[typoon]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=5839

While President George W. Bush was embraced warmly by the more than 600 troops he served dinner to in Baghdad on Thanksgiving, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't get the same treatment.

In fact so few U.S. military personnel volunteered to meet and sit with her, that military leaders in Baghdad had to designate enlisted personnel and junior officers to spend time with the New York senator.


I would have hated to have been one of those Junior officers.

[Spliffdaddy]

I would have gone AWOL rather than share the same room with Hillary.


I can't believe she has the gall to pretend she doesn't loathe the military.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I would have gone AWOL rather than share the same room with Hillary.


I can't believe she has the gall to pretend she doesn't loathe the military.

Yet no one in here complained about her visit, or how she REALLY shouldn't have been there. Or how she had NO REASON to be there.

Wonder why.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yet no one in here complained about her visit, or how she REALLY shouldn't have been there. Or how she had NO REASON to be there.

Wonder why.

Yet everyone complained about Bush being in Iraq. Saying he had no business being there. Go figure.

[thunderous_funker]

So when Bush makes a secret visit, he's a hero. When Hillary does it, she's just politicking. Got it.

I can certainly understand why Bush is more popular with US troops, but I don't understand how blind people can be to the obvious photo-oping by both politicians.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So when Bush makes a secret visit, he's a hero. When Hillary does it, she's just politicking. Got it.

Jut want to point out that your mention of the word "hero" is the first in this thread.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Jut want to point out that your mention of the word "hero" is the first in this thread.

Sorry. Just reacting to having to listen to the "liberal" media gush over Bush's visit all weekend. It was hard to avoid.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So when Bush makes a secret visit, he's a hero. When Hillary does it, she's just politicking. Got it.

I can certainly understand why Bush is more popular with US troops, but I don't understand how blind people can be to the obvious photo-oping by both politicians.

Actually, if you read the other thread I said that she was doing the right thing going out and spending time with the troops just as Bush was.

Absolutely, I'd have sat with her.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Sorry. Just reacting to having to listen to the "liberal" media gush over Bush's visit all weekend. It was hard to avoid.

NP. I see the left getting upset at Bush's visit and complaining that this visit was in no way heroic. The problem with that argument is that no one on the right is claiming it was heroic.

Was the visit cool as hell and supportive of the troops? Yes.
Heroic? No.
Brave? ...I prefer to use the term "ballsy".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Absolutely, I'd have sat with her.

Me too.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So when Bush makes a secret visit, he's a hero. When Hillary does it, she's just politicking. Got it.

I can certainly understand why Bush is more popular with US troops, but I don't understand how blind people can be to the obvious photo-oping by both politicians.

No, I think they both were doing it for Political reasons.

BUT, you have to admit, Bush had more reason being there than Hitlery.

[typoon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So when Bush makes a secret visit, he's a hero. When Hillary does it, she's just politicking. Got it.

I can certainly understand why Bush is more popular with US troops, but I don't understand how blind people can be to the obvious photo-oping by both politicians.

Well considering it was BILL who cut and cut our military and who said he loathed our military while in office. Hilary has been criticising out military and now she goes over there and praises them but still bashes Bush, the war and our policies in Iraq. She has been so hypocritcal on her issues with the military that YES when she goes there it is politicking and when Bush goes there it isn't.

Whatever you may think about how useless this war is and that Bush sent our military to Iraq because of his willy nilly foriegn policy The military likes him because he has done everything to stand for them. not fight against them like all the democrats in the Senate. Bush's visit was a genuine visit while Hilary's was just for a photo-op.

[Spliffdaddy]

i love you, typhoon.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by typoon:
Well considering it was BILL who cut and cut our military and who said he loathed our military while in office. Hilary has been criticising out military and now she goes over there and praises them but still bashes Bush, the war and our policies in Iraq. She has been so hypocritcal on her issues with the military that YES when she goes there it is politicking and when Bush goes there it isn't.

Whatever you may think about how useless this war is and that Bush sent our military to Iraq because of his willy nilly foriegn policy The military likes him because he has done everything to stand for them. not fight against them like all the democrats in the Senate. Bush's visit was a genuine visit while Hilary's was just for a photo-op.

