Next US Prez

[MzCiv]

jeffmann77 said:

my only hope is that people as ignorant as yourself die off before corrupting your children with this rubbish, as i have no doubt your parents did to you.

mzcivmilf said:

These same scientists that you hold so reverantly are from the same line of studies that once believed the earth was flat, that leeches cured illnesses by extracting bad blood, and that smoking posed no danger to the human body

you are so stupid its laughable to me. the first two examples you say here are ideas that AROSE FROM RELIGION LOL, not science! and would you really beleive anyone who said smoking wasnt harmful, even if he wasn't being paid by a tobacco company? thanks for the laughs lol

then you dear, are stupid when it comes to history; the majority of society from the 20's-30's believed smoking was not only NOT unhealthy, but could increase blood flow to aid in proper circulation.

Again, you are displaying your poor comprehension skills; it doesn't matter WHERE the original ideas came from - you completely missed the point that the current science community of the time believed they were accurate. That's the only point being made - who cares where it came from ? The "scientific community accepted it as truth". Why was it so hard for you to miss that point? Again, please polish your reading and comprehension skills.

You're not even staying on topic - the other point was that just because someone defends openmindedness to BOTH science AND religion, that does not mean they are a religious finatic. Yet, you insist that someone is stupid because they don't agree with only one of those two theories ? Unbelievable - perhaps you're the finatic - the one who refuses to open his mind to other possibilities.

arcturus said:

[Maybe a wrong example you picked. After the collapse of Rome, many of their technological advances and scientific ideas (knowledge that the earth was round being one), were discarded, and Europe plunged into the Dark Ages -where Religion took centre stage.

The examples were right on point; and you just MADE my point. ALL PAST SCIENTIFIC theories that were incorrect were once believed, then discarded when a better one came along. That's the WHOLE process of discovery. So to insist that one's current viewpoint, belief, or theory is absolute is completely ridiculous.

[jeffmann77]

mzcivmilf said:

jeffmann77 said:

my only hope is that people as ignorant as yourself die off before corrupting your children with this rubbish, as i have no doubt your parents did to you.




you are so stupid its laughable to me. the first two examples you say here are ideas that AROSE FROM RELIGION LOL, not science! and would you really believe anyone who said smoking wasnt harmful, even if he wasn't being paid by a tobacco company? thanks for the laughs lol

then you dear, are stupid when it comes to history; the majority of society from the 20's-30's believed smoking was not only NOT unhealthy, but could increase blood flow to aid in proper circulation.

Again, you are displaying your poor comprehension skills; it doesn't matter WHERE the original ideas came from - you completely missed the point that the current science community of the time believed they were accurate. That's the only point being made - who cares where it came from ? The "scientific community accepted it as truth". Why was it so hard for you to miss that point? Again, please polish your reading and comprehension skills.

You're not even staying on topic - the other point was that just because someone defends openmindedness to BOTH science AND religion, that does not mean they are a religious finatic. Yet, you insist that someone is stupid because they don't agree with only one of those two theories ? Unbelievable - perhaps you're the finatic - the one who refuses to open his mind to other possibilities.

arcturus said:

[Maybe a wrong example you picked. After the collapse of Rome, many of their technological advances and scientific ideas (knowledge that the earth was round being one), were discarded, and Europe plunged into the Dark Ages -where Religion took centre stage.

The examples were right on point; and you just MADE my point. ALL PAST SCIENTIFIC theories that were incorrect were once believed, then discarded when a better one came along. That's the WHOLE process of discovery. So to insist that one's current viewpoint, belief, or theory is absolute is completely ridiculous.

your ignorance is hopeless and i tire of wasting even a token minute on fools such as yourself.

look at your post again:

mzcivmilf said:

These same scientists that you hold so reverantly are from the same line of studies that once believed the earth was flat, that leeches cured illnesses by extracting bad blood, and that smoking posed no danger to the human body

again, these lines of thinking came from religion. once scientific method was applied to these ideas by people who actually sought truth (not a preconceived fantasy, which is the kind of ideas that religion teaches), they were proved untrue. it's interesting also that knowledge like the fact that the earth is not flat was discovered and lost, only to be replaced by the ignorant teachings of religious institutions. you completely missed emil's point. that every time an idea was propagated that the earth was flat it was fueled by religion. Science did not support it. This was not a "scientific theory that was once believed". It was a RELIGIOUS THEORY that was once believed. learn2read plz.

you and people like you today are no different than the religious institutions of old that persecuted Galileo for supporting heliocentric theory. By your logic, is that theory soon to be replaced by something else soon, or is the fact that the sun is the center of the solar system significantly proved for your standards? I mean, if you knew anything about science, you would know that in order to throw out theory of evolution you would have to toss out geology, archeology, biology, and genetics. All separate fields of science that have all independently reinforced an idea that has stood the test of 200 years of scientific scrutiny. So again, you know less than zero about this topic. Go on being ignorant but for your own good stop making yourself look stupid.

back to the topic: I'll bet 100 bucks your would like Mike Huckabee to be the next President.

