yeah, CLINTON QUITS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldensamba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WendyWilliams

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain.

---

I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

---

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn

---

Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

---

Since Hillary is not the governor of New York she has very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing. Some people need to learn the functions of positions in government before opening their yaps.

---

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

---

That is called pork and that is not technically part of a Senator's job. It's something we should despise not promote. A senator's job is the help form NATIONAL policy not govern a state therefore their impact is minimal on their home state when compared to what a governor does. Before you start telling people to get educated you should know what you are talking about yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldensamba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

---

That is called pork and that is not technically part of a Senator's job. It's something we should despise not promote. A senator's job is the help form NATIONAL policy not govern a state therefore their impact is minimal on their home state when compared to what a governor does. Before you start telling people to get educated you should know what you are talking about yourself.

---

LMFAO… You’re kidding me, right? Seriously, let me see if I can follow your imbecilic argument. You tried to tell me that Clinton, as a senator, has “very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing” – despite the fact that she herself clearly thought being a senator would make her capable of attracting 200,000 jobs to bolster her state’s economy? Hmmmmm. Clearly Senator Clinton – who, unlike you, actually is a senator – disagrees with your factually unsustainable position.

That’s not surprising when you consider that anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how Congress functions knows that a powerful senator can, and often does, have a substantial impact upon a state’s economy. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to cite but one example, has brought in some $3 billion to prop up that state’s anemic economy since 1991 (a huge number when you consider the size of West Virginia's economy).

So.......the next time your sycophantic ass decides to try and score some brownie points by inserting yourself into a discussion with some snarky comment, you might want to first ensure that you have so much as a child's grasp of the topic at hand. That way, just maybe, you can avoid looking like a complete moron the way you do now.

P.S. Your weak attempt to distract the focus away from your failed argument by including crap about what is or is not, technically speaking, a senator's job is irrelevant and has nothing to do with your initial point. Nice try though, Gump.

http://www.destructoid.com/wp-conten...6/10/moron.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote

---

Kelly, don't beleive me, read for yourself

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.js...81474977353230
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showD...o?diaryId=2400
http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progre...itics-Examiner

The only way Hillary can claim to win the popular vote is by taking all the votes in Michigan, and giving none of them to Obama and by ignoring all the State that have caucuses instead of primaries Since he wasn't on the ballot, in accordance with party rules, Hillary is the one twisting the numbers like Chubby Checker, not me. Every fair analysis, that includes all the States and doesn't exclude the 45 per cent of voters in Michigan who voted uncommitted, shows Barak "won" the popular vote.

Even though he clearly did, its irrelevant. The nominee is selected by delegates and he absolutely won the majority of them. Clinton tried to finesse that too, but was rebuffed by the Party.

The candidate is supposed to represent the Party, and vice verse. Hillary has lost the nomination, but her party is still in this election. She, and her supporters need to get over it and get behind the nominee, or else Bush will get a third term to further foul things up with surrogate, McCain.

FK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

needsum writes:

Quote:

---

Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party

---

Of course. You don't really want to vote for a personality do you? A man or woman you can have a beer and a shot with? A party represents a coherent set of views about a broad spectrum of issues...arrived at through a complex dance of local and national discussions and elections. When people vote for a party they're voting for a set of perspectives on a collection of issues. We have conflict in Washington, not because everyone's just sticking up for they're team...but because representatives are attempting to stick by the principles of their party; i.e. the principles of those who elected them. Of course if you didn't vote for that representative you'll feel left out...but that problem is only amplified by a multiple party system because even more people will be left out.

---

EXACTLY my point. And right now, we have only TWO perspectives to choose from. And thses perspectives have split the nation because they are so polar. I agree with what you say--in principal it is a good idea, yet in reality it is proving over and over that the country is not benefitting from the two party system.

Of course when I made my above statements, I wasn't insinuation that Billy Bob who waxes poetic on politics at the end of the Applebee's bar is my choice for president. We do need some sort of party system, having each party present itself with a firm base, values and perspective. Two alone are continuing to split the nation and cause too much infighting, and it takes away from the important things being resolved.

Quote:

---

The candidate is supposed to represent the Party, and vice verse. Hillary has lost the nomination, but her party is still in this election. She, and her supporters need to get over it and get behind the nominee, or else Bush will get a third term to further foul things up with surrogate, McCain.

FK

---

Bingo.

It cracks me up how some people pontificate and act like out of their mouth is the oracle of truth. O-P-I-N-I-O-N. That's all we have here. And a few rude remarks.

Clinton will announce this Saturday. I guess the pressure from fellow Democratics help her make a decision...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldensamba

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quinn

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

---

That is called pork and that is not technically part of a Senator's job. It's something we should despise not promote. A senator's job is the help form NATIONAL policy not govern a state therefore their impact is minimal on their home state when compared to what a governor does. Before you start telling people to get educated you should know what you are talking about yourself.

---

LMFAO… You’re kidding me, right? Seriously, let me see if I can follow your imbecilic argument. You tried to tell me that Clinton, as a senator, has “very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing” – despite the fact that she herself clearly thought being a senator would make her capable of attracting 200,000 jobs to bolster her state’s economy? Hmmmmm. Clearly Senator Clinton – who, unlike you, actually is a senator – disagrees with your factually unsustainable position.

That’s not surprising when you consider that anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how Congress functions knows that a powerful senator can, and often does, have a substantial impact upon a state’s economy. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to cite but one example, has brought in some $3 billion to prop up that state’s anemic economy since 1991 (a huge number when you consider the size of West Virginia's economy).

So.......the next time your sycophantic ass decides to try and score some brownie points by inserting yourself into a discussion with some snarky comment, you might want to first ensure that you have so much as a child's grasp of the topic at hand. That way, just maybe, you can avoid looking like a complete moron the way you do now.

P.S. Your weak attempt to distract the focus away from your failed argument by including crap about what is or is not, technically speaking, a senator's job is irrelevant and has nothing to do with your initial point. Nice try though, Gump.

http://www.destructoid.com/wp-conten...6/10/moron.jpg

---

A job description is a job description and even though a senator can do something about and beyond that their job lies elsewhere. You can spin it all you want but facts are facts. Learn the actual job of a senator before you spout off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote

---

Kelly, don't beleive me, read for yourself

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.js...81474977353230
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showD...o?diaryId=2400
http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progre...itics-Examiner

The only way Hillary can claim to win the popular vote is by taking all the votes in Michigan, and giving none of them to Obama and by ignoring all the State that have caucuses instead of primaries Since he wasn't on the ballot, in accordance with party rules, Hillary is the one twisting the numbers like Chubby Checker, not me. Every fair analysis, that includes all the States and doesn't exclude the 45 per cent of voters in Michigan who voted uncommitted, shows Barak "won" the popular vote.

Even though he clearly did, its irrelevant. The nominee is selected by delegates and he absolutely won the majority of them. Clinton tried to finesse that too, but was rebuffed by the Party.

The candidate is supposed to represent the Party, and vice verse. Hillary has lost the nomination, but her party is still in this election. She, and her supporters need to get over it and get behind the nominee, or else Bush will get a third term to further foul things up with surrogate, McCain.

FK

---

:claps :claps :claps