I was agreeing with you until the last sentence. It was just a photo-op for Bush too.

[typoon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I was agreeing with you until the last sentence. It was just a photo-op for Bush too.

While Bush may have done it as a photo-op pretty much everything the President goes to is a chance for a photo-op. I don't believe Bush did it just to get his face in a photo-op. He truly wanted to be there with the troops. Hilary on the other hand has been so critical of the military that IMO she was just there for the photo-op.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by typoon:
While Bush may have done it as a photo-op pretty much everything the President goes to is a chance for a photo-op. I don't believe Bush did it just to get his face in a photo-op. He truly wanted to be there with the troops. Hilary on the other hand has been so critical of the military that IMO she was just there for the photo-op.

hm..you seem to be arguing in two different directions, there.

Either it was a photo op or it wasn't. Considering the stealth security situation, I doubt it could be anything but a photo op if there were any photographs at all.

However, As I said in the other thread, it was the right thing to do. But for the wrong reasons.
IMHO, If Bush truly was concerned about morale, he'd shorten the turnaround of troops, and have SUPPORTED the extra hazard pay instead of fighting against it.
Showing up for two hours to smile and hand out dinner is a good thing, but as far as being effective morale booster, its like a bandaid on an amputation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I doubt it could be anything but a photo op if there were any photographs at all.

I don't think that makes sense. Bush wasn't able to visit each and every soldier in Iraq, no president could. What he was able to do was meet a sample of them. Then that message is conveyed to the rest who weren't in the hall to the rest of the soldiers in Iraq via the photographs. If you took away the photographs, you would take away the message to the other 130,000. That is, after all, why he made a speech to all 130,000, not just the 600 in the room.

That's not to say that there was no intent for the people back home to know he was there. Presidents are politicians too. But you can't say that the presence of media means that there was no intent to show support to the soldiers. Media is the main way presidents connect with the public.

Bush does do private meetings with people when all he is doing is talking to the actual people involved and not a larger group. The best example is when he met with the 9/11 families right after the public memorial service. He didn't allow any cameras in there.

Sometimes I think you let your cynicism get the better of you. Bush did the right thing here for the right reasons. So did Hillary.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
IMHO, If Bush truly was concerned about morale, he'd shorten the turnaround of troops, and have SUPPORTED the extra hazard pay instead of fighting against it.

I don't recall anything about Bush "fighting against it".

What the DOD wanted was a seperate pay designation, like a hardship duty allowance, so that they could determine which soldiers would receive the "combat" pay (like those in actual combat). The DOD felt that a soldier guarding an embassy in France, while abroad and on active duty, should not receive the same hazard pay increase as those patrolling combat zones in Iraq.

Regardless, the soldiers got their raise and hazard pay increase, and Bush signed it without hesitation.

And believe me, tons of people are truly concerned about troop morale, as is the President. How could one not be?

[zigzag]

I think it was both a genuine gesture and an irresistible photo op. However, I hope those photos aren't exploited in Dubya's campaign ads.

If I had been Hillary, I would've made the trip, told the troops what a great job they're doing, and kept my mouth shut about policy differences. She's got the right, but there's a time and a place. In any case, I'm glad that a few troops were adult enough to sit with her despite any differences of opinion.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think that makes sense. Bush wasn't able to visit each and every soldier in Iraq, no president could. What he was able to do was meet a sample of them. Then that message is conveyed to the rest who weren't in the hall to the rest of the soldiers in Iraq via the photographs. If you took away the photographs, you would take away the message to the other 130,000. That is, after all, why he made a speech to all 130,000, not just the 600 in the room.

That's not to say that there was no intent for the people back home to know he was there. Presidents are politicians too. But you can't say that the presence of media means that there was no intent to show support to the soldiers. Media is the main way presidents connect with the public.

Bush does do private meetings with people when all he is doing is talking to the actual people involved and not a larger group. The best example is when he met with the 9/11 families right after the public memorial service. He didn't allow any cameras in there.

