock that is blasted from state highway road construction projects and new residential lake community excavations, with brand new planned communities with nearby job centers being incorporated as new municipalities among new residential lake communities and dovetailing state tax credits available to employers who hire new employees from among the persons who last year used to live in other states who get their vouchers to surrender to new employers when the new people get their new state driver's licenses) to lure new people to emigrate to, and put down roots, to live in (fill in the blank with a name of a state here.)
[Edited on 12/24/2007 3:37 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 24, 2007 @ 5:50 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
OK I have to ask this...no offense intended....do the Republicas want to win ? I get the same feeling about them as I did when Kerry and Edwards were nominated on the Democratic side. Kerry just had this lazy attitude about everything like the only reason he was running was......ya know what....why the hell was he running ?
He kept changing his mind. Anyway, you all have folks like Huckabee raising in the polls, Romney doing the same. While Mc Cain is not....what gives. Mc Cain is the only one that I might even considered breaking ranks to vote for. And what's with all this debate on who is more "Christian" and/or "conservative and Regan-like". Get a clue Republicans after Bush people are frighten of religion in the White-House.
|
| |
|
| Dec 24, 2007 @ 6:10 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,066
|
after Bush people are frighten of religion in the White-House.
We DO NOT have religion in the White House under GWB. How absurd a statement to make, that Americans are frightened of religion in the White House!
The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God and want their president to have similar beliefs.
The Godless left obviously is afraid of religion at all times, in any place, let alone the White House, and will unleash rumors trying to affect people's votes to the effect that America is mad at God because of George W. Bush.
Not very likely.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 24, 2007 @ 6:21 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
I just remember Bush and his faith-based initiatives, and wanting Religious Groups to be able to discriminate against their employees and clients. I also remember some Religous Groups wishing he would just be quiet as they were already blurring the line of Church and State with their services and they didn't want any attention drawn to them.
And this is not a majority rule issue. Just because the majority believes in God doesn't circumvent the law of the land, which is clearly Separation of Church and State...BTW.... I just saw Hillary Clinton's Christmas ad on one of the "news" shows. It was ok, but she's still getting flack over it. Obama's was neat, he said both Merry Christmas, and Happy Holiday's, which I think means he knows not everybody celebrates Christmas, and if the do not everyone celebrates it as a religious holiday.
Unlike Huckabee is can't wait to bring God into everything. No one wants a religious fanatic in the White House. BTW doesn't Bush have so sort of Religous Office in the White House, the first President to do so ? Merry Christms and Happy New Year Para...
[Edited on 12/24/2007 6:34 PM]
|
| |
|
| Dec 24, 2007 @ 6:31 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
Say_Yes
Posts: 1,779
|
OK I have to ask this...no offense intended....do the Republicas want to win ? I get the same feeling about them as I did when Kerry and Edwards were nominated on the Democratic side. Kerry just had this lazy attitude about everything like the only reason he was running was......ya know what....why the hell was he running ?
He kept changing his mind. Anyway, you all have folks like Huckabee raising in the polls, Romney doing the same. While Mc Cain is not....what gives. Mc Cain is the only one that I might even considered breaking ranks to vote for. And what's with all this debate on who is more "Christian" and/or "conservative and Regan-like". Get a clue Republicans after Bush people are frighten of religion in the White-House.
Many people are single issue voters. These same people tend to be the ones who are most fervent and who are most likely to be involved in the political process at the primary level. Keep in mind that winning the nomination, does not equate to being the best candidate. After all, you only need the support of about 6% to 7% of those who are eligible to vote, to be nominated. (About 25% of eligible voters, vote in the primaries. If half of those are in each party, we are down to 12.5% of the voters, and winning 50.1% of the primary will give you the nomination.) In 2004, John Kerry was nominated after receiving only 16.8 million votes, or 8.3% of the vote of those eligible to vote in the Democratic primaries.
Source
For religious right (a fairly large minority of the republican party) the single issue is god. In Huckabee, they see someone that they think will share their ideolgy and thus, they give him their support. They are not thinking about who is most electable, they are thinking about who will champion their cause. If they can convince 15 million or so people to vote for Huckabee in the primaries, there is a very good chance that he will be the nominee. I don't see that happening, but that is about all that it would require.
BTW, the same could be said of the Democrats. According to the most recent CNN poll, the only dem who leads McCain in a one to one match up, is John Edwards, yet he continues to run a distant third.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 24, 2007 @ 10:06 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,066
|
If Hillary is upset in the early caucuses and primaries and she is either unhorsed by other democrats seeking the nomination, or in the alternative, if she is nominated but defeated by the Republican candidate for President, then at that point it is all over for Hillary Clinton.
