Don'tFeb 5th, 2008 - 20:19:47

forget Barbara Jirsa, Hillary changed her mind on the war when she found out Bush was retarded and that he is uneducated and chuck full of shit.

''The economy's important,' said the mother, Barbara Jirsa. 'But I can't forgive Clinton for voting in favour of the war. That's the key. I can't vote for her after that.''

Report this comment

GarrattFeb 5th, 2008 - 20:47:10

Why can't people get it through their thick heads that Hillary was for the war because of all the lies from Bush and his cohorts????? When the truth came out, most politians with any brains, immediately saw that it was a huge mistake and admited it - unlike the Bush bunch!!

Report this comment

GlenFeb 5th, 2008 - 21:40:58

Yup, people got smart, once they saw through the Bush-shit. SP4 is the exception, of course.

Report this comment

atlantaFeb 5th, 2008 - 21:57:17

Look - I knew Bush was lying before he got into office - why did anyone believe him... LIES LIES LIES and they all bought them - why? Follow the money.

Report this comment

NoharnessFeb 5th, 2008 - 23:47:18

All politicians master the Texas Sidestep and become masters of Flippity-floppity-fu early on in their careers and the Billary is no exception:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyC7loMop58

Even worse, the Billary is running for an unconstitutional third term. Here is what the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has to say on the matter:

'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.'

Any way you look at, Hillary and William Jefferson Clinton are proposing to violate the Constitution. This should surprise no one. They like every asshole we have elected since FDR either violated the Constitution are tried very hard to violate it.

Report this comment

to noharnessFeb 6th, 2008 - 00:20:28

Hilarity Clinton hasn't held the office, so she is free to run for it. Please stop spreading your fertilizer.

Report this comment

LeonardFeb 6th, 2008 - 01:10:30

I live in upstate New York and I thought that smell was coming from New Jersy. It turns out to be Noharness spreading that Texas Bullcrap. Cease and desist, before the EPA gets on your case, No-man.

Report this comment

NoharnessFeb 6th, 2008 - 01:30:46

RE:'Hilarity Clinton hasn't held the office, so she is free to run for it. Please stop spreading your fertilizer.'

The Clintons continue to brag that they worked as a team to handle the office of the President of the United States. I refuse to allow them to have it both ways. While Hillary Clinton did not hold the office de jure, she did hold the office de facto. There is no reason to think that William Jefferson Clinton will not be the de facto President of the United States should Hillary Clinton win the general election. Their behavior during this primary election screams this out as an absolute fact.

The Clintons are now running for an unconstitutional third term. That is all there is to it. You may not like hearing it, but it is the truth.

Report this comment

NoharnessFeb 6th, 2008 - 02:21:47

Here is someone who proves my point:

www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--nyprimary-voices0205f eb05,0,4957909.story

Snippet:''I just like her ideas better and I always liked Clinton, so I'm getting two for the price of one.' -- Victor Calderone, who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton in East Farmingdale, N.Y.'

Senor Calderon repeats the Clinton's bragging. 'Two-for-one!'

Here's another corker from the same article:

''I'm voting for Hillary, definitely because she is a woman and it would be nice to have a woman president. ...It would be historic. But the fact that she is a Clinton is more important than that she's a woman.' -- Jeff Freiert, who works in book publishing, voting for Clinton in Brooklyn.'

Report this comment

@NoharnassFeb 6th, 2008 - 04:31:31

What part of ''She never held the office.'' don't you understand??

Report this comment

OMG her comes the TAXESFeb 6th, 2008 - 06:17:32

Clnton = Taxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax Tax Taxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax TaxTaxes for the rich, taxes for the middle class, taxes for the poor!!! Tax Tax Tax

Report this comment

@OMGFeb 6th, 2008 - 06:21:57

You must live in the OC

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumFeb 6th, 2008 - 09:45:14

Taxes indeed in a near future,unless some believe in magic of course to get rid of the trillion dollar debt installed by Bush .Oh he mad some nice reforms for the rich indeed,does anybody think it is normal that in a civilized country the 0.3 richest part of the population get a tax cut that is bigger than the entire federal budget for both primary and secondary education ?Does anybody in a civilized society think it is normal that 100.000 people die every year because they don't receive proper treatment when entering a hospital,because of a poor performing but expensive health system ?These are facts in contemporary USA .THe only budget that has no limits on spending is the so called defense budget .That one if fueled by the greed of corporate tycoons for your tax money .Do some of you even know that the rise in the defense budget in the Bush era is bigger than the entire defense budget of China ?And that is the biggest nation in the world .The new defense spending proposed by Bush has risen yet another 7 percent,and it doesn't even include the Iraq war .I feel sorry for the people in the USA who think they live in a democracy .Isn't it clear yet who pulls the strings of your government ?It will take more than voting for a democrat to change the nature of the government.It will involve legislation separating the military from the industrial complex like making it illegal to start a career in the armament industry after working in a government office .Work enough in the future .Bush has stuffed the government with lawyers representing corporate interests in every agency .Does anybody think it is normal to put a a lawyer representing Monsanto at the helm of the FDA ?What could possibly be his values and experience except carrying out the agenda of that company,not the needs of the population.THere ought to be laws against that,it is at least highly unethical.
So if taxes need to be paid in the future to fill the abyss in the state budget,collect them from those that profited from the BUsh era;the super rich only.

Report this comment

NoharnessFeb 6th, 2008 - 11:44:44

RE:'What part of ''She never held the office.'' don't you understand??'

De jure, she never served as President. De facto, she most certainly did. She was put in charge of engineering the government takeover of about 1/7 of the US economy. She blew it, but she most certainly did operate from the President's office as part of the Executive branch.

You are the one being a bit thick here, Bubbette. The Clintons are taking advantage of a loophole in the wording of the Twenty-second Amendment. That does not change the fact that BOTH of them served two terms.

Report this comment

A nohairnessFeb 6th, 2008 - 16:46:11

ABOUT: 'You are the one being a bit thick here, Bubbette. The Clintons are taking advantage of a loophole in the wording of the Twenty-second Amendment. That does not change the fact that BOTH of them served two terms.'

You are the backwoods bumkin who's as thick as a concrete milkshake. It's nay loophole, laddie. If that is a loophole then you're God. It is more likely that you are a booze-addled, cow dung snorting, texass jerkoff. She didn't run, she wasn't sworn in, she NEVER held the office. De jure and de facto, you are an idiot. Qoud erat demonstratum.

Report this comment