Sometimes I think you let your cynicism get the better of you. Bush did the right thing here for the right reasons. So did Hillary.

ahhh...good point. You're right. the presence of photographs do not necessarily a photo-op make.

However, I retain my cynicism, of BOTH Bush and Hillary in this regard. I believe that as people they have the right reasons, but politicians never do anything in the camera lens anymore that is not orchestrated to within a millimeter of what they intend.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think it was both a genuine gesture and an irresistible photo op. However, I hope those photos aren't exploited in Dubya's campaign ads.

I would not be surprised (me being cynical, again)

[macvillage.net]

I hate Hilary because she is such a phony:

1. She isn't a New Yorker, despite calling herself one. Yea, big Yankee fan, with that brand new hat. Rudy was right... I doubt he ever saw her at one of the thousands of games he went to.

2. She's still in love with Bill? Come on. When was the last time they were seen doing anything that wasn't 100% political: Hint: before he admitted to playing a game of hide the cuban on national TV. Since then it's been pre-arranged media attention.

3. She keeps smiling and saying how loved she feels... yet she's been boo'ed more than any other politician I've ever heard of. Even Hitler had more fans. Hell, Hitler might have more fans now in Israel than she has... During the Concert for NYC, she was heckeled so bad, they turned down the mics in the audience for abience... you could distinctly hear them do that... yet she still smiled and waved. The fact that she thought low-income working class people would enjoy her presence (dispite being elected by the upper class aristocrats of NY)... is just stunning.

She's so full of herself, she doesn't see how the rest of the world sees her.

No wonder Bill went elsewhere for sex. He couldn't imagine hiding his genetalia in a giant pez despenser... her head is gigantic.

A little modesty could go a long way.

She's not a new yorker... poor people can't stand her, and she knows she was elected by the upper class... just look where she campaigned 90% of the time... she's blind... and she assumes everyone in America just loves her because she's a woman.

Oh, I think the 3rd facelift was 1 to many. She's starting to look like mix between Nancy Regan, and Barbara Walters.

[typoon]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I hate Hilary because she is such a phony:

1. She isn't a New Yorker, despite calling herself one. Yea, big Yankee fan, with that brand new hat. Rudy was right... I doubt he ever saw her at one of the thousands of games he went to.

2. She's still in love with Bill? Come on. When was the last time they were seen doing anything that wasn't 100% political: Hint: before he admitted to playing a game of hide the cuban on national TV. Since then it's been pre-arranged media attention.

3. She keeps smiling and saying how loved she feels... yet she's been boo'ed more than any other politician I've ever heard of. Even Hitler had more fans. Hell, Hitler might have more fans now in Israel than she has... During the Concert for NYC, she was heckeled so bad, they turned down the mics in the audience for abience... you could distinctly hear them do that... yet she still smiled and waved. The fact that she thought low-income working class people would enjoy her presence (dispite being elected by the upper class aristocrats of NY)... is just stunning.

She's so full of herself, she doesn't see how the rest of the world sees her.

No wonder Bill went elsewhere for sex. He couldn't imagine hiding his genetalia in a giant pez despenser... her head is gigantic.

A little modesty could go a long way.

She's not a new yorker... poor people can't stand her, and she knows she was elected by the upper class... just look where she campaigned 90% of the time... she's blind... and she assumes everyone in America just loves her because she's a woman.

Oh, I think the 3rd facelift was 1 to many. She's starting to look like mix between Nancy Regan, and Barbara Walters.

So much love there for Hilary I see.

You are right about one thing. She is ver diluted to how people portray her. Some people love her some can't stand her. BTW has she done anything for NY?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hm..you seem to be arguing in two different directions, there.

Either it was a photo op or it wasn't. Considering the stealth security situation, I doubt it could be anything but a photo op if there were any photographs at all.

However, As I said in the other thread, it was the right thing to do. But for the wrong reasons.
IMHO, If Bush truly was concerned about morale, he'd shorten the turnaround of troops, and have SUPPORTED the extra hazard pay instead of fighting against it.
Showing up for two hours to smile and hand out dinner is a good thing, but as far as being effective morale booster, its like a bandaid on an amputation.

