Hillary For Prez!

[freethinker44]

prejudice is not always based on race. In this case I was basing his possible prejudice on political affiliations.

I don't think it's prejudice if it is based on someone's ideology, but that's just semantics. Also, coming from you, isn't this just "the pot calling the kettle black"? I mean, you have thread after thread of anti-"all things democrat".

 

[freethinker44]

Brief quibble: Dr. Rice has never married.

There's nothing wrong with that, and it certainly shouldn't be a qualifier to hold political office.

 

[technomage]

There's nothing wrong with that, and it certainly shouldn't be a qualifier to hold political office.

Oh, no--I was commenting solely on Dirty Penguin's use of "Mrs," not indicating any opinion that being unmarried is "wrong" or "less qualified." My apologies for being unclear.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh, no--I was commenting solely on Dirty Penguin's use of "Mrs," not indicating any opinion that being unmarried is "wrong" or "less qualified." My apologies for being unclear.

And my apologies for using ("Mrs.")......

 

[YmirGF]

Well Clinton wasn't just Secretary of State or a US Senator, Hillary is a celebrity and in politics...celebrity is your ace card. Ms. Rice lacks the celebrity quotient.

Respectfully, thinking doesn't get much more vapid than this -- fortunately.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Respectfully, thinking doesn't get much more vapid than this -- fortunately.

If you don't think that celebrity has anything to do with getting elect then it is your thinking that is vapid.

 

[YmirGF]

If you don't think that celebrity has anything to do with getting elect then it is your thinking that is vapid.

Oddly, Obama was an unknown prior to his 1st campaign.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Oddly, Obama was an unknown prior to his 1st campaign.

And so was Elvis before his first hit record.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oddly, Obama was an unknown prior to his 1st campaign.

True in a way but he had made a name for himself long before running for President when he spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

 

[tytlyf]

I don't feel that having certain credentials or education should be a pre-requisite for the Presidency. We have some advocating for a neurosurgeon to be qualified for presidency. How it relates makes no sense. I've mentioned before that a community organizer (someone who works with people and their community to make things better) is more qualified than a businessman.
And it doesn't hurt to have studied Constitutional law. I think that should be a pre-requisite though.

 

[Sunstone]

Rice's biggest political problem -- besides being associated with the presidency of Bush -- is that she lied about weapons of mass destruction being present in Iraq. That won't knock her out with conservatives, but perhaps with a lot of independents.

 

[technomage]

Rice's biggest political problem -- besides being associated with the presidency of Bush -- is that she lied about weapons of mass destruction being present in Iraq.

Deceiver or deceived? While I agree that there ws deception going on, I don't know which side of the deception she was on.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, I'm not advocating for her, but it's time for a thread to argue the pros & cons of her election.
Who likes her?
Who hates her?
Who doesn't care?
Why?

Question (which I can't answer):
To what extent does her political philosophy match her hubby's?
Opinions on this?

Meh. I don't hate her. I've talked about in the past how I liked her original push for socialized healthcare but it was quashed through propaganda before an honest debate could be had.

I don't think her political philosophy matches her Husband as he has always been the peacemaker, bridge of government and business, ect. He works well by making connections and such. Hillary seems to be more head first in tackling issues. She has dug her heels in more than a few times.

Though I don't even think Bill's philosophy is the same as it was before. Times have changed.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rice's biggest political problem -- besides being associated with the presidency of Bush -- is that she lied about weapons of mass destruction being present in Iraq. That won't knock her out with conservatives, but perhaps with a lot of independents.

You say that like it is a fact Phil.

Saddam poisoned the Kurds.

They transferred the chemical weapons to Syria.

These weapons of mass destruction where used again in Syria.

Was there deception sure, no weapons?

That is a stretch implying it was all about absolutely nothing

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You say that like it is a fact Phil.

Saddam poisoned the Kurds.

They transferred the chemical weapons to Syria.

These weapons of mass destruction where used again in Syria.

Was there deception sure, no weapons?

That is a stretch implying it was all about absolutely nothing

Care to show documentation of weapon transfer from Iraq to Syria, occuring within the time of Bush Jr's term in office?
Otherwise you're just spouting neocon conspiracy theories.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Was there deception sure, no weapons?

That is a stretch implying it was all about absolutely nothing

There were no WMDs in Iraq. That has been established factually. Iraq and other middle east interest was simply about oil. The previous administrations own reports say as much.....The war was less to do about Saddam and more to do about controlling global oil prices.

Top REPUBLICAN Leaders Say Iraq War Was Really about Oil Washington's Blog

 

[Revoltingest]

There were no WMDs in Iraq. That has been established factually. Iraq and other middle east interest was simply about oil. The previous administrations own reports say as much.....The war was less to do about Saddam and more to do about controlling global oil prices.

There's plenty of evidence that Iraq had WMDS when it attacked Iran & the Kurds.
How long they remained is an open question, since not every hiding place can be known.
But this is about an irrelevant pretext for US invasion. Lacking this reason, another would've
been employed.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There's plenty of evidence that Iraq had WMDS when it attacked Iran & the Kurds. How long they remained is an open question, since not every hiding place can be known. But this is about an irrelevant pretext for US invasion. Lacking this reason, another would've been employed.

The reasons we were told we were going to war with Iraq were dispelled early on when no WMDs were found. I don't think they even found traces that WMDs were being manufactured there....yet we went right on in according to declassified documents.

The Iraq War Ten Years After: Declassified Documents Show Failed Intelligence, Policy Ad Hockery, Propaganda-Driven Decision-Making | Global Research

 

[metis]

Before doing a high-dive, it's best to check the depth of the water first. The fact of the matter as there was a rush to judgement, and there was information that suggested that there was a nuclear threat really wasn't there at all, as there was no indication that a bump in radiation anywhere in Iraq was being picked up.

Yes, Hussein did have chemical weapons, although it's dubious as to whether to call them WMD's with what they had, but this really avoids the main point, namely that we went to war against a country that did not attack us, and the intelligence supplied by the administration was highly conjectural. And then there's the fact that the administration had no real clue what to do after we took over.

 

[Revoltingest]

The reasons we were told we were going to war with Iraq were dispelled early on when no WMDs were found. I don't think they even found traces that WMDs were being manufactured there....yet we went right on in according to declassified documents.

As you might recall, the US even supplied WMD (chemical) materials to Iraq for use against Iran.
United States support for Iraq during the Iran
Ironically, the US intended Iraq to use WMDs, despite hypocritical protestations otherwise. So I
find the argument about "lies" about Iraqi WMDs to be insignificant compared to this misbehavior.