28 Comments

• 1. LiberalMind  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:14 pm

  After eight years of a criminal regime that appropriated the White House in nothing less than a bloodless coup, anything would be better.

  At least Hillary has some progressive views and some regrets for voting for the illegal Iraq war. At least she shows a willingness to change some policy directions and roll back the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Crime Family.

  This country needs to get back to its progressive roots that made it strong and free. We need Supreme Court justices that uphold the Constitution and not the Bible. We need to secure our country against the religious fanatic Christian Taliban that want to return to the Dark Ages.

  Give me Hillary over any right wing Republican neo-con corporatist any day.

• 2. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm

  Well, even Ann Coulter believes Hillary would be better on the WOT than McCain. She also things Hilllary is more honest than McCain. Just generally, she believes that Clinton is more conservative than McCain.

• 3. SEW  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  Hillary could have an affair with Rosie and pay Bill back for his indiscretions as reported by the Right Wing Conspiracy.

  Free and better health care available to all. Free cars even. Tax big oil or even design a plan like Hugo has so it can be given away.

  Hillary is a progressive and that is what this country needs. Her face is not as Fresh as Barak’s, but it will do.

  Anything is better than the current criminal regime that has ripped the country off in their quest for money in the pockets of Bush and Cheney. And Rove that sorry bastard.

  And Hill could see to it that Bush is impeached for his lies. Where are the WMDs? They aren’t there!

• 4. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  Boy, you can’t argue with logic like that.

  It’s good to see the Hillary supporters are informed, grounded and realists; not mean-spirited, delusional, bitter, psychologically projecting, with anti-Christian pathology.

  Our future is safe with these people in control. Tin-foil all around!

• 5. LiberalMind  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  Oh, I have nothing against Christianity as long as you practice it on your own time and in your own churches.

  When you start inflicting its narrow bigotry on the rest of us and attempt to write it’s moral repugnance into the law that we must all then follow, I take offense.

• 6. SEW  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  And Hill would have brought the troops home yesterday! If she had been President for the past 7 years it would have saved the millions and millions of Iraqis that have died because of Bush’s illegal war. All because these greedy sobs wanted oil!

  Wake up America! We need change. Vote for progress! Vote Hillary!

• 7. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  Oh, thank you, wise big-brained liberal.

  You’re actually going to let me practice my Christianity as long as I don’t actually practice it.

  I’m allowed to … what … talk about it in my church? Keep my beliefs to myself, meet with my fellows in shadows so as to not offend you?

  Clearly, we’re the narrow minded bigots!

• 8. SteaM  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  Oh, come on - no one likes Hillary

  Oh come on, even for you, Mark, you know that’s a lie.

• 9. Brian (Boston)  |  February 1st, 2008 at 5:43 pm

  I am voting for my neighbor. He gets out his snow blower and cleans the sidewalks for much of the street.

• 10. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 5:59 pm

  LiberalMind once again demonstrates her lack of understanding of the values of which this country was founded.

  I wonder if she realizes that our founding fathers began each meeting with prayer before crafting the documents that govern this nation.

• 11. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  I am going to vore for Brian (Boston). He’s obvoiusly a compassionate conservative. And his neighbor as VP!

• 12. LiberalMind  |  February 1st, 2008 at 6:56 pm

  Neocon:

  Those backward traditions of evoking a Diety for salvation or supplicating a non-existant Supreme Being for favors over hardships have slowly been abandoned in favor of rational thinking.

  It’s called progress.

  It’s progressive.

  It’s liberal.

  It’s the best for the country.

  Keep government secular.

• 13. plainjane  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:18 pm

  I am feeling pretty good right now. All four final candidates are very competent. But first lets be real about Romney; he comes from the most liberal state in country. If he can sale the wingnuts that he has flopped towards the conservative light he can sell oil to the Saudis. It is funny however how Limbaugh and Hannity fawn over this recent conservative convert instead of the family value preacher known as Huckabee. I am sure the fact Romney baths in Northeast money has something to do with the support.