Plus her US Senate Seat from New York would also be available for challengers to seek in future elections as well.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 6:42 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
Friggin Huckabee and Romney are ahead in the polls. What a crazy world we live in. I don't think either one of them have a prayer against beating Hillary, Edwards, or Obama....he he he....And I'm feeling really really confident that Hillary is going to be the nominee for the Democrats if the lastest hype about her is any indications. There back to claiming that she is not experienced enough.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 6:42 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
Friggin Huckabee and Romney are ahead in the polls. What a crazy world we live in. I don't think either one of them have a prayer against beating Hillary, Edwards, or Obama....he he he....And I'm feeling really really confident that Hillary is going to be the nominee for the Democrats if the lastest hype about her is any indications. There back to claiming that she is not experienced enough.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:08 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 9,088
|
Where have all you folks been hiding,its been over for Hillary since the day she married whats his name.
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:11 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,066
|
Of all the Hillary Clinton scandals and cover-ups, ... “In her formative years,” explained Hillary Clinton biographer Olson, “Marxism was a very important part of her ideology...”
A radical feminist with a background in Marxist dogma and Communist connections
Another big influence in her formative years was Marxist-Maoist ...... Joyce Milton is author of The First Partner, a biography of Hillary Clinton.
Also check this link as well:
Clinton's Rogue's Gallery
[Edited on 12/26/2007 7:17 PM]
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:14 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,023
|
 The republicans worse nightmare....Hillary Clinton '08!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:19 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
iam7545
Posts: 4,151
|
from todays NYT - Billary has as much "White House Experience" as the freakin Pastry Chef -
When the NYT turns on Billary - we know it is really bad!
The Republicans want her to win - all Polls show that the Republicans have a much better chance against Billary than Obama -
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.
But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:24 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,066
|
Leftie says:
but chooses not to REFUTE the facts regarding Hillary Clinton's Marxist center
Also, thank you Iam, for your insightful and informative post that includes this:
But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
It appears that Hillary Clinton has more experience accepting campaign donations from the Red Chinese than in governing, if she "did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda."
Hillary reminds me of the last line of the addage about the stages of a project:
The STAGES OF A PROJECT
Enthusiasm
Dissapointment
Search for the guilty
Punishment of the innocent
Praise and honors for the nonparticipants.
[Edited on 12/26/2007 7:30 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:28 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
 boring.....boring....boring.....
Does anyone seriously believe that Senator Clinton supporter care about the New York Times article, and haven't consider this issue already.
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:32 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
Para I went to to the second link and saw a rediculous picture of Hillary Clinton....when I see a picture like that I don't even bother to read any further as I know its going to be bias. As far as her marxist leanings, that's old news too. Isn't that based on a thesis she wrote in college ? I mean come on. They can't find anything to knock her off her game in the present so they're reaching back to the back beyonds again ?
WE ALREADY KNOW ALL OF THIS....SHE WASN'T A CABINET MEMBER SHE WAS THE FIRST LADY
Are we minizing the fuction of the first lady now ?
[Edited on 12/26/2007 7:34 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:33 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,066
|
Does anyone seriously believe that Senator Clinton supporter care about the New York Times article, and haven't consider this issue already.
Ah but "Does anyone seriously believe that Senator Clinton steely-eyed opponents and cadre of political enemies who earnestly hate her for who she really is cares about the New York Times article, and haven't consider this issue already?"
You bet this issue is going to follow her all the way to where the smoking hole in the ground marks where her presidential campaign ultimately crashes and burns.
Hillary's supporters who KNOW about her Marxist-Maoist center and still back her politically deserve ostracism and to be shunned by all loyalists who abhore communism and all of its horrors.
[Edited on 12/26/2007 7:37 PM]
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:34 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ?
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
LGQ said:
If Huckabee is elected, I'm leaving the country.
Please don't leave the country!
He'll be the next POTUSA!
|
|
| |
|
| Dec 26, 2007 @ 7:40 PM |
Is it over for Hillary Clinton ? |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,151
|
Ah but "Does anyone seriously believe that Senator Clinton steely-eyed opponents and cadre of political enemies who earnestly hate her for who she really is cares about the New York Times article, and haven't consider this issue already?
I can't see any political strategist trying to use this. It just comes off as petty. She has been a US Senator, She's been in politics most of her life, first lady to a Governor, and a President, and more importantly a partner to Bill Clinton. When she was first lady the people were complaining she was too hands on to be a first lady. Now, there going to contend she wasn't ?
I'd be curious to see how they minimize the importance of the first lady, and wife, and not alienate the women voters...
[Edited on 12/26/2007 7:47 PM]
|
| |
|
|
|
|