Maybe but my point on this was that Bush is the President no matter where he goes it's going to be a photo-op whether he wants/intends for it to be. ON the Other hand Hilary is only doing this to make it look like she cares about the troops.

Bush totally upstaged Hilary whether it was intended or not his visit WAS a great move on his part.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
She's so full of herself, she doesn't see how the rest of the world sees her.

No wonder Bill went elsewhere for sex. He couldn't imagine hiding his genetalia in a giant pez despenser... her head is gigantic.

I'm just amused by this because it reminds me how offensive the right finds Hilary... yet outraged at Bill's infidelity.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I hate Hilary because she is such a phony:

1. She isn't a New Yorker, despite calling herself one. Yea, big Yankee fan, with that brand new hat. Rudy was right... I doubt he ever saw her at one of the thousands of games he went to.

2. She's still in love with Bill? Come on. When was the last time they were seen doing anything that wasn't 100% political: Hint: before he admitted to playing a game of hide the cuban on national TV. Since then it's been pre-arranged media attention.

3. She keeps smiling and saying how loved she feels... yet she's been boo'ed more than any other politician I've ever heard of. Even Hitler had more fans. Hell, Hitler might have more fans now in Israel than she has... During the Concert for NYC, she was heckeled so bad, they turned down the mics in the audience for abience... you could distinctly hear them do that... yet she still smiled and waved. The fact that she thought low-income working class people would enjoy her presence (dispite being elected by the upper class aristocrats of NY)... is just stunning.

She's so full of herself, she doesn't see how the rest of the world sees her.

No wonder Bill went elsewhere for sex. He couldn't imagine hiding his genetalia in a giant pez despenser... her head is gigantic.

A little modesty could go a long way.

She's not a new yorker... poor people can't stand her, and she knows she was elected by the upper class... just look where she campaigned 90% of the time... she's blind... and she assumes everyone in America just loves her because she's a woman.

Oh, I think the 3rd facelift was 1 to many. She's starting to look like mix between Nancy Regan, and Barbara Walters.

All true, probably, although I wasn't aware of the class divide or the plastic surgery (I try not to look too closely). I think her appeal, such as it is, lies in the fact that (a) she's very smart/crafty, (b) she has big balls, and (c) she's associated with Bill. People respond to those things, especially in New York. Thus she's the only Dem (apart from Bill and Gore) with serious national stature at the moment.

[typoon]

The brass at Bagram apparently had a hard time rounding up New Yorkers who wanted to have dinner with Clinton, D-N.Y. Only six GIs responded to an e-mail sent out last week that stated, "Looking for military members from New York and Rhode Island interested in meeting their Senator/Congressman."

People magazine was on hand to cover the event and wanted to interview the troops for reaction to Clinton's visit.

"But they were getting declined left and right," our source said. "People were actually telling the reporters, 'You don't want to print what I think about her and her visit.'"

After Clinton and her entourage departed, the only topics GIs wanted to talk about were "how great the food was and how fantastic they thought George Bush's visit to Iraq was."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by typoon:
The brass at Bagram apparently had a hard time rounding up New Yorkers who wanted to have dinner with Clinton, D-N.Y. Only six GIs responded to an e-mail sent out last week that stated, "Looking for military members from New York and Rhode Island interested in meeting their Senator/Congressman."

People magazine was on hand to cover the event and wanted to interview the troops for reaction to Clinton's visit.

"But they were getting declined left and right," our source said. "People were actually telling the reporters, 'You don't want to print what I think about her and her visit.'"

After Clinton and her entourage departed, the only topics GIs wanted to talk about were "how great the food was and how fantastic they thought George Bush's visit to Iraq was."

I don't know why this is either surprising or noteworthy. Obviously, many republicans can't stand her...as evidenced by those on this board. As a democrat, I have no strong feelings either way. I imagine the majority of troops you'd find in a volunteer army might possibly be more republican than democrat (though I don't have anything to base that on except my perceptions of attitudes towards military issues).

at any rate...so what? what does it actually prove, one way or another...that she shouldn't have come? If that happened, there'd be just as many republicans blasting her for NOT coming. Damned if you do....