  But why am I feeling so good. Among the top four, Senator Clinton is probably the most conservative. No matter who wins the presidency, the chances of future Bork type activist supreme court judges the next eight years are slim to none. 1/20/09

• 14. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pm

  I think I speak for all conservatives here assembled when I say that these recent posts in defense of Hillary Clinton are the very best examples of the liberal mind in action. Note the nimble way they build their case; constructing an argument bit by bit until an insurmountable wall of logic has buttressed their position; sated with facts and historical insight heretofore unrecognized and unrecognizable.

  One must normally attend a drunken frat party to hear the English language so abused; grace a Laundromat to experience such reasoning, or work at a police holding tank to witness the unequivocal love shared one inmate for another.

  Truly inspiring, please, don?t let me interrupt ?

• 15. Barak  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:50 pm

  Benjamin Franklins words were piercing:

  “The small progress we have made after four or five weeks…….with each other……is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding…..In this situation of this assembly(Constitutional Convention), groping as it were in the darkt find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understandings?

  In the beggining of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instancesof a superintending Providence in our favor…..have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

  I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that buid it(Psalm 127:1).’ I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded and we ourselves will become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning…….and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”

  And those are the words of the so-called diest!

  I know reality is a bummer for some on this board, but to separate Christianity from this country is………well, let’s put it this way. Why re-write the constitution like you constantly try to do? Why not just write a NEW constitution? That, is, what it will take to seperate Christianity from Our Government!

  How about these words from our forefathers!

  George Washington:

  “If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God.”

  The event he was speaking of was the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, where he was later, unanimously voted in as Chairman of the proceedings.

  Ouch! Does that hurt, Liberal mind?
  Here is more(if you can bring yourselves to read it)!

  The delegates chose to worship together on July 4th, 1787. The entire Convention went as a body to the Reformed Lutheran Church in Philadelphia and heard a sermon by Rev. William Rogers. Following the sermon, Rev. Rogers offered the following prayer on behalf of the Convention delegates:

  “As this is a period, O Lord, big with events impenetrable by any human scrutiny, we fervently recommend to thy fatherly notice that august body, assembled in this city, who compose our federal convention. Will it please thee, O thou Eternal I Am! O favor them from day to day, with thy inspiring presence; be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of all the great whole; incline the hearts of all the people to receive with pleasure combine with a determination to carry into execution, whatever these thy servants may wisely recommend; that the United States of America may form one example of a free and virtuous government, which shall be the result of human mutual deliberation, and which shall not, like other governments, whether ancient or modern, spring out of mere chance or be established by force. May we trust in the cheering prospect of being a country delivered from anarchy, and continue under the influence of republican virtue, to partake of all the blessings of cultivated and CHRISTIAN society.”

  John Fiske, James Madisons, notes of debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.

  Since I know it just tears your hearts out, I listed references, so you couldn’t deny their words.

• 16. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:06 pm

  Great quotes Barak. Many may also have read in LiberlMindless post that she believes progress is moving away from our founding fathers vision.

  Unbelievable that someone can actually want to destroy a country that has offered so much hope and promise and that has given her the right to dissent.

  Ignorant is too weak of a word to use for her.

• 17. Gozer the Carpathian  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:28 pm

  I’ve always found it funny how anyone can say there isn’t a “superme being” or heck, something beyond ourselves. Oh sure, I’m all for those who disagree on what to call it but those who disbelieve in anything have to have a really intersting view on life.

  There isn’t any proof one way or another that a supreme being exsists. So if you don’t believe in one what’s wrong with letting others have their “delusions” about one? If there isn’t really one what’s wrong with letting them “pray” to nothing? Is their moral code that bad that you can’t let them make their decisions based on it?

  I’ve only found one major religion in the world that regularly (not hundreds or thousands of years ago, but today and across the globe) gives reasons to condem it or at least keep a wary eye on it. Yet even then I’m perfectly fine to allow folks to believe in it, I’ll just be wary of their actions.

• 18. Barak  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  Which is why, the only possible solution for those in a state of denial would be a NEW constitution. To bad they didn’t offer to help the Iraqi’s with theirs. Maybe they would have their paradise by now.

