If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Hillary Clinton tries to launch anti-Obama websites, apparently not realizing that unlike her own idiot staff, some people know about a little tool called WHOIS and see who they're registered to   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 569
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

37262 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2007 at 1:26 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



569 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-20 03:08:09 PM
Recall all Repuglikkkans: What is that supposed to mean? I actually consider myself pretty much in the center, politically speaking. I'm just sorry that the Republikkkans have completely destroyed what the meaning of left/right used to mean.

Republikkkans? Seriously? That's about as dumb as using libtards.
 
2007-12-20 03:08:18 PM
GaryPDX: I just take the same position as the Founders, they were paranoid and loathed government too. That's why they came up with that lunacy, "We, The People".

I see you again Gary. Same question you always avoid: why should we care about what a bunch of 200-year-old racist, misogynist, slave-owning, wealthy elitist hypocrites thought?
 
2007-12-20 03:08:34 PM
We must all support Hillary for President! Surely her policies of enlightened socialism will lead to a Great Leap Forward (new window) for America!
 
2007-12-20 03:08:43 PM
Sorry to interrupt the right-wing knuckle-dragger circle-jerk here, but this appears to be another tempest in a teapot. So she registered a couple of domain names for Web sites that criticize Obama for his tendency to vote "present" on issues rather than yes or no. Oooh, scathing! It's called campaigning. The other candidates are, after all, her opponents.

It was nice to see that ABC managed to cram the word "attack" into the story about 20 times though, that certainly helps to cement the misperception.

I thought it was funny when you Reps started whining because Dem candidates were campaigning against GOP candidates. Now you're acting all offended because Dem candidates are running against each other? Such thin skins you have.
 
2007-12-20 03:08:44 PM
lstywnch: MagusAzod: I doubt that either Clinton or Obama will be the Democratic nomination. One has too much baggage and the other not enough experience (and it shows).

I love when people harp on his lack of experience not realizing he's been in public office longer than Hillary or Edwards.


True, but being in state legislature is not the same as holding a federal office: not all public offices are equal in preparing a person for the Presidency. As for Mrs. Clinton, although she has not officially been in office for as long, she has been involved at the executive level (both state and federal) for much longer than Obama. From both an experience and support perspective, Mrs. Clinton would be an excellent choice. But regardless of her politics, I just can't support another dynasty.

Youth and a naive appeal DO NOT EQUAL inexperience.

/Not saying who I'm voting for, haven't decided yet.
//Just tired of the "he's so naive" argument.


I haven't decided either. So far I have eliminated candidates (Clinton, probably Obama, and some Republicans), but none have wowed me.

/I'll probably end up voting for a libertarian or green party candidate again in the vain hope that this time the protest vote will be strong enough to make a difference. [sigh]
 
2007-12-20 03:08:49 PM
rebelyell2006: To hate them all because a group of them are assholes is just stupid.

when the group marches lockstep you can safely hate them all...
 
2007-12-20 03:08:52 PM
So the consensus picks on Fark are Ron Paul for the Republicans and Obama for the democrats. Nobody else seems to be supporting anybody.

On that note, why I hate everybody running:

Ron Paul: wants to abolish funding to several major important federal and international organizations with little regard for the consequences. Wants to cut taxes during a recession (like every republican) and he is crazy. Fark seems to love him, which is another knock on his campaign. He is like a republican Ross Perot.

Mike Huckabee: Downright crazy, I saw a quote in the New York Times Magazine this sunday that, when asked about Mitt Romney's Mormonism, he said something like "doesn't that religion believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?" No foreign policy experience to the point where he didn't even hear about the story of Iran ceasing their nuclear weapons program. He literally doesn't even read the paper. Will be railroaded by his advisers into some pretty bad legislature. Would probably be a considerably worse president than bush.

Hilary: if for no other reason, southern democrats in the legislature would probably catch flak for voting with her initiatives and she would almost certainly create a republican majority at the midterms. A guaranteed lame duck. She has a surprisingly undefined platform.

