Coincidence???

I think not!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1219079730.jpg

Flidki****z bledelpoop.

Hut gugelfahrt schiddelyblap.

Wow! Just...wow!

No. Not off hand. But it's a general sense I get from those of your 13,000 posts that I've read.

But I was talking about females. Not just female politicians.

I'll tell you what is not SOP when discussing political candidates, that is to focus entirely on their perceived personalities and ignore their message to the extent that you cannot admit when they give a great speech. I've never had a problem recognizing when a politician is effective, no matter how much I may not agree w/ their policy positions. To simply say that, "she makes me want to vomit/egomaniac/etc.." plus the usual nasty remarks about her physical appearance is what makes it impossible to take your opinion seriously.

She gave a great "unity speech", w/o question the best one in recent memory. I'm philosophically opposed to socialism and government control when it is avoidable, (and it is not always-the military is the biggest socialist program on earth), but you can thank your own comrades who are corporatists and treasury-looters for bringing us to the place we are today where there is no capitalist solution presented for fixing the healthcare crisis. And yes, it is a crisis.

I wish that the Clintons were not such flawed characters because they are very effective politicians and the country and world were much better off when Clinton was president. The price of absolutely everything is going through the roof right now while Bush's closest corporate friends are getting so fat that they are about to explode. It's been a tragedy for the country and the world. :cool:

“No way, no how, no McCain.”

Her speech as weak.

You could have replaced BHO name with Edwards and it would have sounded the same. She never said WHY BHO should be POTUS only why JMc shouldn't be.

She indeed makes me want to vomit, however that was an excellant speech last night unlike the one delivered the previous night by Mrs Obama. I hate the Clinton clan and what they stand for, but make no mistake they can deliver a speech.

I don't agree with the content of the speech at all as it is simply a bunch of lefty feel good garbage to spewed out to convince the sheeple that the republicans are evil.

Once again..... hell of a good speech.

After months of ripping on BHO, it would have sounded disingenuous for her to suddenly start stroking BHO. She did exactly what the party of sheeple needed her to do. I truly wish she had imploded up there, but unfortunately she did a good job.

She looked like she was on the Arkansas highway crew spreading asphalt!

Bruce looks better in orage than she does!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpz4v6_EZ6M

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1219839188.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1219839197.jpg


If you knock her over you get a 2 second penalty.

That cone could fit nicely on her head and there's one other place it would go well also!

I fundamentally dislike Hillary (and Bill as well) and I am pleased that she is not going to be a contender for POTUS this time around. That being said, I will echo the comment... she gave a hell of a speech.

"That is our duty, to build that bright future, and to teach our children that in America there is no chasm too deep, no barrier too great - and no ceiling too high - for all who work hard, never back down, always keep going, have faith in God, in our country, and in each other."

She forgot "keep your hands out there for the freebie govt support"

I was thinking more:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1219815729.jpg
http://www.fragfortress.com.edgehost...n_pumpkin1.jpg

It would be woth it.

On the other hand, Chelsea is looking good. :D

You have been listening top hitlary, haven't you? (ref previous post).
the "special tax breaks for the rich you people like to talk about so much, do you even know what that means? do you understand what they are lying about or are you just repeating their BS?
Just in case, here it goes.
They have a tab rate reduction for the middle class based on a percentage of earnings. That percentage is lowered as income increases. The more money you make, the less of a percentage of tax reduction you get.
If you make lots of money you get almost no tax break at all.
That is what we like to call a FACT.

BNow the dems don't like facts or truth so they had a problem with it. They looked at it and figured that someone who made $50k got X amount of dollars saved, but someone who made $350k had more than X dollars saved. They got a much lower tax break percentage-wise but the actual dollar figure was higher.
the dems, not accustomed to telling the truth, twisted that until it was "the rich are getting a bigger tax break" and the sheeple ate it up. As evidenced here.

We know better. That kind of manipulating the truth only works on other democrats.

BTW, those "rich" that you dems hate so much pay your taxes for you. They pay a whole bunch more than the regular guy does. They pay much more than their share, while the average democrat pays much less than his share. So in return the democrats bite the hands that feed them. Gimme gimme gimme, more more more.

We complain because there are ignorant uninformed greedy people who are trying to live off us and we don't like it. We complain because these greedy lazy people hwo want us to support them aren't satisfied with the satuff they arleady get but haven't earned, and they want even more. We complain because we would prefer they go out and get a good education and work hard and start earning their own money instead of trying to take it away from those who have EARNED IT!