Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.
But let's say you are.....
Here is a brief run down of Thompson.
He has lived in the South, East, and West
He earned his law degree in 1967
He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.
He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.
Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee
Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.
Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.
They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.
So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?
No, as I stated, they are equally qualified. However, we need to turn the page. America has never elected a non white, christian, male candidate. America needs to change. America needs Hillary.
America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?
Here's your argument. America has never elected a parapelegic with a lazy eye, so we should elect a white,male, christian. It doesn't hold.
No...that is me pointing out how utterly ridiculous your argument is. I don't care if someone is black, blue, green or white and is a man, woman or transsexual. I want the best person available to hold that office.
You however don't seem to give a damn about who is the best person for the job...you just want someone who is from a different gender/religion/whatever just because we haven't elected a person from that gender/religion/whatever before.
I'm sorry...but that is a stupid stupid argument.
Sometimes you need change. When a basket ball team isn't doing well, you change the coach. When a corporation isn't posting good earnings, you change the board and ceo. When America's reputation as a fair and compassionate nation is cronied into junkbond status, we need a fresh face, the face of Hillary Clinton.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.
But let's say you are.....
Here is a brief run down of Thompson.
He has lived in the South, East, and West
He earned his law degree in 1967
He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.
He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.
Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee
Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.
Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.
They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.
So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?
No, as I stated, they are equally qualified. However, we need to turn the page. America has never elected a non white, christian, male candidate. America needs to change. America needs Hillary.
America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?
Here's your argument. America has never elected a parapelegic with a lazy eye, so we should elect a white,male, christian. It doesn't hold.
No...that is me pointing out how utterly ridiculous your argument is. I don't care if someone is black, blue, green or white and is a man, woman or transsexual. I want the best person available to hold that office.
You however don't seem to give a damn about who is the best person for the job...you just want someone who is from a different gender/religion/whatever just because we haven't elected a person from that gender/religion/whatever before.
I'm sorry...but that is a stupid stupid argument.
Sometimes you need change. When a basket ball team isn't doing well, you change the coach. When a corporation isn't posting good earnings, you change the board and ceo. When America's reputation as a fair and compassionate nation is cronied into junkbond status, we need a fresh face, the face of Hillary Clinton.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this....but there will be an election next year and there will be a fresh face in the White House regardless of if they have a vagina or not.
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.
But let's say you are.....
Here is a brief run down of Thompson.
He has lived in the South, East, and West
He earned his law degree in 1967
He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.
He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.
Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee
Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.
Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.
They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.
So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?
No, as I stated, they are equally qualified. However, we need to turn the page. America has never elected a non white, christian, male candidate. America needs to change. America needs Hillary.
America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?
Here's your argument. America has never elected a parapelegic with a lazy eye, so we should elect a white,male, christian. It doesn't hold.
No...that is me pointing out how utterly ridiculous your argument is. I don't care if someone is black, blue, green or white and is a man, woman or transsexual. I want the best person available to hold that office.
You however don't seem to give a damn about who is the best person for the job...you just want someone who is from a different gender/religion/whatever just because we haven't elected a person from that gender/religion/whatever before.
I'm sorry...but that is a stupid stupid argument.
Sometimes you need change. When a basket ball team isn't doing well, you change the coach. When a corporation isn't posting good earnings, you change the board and ceo. When America's reputation as a fair and compassionate nation is cronied into junkbond status, we need a fresh face, the face of Hillary Clinton.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this....but there will be an election next year and there will be a fresh face in the White House regardless of if they have a vagina or not.
Another white, chrisitan, male candidate who is the same old same old isn't exactly a fresh face.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp... Hillary has some MAJOR issues from her past.
I don't think she would make a good President.
Although you never know based on how Bill did.
I think it would come down to whether or not she follows Bill?s model and rules by polling or follows her own beliefs.
Running the country on polls works for a lot of domestic issues, but was an absolute disaster on foreign policy.
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: shinerburke
He didn't win it once in spite of trying to steal it.
As for now...he is too busy trying to hunt down Manbearpig to run for President.
MBP is currently the biggest threat to humanity as we know it!
Have any of the candidates been President before?
No.
Therefore a fresh face WILL be in office after Bush is gone.
IF you want to get technical about it all of them are a lot fresher face than Hillary is. I mean she was the shadow President not too long ago.
I think you need to find a new argument.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?
Originally posted by: Hacp
Have any of the candidates been President before?
No.
Therefore a fresh face WILL be in office after Bush is gone.
IF you want to get technical about it all of them are a lot fresher face than Hillary is. I mean she was the shadow President not too long ago.
I think you need to find a new argument.
I agree with you. Hillary, a fresh face, will be in office after Bush goes.