• 19. Mark Noonan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:41 pm

  SteaM,

  Can you tell what a joke is? Did you have a humor-ectomy, or something?

  Sheesh!!!

• 20. Mark Noonan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:44 pm

  LiberalMind,

  Not good enough - the regime you think is criminal (because you’re entirely ignorant, by the way) is on the way out; now you have to choose between different people to take over. Whom do you support? Why?

  If you can’t answer these questions, then you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

• 21. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pm

  neocon, Barak,
  Sadly, it is liberals that should espouse the concept of a deity; for if the rights we enjoy are only by the grace and disposition of our fellows, then they can just as easily deny us those rights, as no authority beyond them is supreme to their will, and there is no price paid for subjugation of His children against His will.

  It is the idea that God has endowed us with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and no earthly being can usurp that authority that guarantees us that freedom, on which this government is founded, and by which we allow them to lead.

• 22. Mark Noonan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:20 pm

  plain,

  Geesh…still hating Judge Bork? 22 years, and you liberals just can’t let things go…

• 23. LiberalNitemare  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:23 pm

  Funny, When littlemind described an eight year crimnal regime, I thought she had misunderstood the question and was talking about the last Clinton administration …

  Hillarys already involved in a fundraising scandal, Shes suppressing the records from her last trip to the white house and three days ago she had the audacity (of hope?) to appear at the Monumental Baptist Church in order to address the congregation of Rev. Samuel “Billy” Kyles.

  Imagine that, campaining for a federal office at a church of all places? What is she thinking?

  Im pretty sure that LiberalMind has no idea what to expect from another Clinton presidency.

• 24. Almiranta  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am

  Please don’t tell me that the Liberal “Mind” is a woman!! As a woman, I hate to think that any woman is posting the offensively ignorant and hate-driven pap we have come to expect from the self-named “mind”.

  I’m still stunned by the lunacy of a previous comment about how the Bush administration “drowned an American city”. It actually goes beyond lunacy into the murky territory of grotesque wallowing in lies and deceits merely because the “Mind” is happiest in such conditions, and that is both sad and disturbing. The delusion extends into the pretense that such insanity is the result of a true “mind”.

  Now we are treated to the specter of “…a criminal regime that appropriated the White House in nothing less than a bloodless coup..” We call those ELECTIONS, mindless. Annoyingly enough for you true BDSers, our elections are governed by the basic tenets of the Constitution, which says that all votes must be treated the same—a fact which still rankles the true footsoldier of radical Leftism. If only, if ONLY, the Supreme Court had let you pick and choose which votes to consider valid and which votes to discard, then you would have had your favorite son in power.

  But Mindless DOES serve the important purpose of illustrating, so brilliantly, the complete lack of reason on the far far radical Left.

  For example, he/she stll uses the term Progressive to describe the most REgressive legislation and political agendas ever seen in this country. People like the “Mind” make me consider George Orwell to be a true prophet of our time.

  Yes, Madame President WOULD regress the country, insofar as she would be able, to a punitive and economically destructive tax code, she WOULD enlarge the State to give it as much control as possible over the people, she WOULD do whatever she could to enact the same radical Socialist agendas she embraced so passionately back when she was defending the murderous Black Panthers and trying to undermine the military.

  Yep, in radical Demspeak, going back to failed concepts IS PROgress.

  But the seething and totally irrational hatred that drives the “mind” is so obvious, oozing through every word of every post, that there is no way this pretense of a mind can ever be taken seriously.

  I just suggest to moderate, rational, intelligent, TRUE Dems, that they look very closely at the rantings of such as the “Mind”—this is the future of your party, folks.

  Oh, as for the anti-religous blatherings, no one, not one single person, has ever said, implied, or hinted at anything even approaching a theocracy in this country. The truly nutso faction loves to spout this, but when asked which religion would comprise this “theocracy” their only response is “Well, CHRISTIANITY, of course!!!!”