It does raise some interesting questions, though. Bush's decision to come was secret....was hers? If not, was his decision to come AFTER her decision to come, and if so, did he already know of her decision and was trying to upstage her?

I honestly don't know the answers to those questions, nor does the linked article help much.

Anyone know?

[zigzag]

Seems to me that there's a nearly constant parade of U.S. pols going to visit Iraq. Seems like every time I turn on a news/talk show, some pol is saying "Well, I just got back from there and here's how things really are . . . ". I suspect that Hillary got more attention because she's, well, Hillary.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by typoon:
The brass at Bagram apparently had a hard time rounding up New Yorkers who wanted to have dinner with Clinton, D-N.Y. Only six GIs responded to an e-mail sent out last week that stated, "Looking for military members from New York and Rhode Island interested in meeting their Senator/Congressman."

People magazine was on hand to cover the event and wanted to interview the troops for reaction to Clinton's visit.

"But they were getting declined left and right," our source said. "People were actually telling the reporters, 'You don't want to print what I think about her and her visit.'"

After Clinton and her entourage departed, the only topics GIs wanted to talk about were "how great the food was and how fantastic they thought George Bush's visit to Iraq was."

I surely hope she didn't expect any different.

[Lerkfish]

As I've said, I personally have no strong feelings for or against Hilary, but I DO think this is an example of "Hilaryhating", which is apparently ok, as opposed to "Bushhating", which is an offense of some kind.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=5839

While President George W. Bush was embraced warmly by the more than 600 troops he served dinner to in Baghdad on Thanksgiving, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't get the same treatment.

In fact so few U.S. military personnel volunteered to meet and sit with her, that military leaders in Baghdad had to designate enlisted personnel and junior officers to spend time with the New York senator.


I would have hated to have been one of those Junior officers.

On Thanksgiving the GI's thought Hillary was the turkey

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by typoon:
So much love there for Hilary I see.

You are right about one thing. She is ver diluted to how people portray her. Some people love her some can't stand her. BTW has she done anything for NY?

She hasn't done a damn thing for NY.

She's made it very clear... this isn't about NY. It's about her career. She was willing to go to any state with an open seat... it just happened to be NY.

What ticks me off, is that she's so into lying, she actually believes herself. And it's sick that she actually appeared in that Concert for NYC, and appeared shocked at the very end (before they cut away from her) that they heckeled her... If I would have bet millions... I could be typing this from my private island with a new powerbook.

Originally posted by zigzag:
All true, probably, although I wasn't aware of the class divide or the plastic surgery (I try not to look too closely). I think her appeal, such as it is, lies in the fact that (a) she's very smart/crafty, (b) she has big balls, and (c) she's associated with Bill. People respond to those things, especially in New York. Thus she's the only Dem (apart from Bill and Gore) with serious national stature at the moment.

a. True. So is her husband. I don't question their intelegence.... it's obvious they are bright. But good people... that's a whole other issue.

b. Couldn't put it better myself

c. True as well.

I was born in Brooklyn NY. My father grew up in Brooklyn, still have family there, my dad works there, I've worked in the city during the summer... It's the only place I consider to be a city (everywhere else is just another "town"). And I'm a yankee fan . I too have never seen Hillary at a Yankee game prior to her campaign.

She's the pinicle of why I REFUSE to register to vote... I hate politicians. I'll register to vote for the first person who refuses any political association, and has a chance at getting into office. IMHO we should listen to George Washington and outlaw political parties.

Sacks of Poop like Hillary, Bill, George W. Bush, Gray Davis, Chrissy Whitman, et. al... are americas Cancer.

I'd take Clinton over Hillary, because he's at least a little more forward with is BS. Hillary is just ignorant of it. She doesn't even see it. That's how sick she is.

Rudy was also a bit scummy. But at least he didn't ignore it. He knew where he was loved, and hated. He was a New Yorker, through and through. He new the people he worked for.