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.
But let's say you are.....
Here is a brief run down of Thompson.
He has lived in the South, East, and West
He earned his law degree in 1967
He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.
He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.
Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee
Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.
Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.
They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.
So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?
No, as I stated, they are equally qualified. However, we need to turn the page. America has never elected a non white, christian, male candidate. America needs to change. America needs Hillary.
America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?
Here's your argument. America has never elected a parapelegic with a lazy eye, so we should elect a white,male, christian. It doesn't hold.
I don't understand your logic... how do physical attributes make someone more qualified for president? Hillary isn't more qualified because she's a woman. Obama isn't more qualified because he's black.
Casting a vote for someone because "we've had too many presidents who have looked like this... we need a president who looks different that what we've had in the past" is retarded. WTF difference does it make what they look like? What do their physical atributes do to make them more qualified for the job?
Do you pick your doctor like that? "He is the doctor with the squarest jawline... I will choose him to operate on my heart." :roll:
Originally posted by: Hacp
I don't understand your logic... how do physical attributes make someone more qualified for president? Hillary isn't more qualified because she's a woman. Obama isn't more qualified because he's black.
Casting a vote for someone because "we've had too many presidents who have looked like this... we need a president who looks different that what we've had in the past" is retarded. WTF difference does it make what they look like? What do their physical atributes do to make them more qualified for the job?
Do you pick your doctor like that? "He is the doctor with the squarest jawline... I will choose him to operate on my heart." :roll:
I'm sorry. I misstyped earlier. I meant to say that Hillary is the most qualified candidate for change. We need a fresh face, her's will remodel the way other nations look at us.
Originally posted by: Hacp
I don't understand your logic... how do physical attributes make someone more qualified for president? Hillary isn't more qualified because she's a woman. Obama isn't more qualified because he's black.
Casting a vote for someone because "we've had too many presidents who have looked like this... we need a president who looks different that what we've had in the past" is retarded. WTF difference does it make what they look like? What do their physical atributes do to make them more qualified for the job?
Do you pick your doctor like that? "He is the doctor with the squarest jawline... I will choose him to operate on my heart." :roll:
I'm sorry. I misstyped earlier. I meant to say that Hillary is the most qualified candidate for change. We need a fresh face, her's will remodel the way other nations look at us.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Lemon, it is HIGHLY unlikely we reach the convention without one person having a clear majority.
You would need a three way race to end with the vote being divided up amongst those three and that is unlikely to happen.
Furthermore, every election someone floats the idea of a deadlocked convention and every election we have a clear cut winner just a few weeks into the voting.
Originally posted by: toughwimp11
i think this thread has lost the focus which was gore, should he run.
I personally think that Obama and hillary cannot (not that they shouldn't win but they wont cause people wont vote for them) win due to the fact that I dont think america is ready for a black or female president and although many will vote for them, they will fail to persuade people in the general elections.
I think gore has a very strong chance of actually winning
Originally posted by: Hacp
We don't want another white, rich, male, christian.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.
But let's say you are.....
Here is a brief run down of Thompson.
He has lived in the South, East, and West
He earned his law degree in 1967
He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.
He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.
Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee
Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.
Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.
They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.
So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: toughwimp11
i think this thread has lost the focus which was gore, should he run.
I personally think that Obama and hillary cannot (not that they shouldn't win but they wont cause people wont vote for them) win due to the fact that I dont think america is ready for a black or female president and although many will vote for them, they will fail to persuade people in the general elections.
I think gore has a very strong chance of actually winning
If I were Gore I'd take the wait and see approach. Wait for the crowd to thin out and for the electorate to get good and bored with what's left. Then file and run. The new guys always gets a bump (look at Fred Thompson) and he's on the minds of enough people that he might be able to sustain a run to the convention and take the nom. He definitely has the D core's attention.
After that... Don't know if he has enough appeal to middle america to carry it through to November. He's built up one heckuva kook lefty image over the last few years. Not sure how that would play to Jane & Joe Sixpack. The only loser in modern times to come back from defeat and win was Nixon. So it's not impossible... But I just don't see any widespread appeal with him.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
After that... Don't know if he has enough appeal to middle america to carry it through to November. He's built up one heckuva kook lefty image over the last few years. Not sure how that would play to Jane & Joe Sixpack. The only loser in modern times to come back from defeat and win was Nixon. So it's not impossible... But I just don't see any widespread appeal with him.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Hacp
Hillary is the most qualified candidate. Its time to break away from the same old same old, Rich, White, Male, Chrisitian mold. Its time for change. Vote Hillary;vote for change.
Most qualified? Puh lease. Being a power hungry carpet bagging opportunistic bitch does not make you qualified to be President.