ntotoro Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 She ended it with: And you know what i mean ... It would have been a comedic moment of epic proportion if any one member of the congregation actually said "Not really. Please explain it to us." :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 She ended it with: And you know what i mean ... and she was saying it in a black church at the time so I doubt se meant decisions and was angling the slave issue. Of course she was. She was saying that the House Republican leadership rules the House with an iron fist, just like slaveowners ruled the plantation. What do you think she meant, and more importantly, why do you think it was so outrageous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeInJc aka M.I.A. Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 My hats off to the democrats for saying yet some of the dumbest things ever. And Hillary, way to pick a holiday that is important to the African-American community to make an ass out of yourself.:applause: As usual the democrats become the black eye in today's America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I clearly fascinate them, Gingrich said of the Democrats. Im much more intense, much more persistent, much more willing to take risks to get it done. Since they think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that Im actually willing to lead the slave rebellion. [Washington Post, 10/20/94]Doh. The fact that conservative hero Newt said it will go ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 for the lefties- I thought it was such a bad thing to have church/state relations? but here Sir Hillary is speaking at the invitation of a Baptist church. So I guess if John Kerry and Al Gore and Clinton speak at churches and make political arguments that is fine, but if Republicans want to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school that is dictatorship... keep dreaming lefties- if conservatives never make convincing arguments- how come we control the entire government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 Of course she was. She was saying that the House Republican leadership rules the House with an iron fist, just like slaveowners ruled the plantation. What do you think she meant, and more importantly, why do you think it was so outrageous? You stated it like you didnt think she said it one way and if your wrong say so.. SO I did and then you agree with me saying OF COURSE but why is that outrageous? I believe I've stated at least twice why i thought it was outrageous. If you'd like me to clarify what I've said be a little more specific... Or is this not a real question and your saying just get over it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You stated it like you didnt think she said it one way and if your wrong say so..SO I did and then you agree with me saying OF COURSE but why is that outrageous? I believe I've stated at least twice why i thought it was outrageous. If you'd like me to clarify what I've said be a little more specific... Or is this not a real question and your saying just get over it? Ok, going back over the thread, I guess we agree on what she meant, just not on how outrageous it was. You said: Using Veterans day to talk about the military and the lack thereof of support by no means = saying Congressman who make 150k+ a year and 180days of vacation and only have to sponsor 1 bill a month that have no meaning is a "Plantation"... that is an outrageous statement..." So I thought you were making a different point, somehow, that House democrats suffer as bad as did slaves in the old South. My mistake. I do not expect politicians to never ever invoke race issues when it plays to their advantage, any more than I expect them to invoke religion in a meeting before church groups. SImply put, this just doesn't seem like that big a deal. Clinton was not denigrating black people or saying they should be slaves or anything - she was denigrating the Republican House Leadership and comparing them to the way slave owners ran a plantation. A little much, and certainly not subtle, but hardly headline news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I do not expect politicians to never ever invoke race issues when it plays to their advantage, any more than I expect them to invoke religion in a meeting before church groups. Good, because they always do... Conservatives, more than not, use Religion. Liberals, more than not, use Race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 for the lefties- I thought it was such a bad thing to have church/state relations?but here Sir Hillary is speaking at the invitation of a Baptist church. So I guess if John Kerry and Al Gore and Clinton speak at churches and make political arguments that is fine, but if Republicans want to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school that is dictatorship... keep dreaming lefties- if conservatives never make convincing arguments- how come we control the entire government? Do you ever get tired of attacking the strawman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Good, because they always do... Conservatives, more than not, use Religion. Liberals, more than not, use Race. Yep. And libertarians, more than not, use taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 This is nothing new,play the race card when all else fails.What scumbages.They tried that and lost.They tried everything and lost .Bunch of losers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Do you ever get tired of attacking the strawman? That's how he stays in fighting shape! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 This is nothing new,play the race card when all else fails.What scumbages.They tried that and lost.They tried everything and lost .Bunch of losers. I didn't know NavyDave had a brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Its a distorted way of getting votes.All they do is point the finger and at the same time offer no ideas.How are they going to make this country a better and safer place to live in as Americans.Simple.They dont.Thats why they lost.A party of no ideas.Unless Kennedy {not the loser ted] comes out of the grave I dont see a democRAT worthy of a vote,unless your seeking a handout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 That's what I always thought it would be fun to watch Hillary run for president...she always seems to make some really dumb comments when she gets the oportunity. Talking about Right Wing Conspiracies, and everyone being out to get her solely because she is from Arkansas, and talking to Eleanor Roosevelt through a seance, and making jokes about Indians and convenience stores, and things like that. Kery was an amateur at saying dumb stuff compared to her. Though he did have his moments..."voted for it...voted agaisnt it", "most crooked bunch of...". This latest comment by Hillary has got to be arguably the worst of them all though, and is really offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 The fact that conservative hero Newt said it will go ignored. I understand what Hillary is saying and think it is a horrible comparison and completely