[dunedain]

Devout atheists can be as ignorant as the most pious fools.

Truth is....neither of you "know" the truth, if there is such a thing.

But back to the threads' topic......Obama's candidacy may be the most hopeful sign for American democracy since Kennedy. (When I started paying attention to your quadrenniel circuses.)

A break from the "good ol' boys" network that has culminated in the unfortunate Bush/Cheney debacle.

And frankly, would you rather listen to Barak's skilled oratory or Ms. Clinton's lectures for the next four years. (I am afraid she has little of her husband's charm.)

.... and please, no more friggin republican war-pigs TYVM.



Go Obama!


Dune

[Reptile]

reptile2 said:

I think Clinton will win very narrowly against Mitt Romney. I like Kucinich much more and Obama a little more than her, but the Democrats won´t waste a person of her format by voting for Obama and let Hillary Clinton "age away". Kucinich seems almost european, probably too left to be considered acceptable for a majority. Guiliani is too far away from the Republican base, and Romney is decent in my opinion. Fred Thompson doesn´t quite have the fire, maybe not even quite the full ambition to make it. I think he listened to the many people around him that desperately wanted to see him running. John McCain is too old, and John Edwards is too much a lawyer.

Hmm.... It seems I was a little wrong. I still think that the higher circles of the Democratic party would prefer Clinton over Obama from a strategic point of view, but the grassroot way of choosing the candidates (luckily?) has chosen the more inspiring candidate. And it´s kinda funny how in last night´s debate and before, Edwards did the dirty work for Obama by criticizing Mrs. Clinton. Maybe it will result in a vice-presidency...
On the other side I can "sense" a possible McCain/Huckabee-ticket. They´d complement each other well. But even if Romney only finishes 2nd in New Hampshire I wouldn´t write him off because after all, he has the most general appeal on the national scale (and won Wyoming, LOLZ).

[Avogadro]

Either the first black american president or first white lesbian president. Either way, should see something different.

[Don K Hotay]

Mz you and all of your degrees do not stand a chance................after all you are under the influence of ignorant ideology, fueled by religious fervor

[whiplash]

avogadro said:

Either the first black american president or first white lesbian president. Either way, should see something different.

Hillary isn't a lesbo; she's asexual. She is all about herself and Bill is just a tool.

[Zardoz]

We're a long way from the end. Iowa has always been first, but they have successfully picked only two future presidents: Jimmy Carter and GW Bush. :-(

Anyone who thinks Obama stands for change while Clinton stands for status quo is delusional. Both say they will make great changes, but that is not really their job. Changing things is Congress' job. The President's job is to execute those changes.

The main difference I see between Obama and Clinton is that Clinton has the experience and connections to hit the ground running. Obama will turn to his handlers and say, "What now?" I hope they will be up to the task.

Edwards is an unabashed populist. He was (briefly!) US Senator from my home state. Despite my having voted for him for that position, I do not think he would be anything better than a pretty media creature as President.

The Republican candidates? Bah! Huckabee believes God guides his campaign and his hand. I feel about as comfortable with that as I do with an Islamic finger on the button. :-(

Romney is a populist, same as Edwards. He says what most people want to hear. Guliani is, well, evil. Thompson is just plain angry. None of them have a plan or a clue what they would do as President other than get a byline in the history books.

Sadly for Clinton, nearly every candidate I support loses. It's a shame, because she is clearly the most qualified and would do the best job of making the executive branch what it needs to be: efficient and influential both domestically and internationally.

[whiplash]

zardoz said:

We're a long way from the end. Iowa has always been first, but they have successfully picked only two future presidents: Jimmy Carter and GW Bush. :-(

True

Anyone who thinks Obama stands for change while Clinton stands for status quo is delusional. Both say they will make great changes, but that is not really their job. Changing things is Congress' job. The President's job is to execute those changes.