  Hey, you doofus mouthbreathers—Christianity is not a religion. It is a belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and is our Redeemer. Based on that belief are something like 1600 RELIGIONS. And if you “think” that somehow these varying and conflicting religions are somehow going to come together to RULE THE COUNTRY then you are every bit as delusional as your posts indicate.

  You might examine your own religion more closely. While you sneer at those whose beliefs are based on faith in what you claim cannot be proven, you are an adherent of a belief system which HAS been proven—proven to be false.

  Every time Socialism has been tried, it has failed. The more concentrated the effort, the more spectacular the failure, over and over again, in country after country, yet you True Believers still try to convert the world to your failed belief system, still believe that you actually have the right to FORCE this system upon others, and find such (imagined) moral superiority in this belief system that you feel justified in lying to support it, in attacking all who oppose it, and in general in trying to create your OWN theocracy, only in your case trying to disguise your belief system as a political model.

• 25. Almiranta  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 am

  But back to the thread….Hillary

  Some do like her. For some reason, even many who have been abused by her over the years retain some loyalty to her.

  Hillary started off as a hard-core, radical, over-the-top, Socialist. If you bother to look at her earlier writings and positions, this is clear. Back when the Black Panthers had moved into overt murder of those who seemed to be thinking of getting in their way, and had become a true criminal enterprise, Hillary was one of their staunchest supporters.

  She has blocked the reprinting of her graduate thesis, threatening lawsuits against the publisher. Why would she do this if she wasn’t trying to hide something? As that thesis was so overtly Socialist in theme, it appears that she is now trying to hide her roots.

  Hillary has never succeeded at anything, not on her own. While she did well in law school, in the real world her hiring by the Rose Law Firm was based on her marriage to the governor of the state. In her capacity as an associate of that firm, she did very little actual work, as proved by the billing records.

  What she did do was a spectacular failure. She helped form a real investment group, and became one of only two people (the other being her husband) who was not convicted of some crime in connection with the way this enterprise was run. She was a partner and their lawyer—how successful can she be considered if they all ended up in court and most in prison, and if the business failed?

  Though she did not go to jail for her part in this whole messy scheme, which included the failure of a savings and loan (costing the government millions of dollars in insurance payments to those who lost money in the bank) and a suspected campaign fraud scheme, she did plead guilty to failure to claim income on her tax returns, after she sold a repossesed property which had been taken over by Whitewater and given to her, and not claimed the proceeds.

  This is all Law 101. The many legal (not to mention moral and ethical) failings of Whitewater should reflect on its legal counsel, yet the Clintons managed to convince the nation that any effort to look into her ineptness or corruption or whatever it was was really just AN ATTACK ON THE CLINTONS. Poor innocent babies.

  In the White House, she failed spectacularly in her efforts to strip control over their health care from the citizens and deliver it into the hands of the State. You may not remember this, if you ever knew it, but her massive plan included mandatory participation in her government plan, with hefty fines for seeking health care outside her system and an even heftier penalty for any doctor PROVIDING health care outside her system.

  No one can point, honestly and accurately, to ANYTHING which she has successfully accomplished, ON HER OWN. And there is nothing about her, in her history or even in her current incarnation as Presidential candidate, to indicate honesty, integrity, or competence. Those who desperately want a Dem in the White House overlook these defects and see what they want to see, but this Empress has no clothes.

  As for being a woman, I will happily vote for a woman for president if she is the right candidate, WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO BE A WOMAN. The very idea of voting for a woman BECAUSE she is a woman is so offensive to me, and so irrational, I simply cannot comprehend how anyone could feel that way.

• 26. Barak  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Hmmmmmmmmm…….it’s a shame! Not to many responses to our forefathers from the likes of LiberalMind, Sew, and PlainJane, etc. Could it be, they hate them as much as they do George Bush?

• 27. Barak  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  sorry Sew! You shouldn’t be lumped in with that lot.

• 28. SEW  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm

  On this thread maybe I should have been lumped in there. It hurt to make such crap up but the Lord knows I was just “funning”. Amazing the libs write that stuff and don’t realize the delusion involved.