I'd question if Hillary knew where Penn Station is? And how far away MSG is from Penn Station? Or just a simple True/False: The empire state building is in NYC True/false?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
And how far away MSG is from Penn Station?

There's probably a Chinese restaurant right across the street!

Or just a simple True/False: The empire state building is in NYC True/false?

I don't think she's quite that dense.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
On Thanksgiving the GI's thought Hillary was the turkey

So that's how she decided to get back at bill, she let some GIs stuff her for Thanksgiving!


Sorry, no offense intended to anyone. I just thought it was too funny not to post given the setup AutoJC just left right there in front of me.

BG

[zigzag]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
She hasn't done a damn thing for NY.

She's made it very clear... this isn't about NY. It's about her career. She was willing to go to any state with an open seat... it just happened to be NY.

Hillary isn't the first to use NY as a stepping stone. Bobby Kennedy did it in 1966, and ran for President only two years into his term. New Yorkers appear to like to elect senators who reflect the city's sense of importance - that they're from New York appears to be secondary.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Hillary isn't the first to use NY as a stepping stone. Bobby Kennedy did it in 1966, and ran for President only two years into his term. New Yorkers appear to like to elect senators who reflect the city's sense of importance - that they're from New York appears to be secondary.

She coudn't point to NY on a map if she had a gun to her head.

Yea, she views NY as important.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

She's the pinicle of why I REFUSE to register to vote... I hate politicians. I'll register to vote for the first person who refuses any political association, and has a chance at getting into office. IMHO we should listen to George Washington and outlaw political parties.

Pinnacle.

Additionally, there is no person who has a good chance of getting into office running unaffiliated with a party. It's a near-impossible situation you set up, and the only way it might occur is at a local level running in a non-partisan race (where every voter knows which parties the candidates belong to, but the party affiliation isn't listed on the ballot.)

The problem with outlawing political parties is the simple fact that we have something guaranteed by the Constitution called "freedom of association." Political parties are nothing more than associations of more-or-less like-minded people, and to outlaw them would be wrong. Now, you could change ballot access law so that more parties had access to getting on the ballot, but that's a different matter.

Re-read Washington's advice on political parties. He cautions that it will be possible for people to band together and betray or sacrifice the interests of the country in favor of themselves or their own interests. However, the worst that he predicted has pretty much come to pass in the presidency of FDR and those that follow in that path.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...age=transcript

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Pinnacle.
The problem with outlawing political parties is the simple fact that we have something guaranteed by the Constitution called "freedom of association." Political parties are nothing more than associations of more-or-less like-minded people, and to outlaw them would be wrong. Now, you could change ballot access law so that more parties had access to getting on the ballot, but that's a different matter.

Re-read Washington's advice on political parties. He cautions that it will be possible for people to band together and betray or sacrifice the interests of the country in favor of themselves or their own interests. However, the worst that he predicted has pretty much come to pass in the presidency of FDR and those that follow in that path.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...age=transcript

Please name 1 politician with political affiliations who hasn't stabbed the voters in the back by acting for their political party... rather than the people.

Just look at the fact that Bush will spend thousands of hours, backing various politicians during various campaigns. Just as Clinton did, and every other president. Why is he endorsing these people? Because his party makes him.

Why did Clinton back Gray Davis? Because he was told to. Think Clinton wanted to bother wish a lost cause, and assoociate his name with that (think Hillary wanted the Clinton name associated with that in california)...

Politics is 100% corrupt in America. There isn't 1 person in elected office who hasn't stabbed the voters in the back to please their political party (and their financial contributers).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
On Thanksgiving the GI's thought Hillary was the turkey

When Bush visited Iraq, several British papers headlined "The Turkey has Landed".

Nothing new under the sun.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Re: political parties. I think it worth mentioning that we really don't have political parties in the US in the way that they do, say, in the UK. In the UK, political parties are very strong. candidates offer themselves to the parties very much the way you apply for a job. The party's central offices interview them, and offer them to constituency parties (a constituency is like a congressional district). That local party then decides whether to adopt the candidate as their representative in the election. The upshot is that the party has a great deal of control over the candidate.