Not quite true! The Pres can very much influence what Congress does. The level of influence depends upon the level of "mandate" from the voters and the ability to execute the Bully Pulpit. It boils down to leadership and the makeup of congress along party lines.

The main difference I see between Obama and Clinton is that Clinton has the experience and connections to hit the ground running. Obama will turn to his handlers and say, "What now?" I hope they will be up to the task.

You are buying into Hillary's pitch. Just what executive experience does she have? Not that Obama has any either. If you really want to support a Dem with some experience you should back Richardson. Hillary's only real experience amounts to pillow talk and breakfast chat with Bill. She has no experience in Executive Leadership (as Obama also has none).

Edwards is an unabashed populist. He was (briefly!) US Senator from my home state. Despite my having voted for him for that position, I do not think he would be anything better than a pretty media creature as President.

You are right about Edwards. He is an empty suit. Nice hair, nice smile! "Tell the dumbells what they want to hear and maybe they will vote for me." But, that's really what Hillary is doing too!

The Republican candidates? Bah! Huckabee believes God guides his campaign and his hand. I feel about as comfortable with that as I do with an Islamic finger on the button. :-(

He doesn't really believe that; he wants you to belive that. Sad thing is that it will work with many of the Christian Right.

Romney is a populist, same as Edwards. He says what most people want to hear. Guliani is, well, evil. Thompson is just plain angry. None of them have a plan or a clue what they would do as President other than get a byline in the history books.

Romney does have a record of accomplishment; and let's face it, every candidate must be a populist to a certain degree to get elected. Guliani evil? Don't let that hairline throw you; he also has a record of accomplishment which is what is needed in an Executive Leadership position. I think Thompson does have a plan, he just lacks "energy".

Sadly for Clinton, nearly every candidate I support loses. It's a shame, because she is clearly the most qualified and would do the best job of making the executive branch what it needs to be: efficient and influential both domestically and internationally.

As I stated earlier, she has no real qualifications other than her tea parties for the wives of visiting foreign leaders. Her single leadership initative was to head up a plan to revamp this county's health care system; and that was a dismal failure. On top of her lack of real experience and demonstrated leadership ability she is hopelessly deficient in the "likeability" factor. She is correctly viewed as a vicious, sniping, power hungry, angry person. She's Bill without the Skill. Obama will blow her away!

[whiplash]

BTW, aside from my prediction that Obama will "Blow her away"; I predict a Clinton divorce soon after the Hillary political flop. Hillary will subsequently spin out of orbit and Bill will become a pop icon.

Mark my words on this!

[Avogadro]

She is a cold fish of this there is no doubt.
She has had a facination with gay affairs for years though, from roommate to aids.
I think she is a lesbian but like Whip says "she never has sex"

www.villagevoice.com/news/0526,lombardi,65345,6.html

I had read in the New Yorker I beleive. That Hillaries affair with an aid might be precipitating a divorce to be announced shortly after this election stuff. Sorry cannot refind the article atm short on time.

[whiplash]

[LuckyLukeNJJ]

Sexy

[Zardoz]

whiplash said:

You are buying into Hillary's pitch. Just what executive experience does she have? Not that Obama has any either. If you really want to support a Dem with some experience you should back Richardson. Hillary's only real experience amounts to pillow talk and breakfast chat with Bill. She has no experience in Executive Leadership (as Obama also has none).

...

As I stated earlier, she has no real qualifications other than her tea parties for the wives of visiting foreign leaders. Her single leadership imitative was to head up a plan to revamp this county's health care system; and that was a dismal failure. On top of her lack of real experience and demonstrated leadership ability she is hopelessly deficient in the "likeability" factor. She is correctly viewed as a vicious, sniping, power hungry, angry person. She's Bill without the Skill. Obama will blow her away!

Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action

Co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families

Chair the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation

Chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee

Full partner of Rose Law Firm

Chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee

Served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services

Chaired the Children's Defense Fund

Served on the corporate board of directors of TCBY, Wal-Mart Stores, and Lafarge.

(All the above BEFORE becoming the most influential First Lady since Elanor Roosevelt)

Chair of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform (Yes, it failed. And now all the candidates are scrambling to come up with something similar, as it seems that it is NOW what the American People want!)

I won't go into her Senate career, numerous committees and sub-committees, unless you choose to claim that she was a no-show there as well.)

Pretty impressive, I think, for someone alleged to have "no executive experience."

[whiplash]

Serving on boards is not an executive function. I would expect any governor's wife would have a similar resume.

What important legislation did she sponsor and ram through as senator?