uncalled for. She needs to apologize and do it very quickly. Anyone that thinks what she said is ok, well...I just don't know what to think. As for Gingrich, I'm not sure what the hell he was talking about or what the circumstances and context of his statement were. Either way, it sounds dumb and offensive and a really stupid throw away comment. But then, I never liked that ******* Newt anyway. The quote though looks fake...and can't possibly be the original version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Let me just use this wonderful thread as a platform to say While Bill Clinton was selling military secrets to China ,and turned down Osama bin laden he was recieving oral sex in the white house from a government clerk.Sorry just needed say that.He will be the last Democrat in office ,unless Michael Moorer can make a sequel to Farenlies 911:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokninja Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Let me just use this wonderful thread as a platform to say While Bill Clinton was selling military secrets to China ,and turned down Osama bin laden he was recieving oral sex in the white house from a government clerk.Sorry just needed say that.He will be the last Democrat in office ... You know something that you're not telling us? Will elections be suspended in '08 so we can focus on the 'war on terra' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 And for people who have no problem with Hillary's comment.... What if Bush made a public speech and said that, "Much like Stalin and the Soviet Union, the Democratic in charge refuse to let anyone with opposing views get anywhere close to their presidential nomination or their congressional leadership." Or how about, "when the Democrats in Congress don't get their way, they decide to use Hitlerian, Nazi-style tactics to keep anything from going through, without their consent." (In relation to a possible filibuster of Alito) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You know something that you're not telling us? Will elections be suspended in '08 so we can focus on the 'war on terra' ? The only chance the democRATS have is Hillary Clinton.Instead of playing the race card to win votes from the minorities and try to paint The Bush Administration as a bunch of "old south " racists she should put that energy into some ideas that will actually help this country.But then again the Liberals have turned the democRATS into a party of no ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokninja Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 The only chance the democRATS have is Hillary Clinton.Instead of playing the race card to win votes from the minorities and try to paint The Bush Administration as a bunch of "old south " racists she should put that energy into some ideas that will actually help this country.But then again the Liberals have turned the democRATS into a party of no ideas. What do you suppose the republican party will do if it looks like they will lose? Declare Hillary an enemy of the state and send her to gitmo? If not, why not? If only the president can decide who's a terrorist and who's not a terrorist why couldn't or shouldn't he do that? Who will stop him or say that he's gone too far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 What do you suppose the republican party will do if it looks like they will lose? Declare Hillary an enemy of the state and send her to gitmo? If not, why not? If only the president can decide who's a terrorist and who's not a terrorist why couldn't or shouldn't he do that? Who will stop him or say that he's gone too far? Only the President can decide whos a terrorist,thats news to me .I think me and you could determine who and what a terrorist is.Anyway the democRATS problem is that they have strayed to far to the left.They have resorted to tactics that Americans should be aware of.The list is too long but I can name one that should alarm everyone. Whether you agree with war or not the fact is We have Brave men and women in harms way that need the best equipment and supplies that we can give them.Do you know what your party voted for when we had a bill that would of sent equipment and supplies and money to the troops.Yeah , they voted against it ,John Kerry being one of them.A soldier himself voting against it because you oppose the Bush administration so much you would vote against it while stepping into an SUV and driving home to be with family.What a gigantic scumbag.Thats why democRATS wont be in office for a while.Just one to name a 1000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokninja Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Only the President can decide whos a terrorist,thats news to me .I think me and you could determine who and what a terrorist is.Anyway the democRATS problem is that they have strayed to far to the left.They have resorted to tactics that Americans should be aware of.The list is too long but I can name one that should alarm everyone.*snip* Hate to interrupt your regularly scheduled talking points but there's a much bigger issue at stake here. The president has already said that he's eavesdropping on "suspected' terrorists without a warrant and that he will continue to do so. If the president doesn't need a warrant then clearly he feels that due process as described in the constitution and countless court cases doesn't apply to him. If the president can decide for himself who a terrorist is without having to even check with a judge or follow any due process, what's to stop the president from declaring his political enemies terrorists and throwing them into a deep dark hole to be tortured until they "confess" ? Can you answer that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redphoenix Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Hate to interrupt your regularly scheduled talking points but there's a much bigger issue at stake here. The president has already said that he's eavesdropping on "suspected' terrorists without a warrant and that he will continue to do so. If the president doesn't need a warrant then clearly he feels that due process as described in the constitution and countless court cases doesn't apply to him. If the president can decide for himself who a terrorist is without having to even check with a judge or follow any due process, what's to stop the president from declaring his political enemies terrorists and throwing them into a deep dark hole to be tortured until they "confess" ? Can you answer that? You must be a paranoid individual.Your reasoning is the same reasoning Bill Clinton had when the Sudan offered him Osama Bin Laden but good ole Bill ,while recieving oral sex with a dirty government clerk,said he had no legal right to do so.Get with it.Terrorists are not going to enjoy the American constitution nor benefit from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Terrorists are not going to enjoy the American constitution nor benefit from it. That doesn't mean we can just circumvent it. God, are you sure you really love America? Cause you sure don't respect what it stands for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.