In contrast, in the US we have a much looser system. Candidates run for office independently, get their financing mostly independently, and choose for themselves which party to run under. The parties tend to be much more like an unbrella.

You might think of it this way. Where UK politicians are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the parties. In the US it is more of a franchise arrangement.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...Where UK politicians are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the parties. In the US it is more of a franchise arrangement.

... but a MacDonalds franchise still only sells MacDonalds products, regardless of only being a franchise - can a MacDonalds sell Chick-fil-A? On a Sunday?

One of the interesting things that can happen in the UK, and does, is that a politician can get elected for one party, and during his term he can change to another party. This is a hoot, as I can see no moral justification whatsoever for it, but they always say 'I am only changing to better represent my constituents' or somesuch, when really they are just mad at the boss.

As I have said before - don't vote, it just encourages politicians.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
... but a MacDonalds franchise still only sells MacDonalds products, regardless of only being a franchise - can a MacDonalds sell Chick-fil-A? On a Sunday?

It's not an exact analogy.

By the way, it is McDonald's (not Mac, and with an apostrophe). It is also Chik-Fil-A (no c). If you misspell them like that, they are going to send the globalization police after you.

[ThinkInsane]

I stopped reading this thread about half way through, as it seems there is nothing there but what is to be expected.

That said, I would definitely had dinner with her. She's my senator, and I have some issues regarding my state I would like to speak to her about.

What a great opportunity to do that. If a soldier sat there and started grilling her about her promises to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate, and then sat there and took no action as every manufacturing job in my county (where she made the 200,000 new jobs claim) vanished, she would be forced to give some kind of answer. With the camera crew there, she would have to respond in some fashion.

And this isn't a democrat/republican thing. I honestly thought that Moynihan did a wonderful job for New York. Schumer actually went all out, along with congressman Walsh to try and save the Nestle plant that closed here, and when that failed, to try and get Nestle to sell the plant to a group of soon to be laid off employees so they could keep production going and keep the much needed jobs.

Hillary has done nothing of substance for this state, except make grandiose campaign claims that she knew full well could not be kept.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Re: political parties. I think it worth mentioning that we really don't have political parties in the US in the way that they do, say, in the UK. In the UK, political parties are very strong. candidates offer themselves to the parties very much the way you apply for a job. The party's central offices interview them, and offer them to constituency parties (a constituency is like a congressional district). That local party then decides whether to adopt the candidate as their representative in the election. The upshot is that the party has a great deal of control over the candidate.

In contrast, in the US we have a much looser system. Candidates run for office independently, get their financing mostly independently, and choose for themselves which party to run under. The parties tend to be much more like an unbrella.

You might think of it this way. Where UK politicians are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the parties. In the US it is more of a franchise arrangement.

he he he... Franchise. Love that.

My beef is that candidates work for the Parties, not the people. I don't give a living Cr@p what party a preson is, Republican, Democrat, Nazi, whatever... it really doesn't matter. I care more about what they plan to do, and even more importantly... what the WILL do. It's rather pathetic when people vote for someone because of the political affiliation. Like buying into the "republican" name makes you a better person... just means you have connections, or a deep wallet. That says nothing about your capability/morals/standards/determination... yet people assume it means all of that.

Look at how Congress goes... Everything is devided by party lines. The actual vote, is carried by a select few, chosen to go cross party lines. Agenda's are owned by PARTIES, not by SUPPORTERS.

Why is there a "Prescription Medicare Bill (Republican/Bush
plan)"... should be "Perscription meicare Bill (supporters). But no... it's based on political parties.

Our government runs close to a stalemate 24x7.

If we got this far, with 2% productivity in government... imagine what 100% would bring?

Even the department of defense, and homeland security, is part of this stupid bickering. The people our nation relies on for security, make decisions based on political agenda's and affiliations from WITHIN our nation.

Political Parties serve our nation no good. We have 2 groups, together work to form a monopoly and keep a third out.

