Hilary Clinton has a new television ad out, which can be viewed here
Honestly, it makes me sick; as if she actually cares about the poorer citizens of the United States. "You may be invisible to this president [Bush] but you are not invisible to me." Please. I mean, sure, it's a nice ad to watch, and while watching it, one thinks, "Hey, she cares about me, and she's going to make my life better." Isn't that what all presidents promise? And does it ever get better? At least George Bush makes me feel safe. There haven't been any attacks since September 11th, and I firmly believe that it is because of his strong stance on the War on Terror. Clinton wants to pull out of Iraq. Big mistake, in my opinion. If our soldiers were to be pulled out now, we might as well send invitations to every known terrorist saying, "You are hereby invited to blow up the United States of America." Yeah, that would go over well.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
If our soldiers were to be pulled out now, we might as well send invitations to every known terrorist saying, "You are hereby invited to blow up the United States of America."
I've always failed to see the logic in that argument. Most of those doing the fighting and the dying in Iraq aren't terrorists, but are insurgents, which is an entirely different ballgame.
-----
"It is never too late to give up your prejudices." Henry David Thoreau
"In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side." Euripides
-----
Fallon
It's sickening because it gives you hope that if you're poor, you won't be ignored...? What a despicable thing to say!
I'm glad at least SOMEONE actually feels safe after what GWB did.
Osama bin Laden.
remember him? last I checked, he was hiding in a cave somewhere in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
WMD? there certainly weren't any in Iraq.
And does anyone remember Afghanistan?
Terrorism really has little to do with Iraq except that Iraq is in the Middle East, and many terrorists come from that volatile area--to call any Iraqi or arabic person a terrorist is to commit a huge act of prejudice.
And just because terrorist attacks have not been committed here, does not mean they are not committed. THere have been two attacks in London since 9/11, and numerous foiled attempts. Actually, England has been successful in capturing and standing terrorists on trial. Where has Bush been on THAT aspect of fighting terrorism?
Hug a musician, they never get to dance.
What the hell does 9/11 or terrorist attacks have to with the poor and health care? Absolutely nothing. Instead of responding to what is said in the ad you are making ignorant statements about a totally unrelated political topic.
There are other issues besides Iraq and other things to talk about. Constantly bringing up terrorists and threatening people with another attack if so and so gets elected is ludicrous and disingenous. It is the narrowest of narrow political discourse.
Not every single issue ties directly back to 9/11 and the terrorist bogey men.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principals."
"Honestly, it makes me sick; as if she actually cares about the poorer citizens of the United States."
while it's true that most people in politics are pretty sketchy, to say the least, and the things they should say shouldn't be taken at face value, i find it extremely presumptious of you to flat out say whether someone does or doesn't care about the poor, especially since you don't support your statement with any verifiable facts (like a news article called "hillary kicks homeless man" would've been good, but i don't think such a thing exists). when bill clinton was president, she was the one that tried to push through a universal health care that, while flawed and a bit misguided, definitely would've helped poor people a lot since no one can afford proper healthcare these days unless they're upper middle class or have a government job with good benefits.
"Isn't that what all presidents promise? And does it ever get better?"
yes, all presidents do promise that, which they should, because a country's leader (at least in this country, let's not get into a big vs. small government argument) is elected to serve his people, which includes bettering living conditions for the less fortunate. and yes, some presidents actually do put forth reforms that help the poverty-stricken. at the very least, i'm pretty sure most presidents don't push through tax cuts that only benefit the richest people while driving our national debt up and causing a HUGE budget deficit (guess who's gonna be paying that off later? probably you!).
"At least George Bush makes me feel safe. There haven't been any attacks since September 11th..."
there also weren't any major attacks between 1993 and 2001, when clinton was president. got anything to say about that? and like someone else, there haven't been attacks here but there have certainly been attacks elsewhere, you think those don't count? if anything, this war is promoting terrorism, not stopping it. i don't know if you've noticed but generally when a country does something like this it doesn't exactly become best friends with every one else, in fact pretty much the opposite happens. immediately after 9/11 the US was one of the most supported countries in the world; pretty much everyone was on our side. guess who screwed that all up and turned us into possibly the most hated nation anywhere.
"If our soldiers were to be pulled out now, we might as well send invitations to every known terrorist saying, "You are hereby invited to blow up the United States of America.""
first of all, that's entirely illogical. when the US finally got out of vietnam (sort of), did communism take over the world? i don't think so. like i said before, this misguided war is just exacerbating anti-US sympathies. but meanwhile you're right, let's just leave the soldiers in iraq and send invitations to all the insurgents saying "you are hereby invited to suicide bomb the hell out of our military, we even made it easier for you by not giving them proper equipment."
--stacie
there also weren't any major attacks between 1993 and 2001, when clinton was president. got anything to say about that?
As a matter of fact, I do.
February 26, 1993: a car bomb was denonated by Islamic terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center.
And yes, I realize this was a month after he was inaugurated. Just making a point that there was indeed a terrorist attack while he was president and that you should check your facts.
I'd also like to mention that Clinton could have had Osama arrested in 1996.
"During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, 'At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.'
But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York."
-newsmax.com
yes, i was well aware of the 1993 WTC attack, but because it was a month after he was inaugurated i chose to ignore it. he didn't launch a war that pretty much everyone in the world is against, for one, and yet for the rest of the 8 years he was in office we had how many attacks? oh that's right, you didn't point out another one.
also, when clinton was president, we still abided by basic constitutional and legal provisions, so if there was no solid evidence we really couldn't have brought him here.
--stacie
If Bush makes you feel safe, it's because you're an illiterate goddamn peasant who doesn't know a thing about terrorism, aside from the highly salient fact that Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda are both them dad-gummed swarthy, funny-talkin' Ay-rabs, so hell, Bush invading the wrong country is all the same thing!
Anyone who supports this warmongering yokel ought to have their vote taken away for life.