Within these two groups, they are determined (and capable) of stalling the other for 4 years... enough time to derail anything they don't like.

Meaning it takes a 9/11 to push a bill through within 4 years.

Want to solve the medicare problem? Get old people to fly a plane into a building... that will get it taken care of. Nothing short of that may work.

It's really rather sad. There are some brains on both sides. Some very intelegent people, who do want to better our country.

Sadly, they are maningless, as, nothing gets past the political steel curtain that hangs in Washington. The only way to make a temporary hole is to fly a plane through it.

Think about it. Clinton spent years working on medicare, among other things. Bush spent the first 18 months of his presidency, trying to derail, and erase that...

to impose a similar bill, with his name on it.

And now the democrats, are blocking that, in hopes of getting someone to come up with a bill with a democrat name on it.

It has nothing to do with what's the better bill (both need work really... both have good, and very bad to them). But that's irrelevent.... what matters is the name on it.

Rather than build off of the old, and enhance... months are wasted, destroying. Then pushing a new one. That's millions of dollars, and years of time.

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:


That said, I would definitely had dinner with her. She's my senator, and I have some issues regarding my state I would like to speak to her about.

What a great opportunity to do that. If a soldier sat there and started grilling her about her promises to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate, and then sat there and took no action as every manufacturing job in my county (where she made the 200,000 new jobs claim) vanished, she would be forced to give some kind of answer. With the camera crew there, she would have to respond in some fashion.

And this isn't a democrat/republican thing. I honestly thought that Moynihan did a wonderful job for New York. Schumer actually went all out, along with congressman Walsh to try and save the Nestle plant that closed here, and when that failed, to try and get Nestle to sell the plant to a group of soon to be laid off employees so they could keep production going and keep the much needed jobs.

Hillary has done nothing of substance for this state, except make grandiose campaign claims that she knew full well could not be kept.

Your right, it isn't democrat/republican per say. None are bad/good.

It's political parties in general. The vast majority of politicans serve the parties not the people... and the ones that do serve the people are to often derailed by the party.

That, is my argument. I agree 100% with you.

Now, I doubt she would know what state your talking about.

[Y3a]

Actually, Hillary's trip was no secret. Everybody in DC knew about it a WEEK before she left. it was even on the local news!

Hillary went for the photo op.

Bush went for the suprise.

[thunderous_funker]

Props to macvillage.net

Both parties have absolutely betrayed their traditional constituencies and historic ideologies.

Franchise, indeed. They are in business for themselves.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Y3a:
Actually, Hillary's trip was no secret. Everybody in DC knew about it a WEEK before she left. it was even on the local news!

Hillary went for the photo op.

Bush went for the suprise.

well.....then it appears to me Hilary was a great deal braver than Bush.....right?

I mean, her trip was telegraphed to potential terrorists in advance....but Bush hide under cover of darkness, literally and figuratively....yet Bush gets treated like a hero and Hilary like a whore.

*shakes head* go figure.

[christ]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well.....then it appears to me Hilary was a great deal braver than Bush.....right?

I mean, her trip was telegraphed to potential terrorists in advance....but Bush hide under cover of darkness, literally and figuratively....yet Bush gets treated like a hero and Hilary like a whore.

*shakes head* go figure.

If you think about it, how would anyone that hit Hilary be received in the US? In the current climate they would probably get a ticker tape parade - in that light she was awfully brave.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well.....then it appears to me Hilary was a great deal braver than Bush.....right?

I mean, her trip was telegraphed to potential terrorists in advance....but Bush hide under cover of darkness, literally and figuratively....yet Bush gets treated like a hero and Hilary like a whore.

*shakes head* go figure.

Hmmm... perhaps she just needs to work on her presentation. She could, say, land in a jet fighter whilst wearing a flight suit...?



As far as dinner with Ms. Clinton goes, I'd be pleased to chat with her anytime, but I'd really like a look at the menu before agreeing. If we are going to just nibble on MREs, perhaps we could just go out for drinks instead.

I take my meals more seriously than I take political photo ops.