Guiliani: Pompous, delusional and completely hypocritical. Loves to put his family and friends into government jobs they are grossly unqualified for. Believes he can do no wrong. A lock to start a new war.

Obama: he is actually my pick, but I hear stuff coming out of his campaign that he is buying into his own hype so much his ego is starting to sabotage him. Could be conjecture, though. Not really tested in Washington. Assassination is not out of the question -- but would be a great VP as insurance for the same reason because I am guessing most people crazy enough to carry out an assassination (on a Democrat) would be white and from the south.

Edwards: Being the leading white man in the Democratic race but garnering no support is pretty sad. Lots of personal problems, almost no real experience, spent most of his professional career as an ambulance chasing lawyer. Wishy washy on most real issues.

Mitt Romney: I am from Massachusetts and saw what a d-bag this guy is
 
2007-12-20 03:09:21 PM
Recall all Repuglikkkans: GaryPDX: I just take the same position as the Founders, they were paranoid and loathed government too. That's why they came up with that lunacy, "We, The People".

I see you again Gary. Same question you always avoid: why should we care about what a bunch of 200-year-old racist, misogynist, slave-owning, wealthy elitist hypocrites thought?


Because they intelligently crafted something that works?
 
2007-12-20 03:09:45 PM
GaryPDX: I just take the same position as the Founders, they were paranoid and loathed government too. That's why they came up with that lunacy, "We, The People".

The Founders or the Freemen? ;)
 
2007-12-20 03:09:49 PM
boot20: Sir Roderick Glossop: I don't see how being the governor of a pisswater state would make you any more ready.

You do know that Richardson has far more experience than just being the "governor of a pisswater state."


I was referring to Huckabee and Guiliani.

Bill Richardson isn't relevant except as a possilbe VP nominee.
 
2007-12-20 03:10:11 PM
Thor's Raging Ball of Flaming Nuclear Fury: Pincy: I'm about as Liberal as they get and I'm not crazy about Hillary either. Personally I'm leaning toward Edwards at this point, but I live in Oregon and by the time I get to vote in the primaries Edwards may not even be around anymore.

But I'll tell you this, I don't care who the Dem candidate ultimately is, I sure as hell won't be voting for any of the Republican losers out there. The last thing we need is another 4-8 years of Republican Supreme Court nominations. So calling all Dems and Republicans with a conscience, you need to put aside your hate for Hillary if she gets the nomination because a Republican is still worse than Hillary.

reverse the candidates names/party and you sound exactly like that hannity hack..


Please point out to me the one Republican candidate who is better than any of the current Democratic candidates.
 
2007-12-20 03:10:12 PM
I just hate the fact we can't get someone as hot as Yulia Tymoshenko for POTUS....
english.pravda.ru
 
2007-12-20 03:10:46 PM
tweekster: Well I agree, but he actually said he supports her. I am making a distinction between voting for and actually supporting. There is a huge difference, see Kerry as an example of that.

I support her, am actually voting for her, whatever the hell you guys want it to mean. I don't think Obama knows as much as Hillary does about what real African-Americans are going through and while I like Edwards, I think Hillary knows best how the beat the right-wing machine that's coming for her. I see it's already working quite well here.
 
2007-12-20 03:10:59 PM
cdharding: I just hate the fact we can't get someone as hot as Yulia Tymoshenko for POTUS....

Well she and Hillary both have cankles...that's something in common...
 
2007-12-20 03:11:46 PM
CaptainFatass: Sorry to interrupt the right-wing knuckle-dragger circle-jerk here, but this appears to be another tempest in a teapot. So she registered a couple of domain names for Web sites that criticize Obama for his tendency to vote "present" on issues rather than yes or no. Oooh, scathing! It's called campaigning. The other candidates are, after all, her opponents.

It was nice to see that ABC managed to cram the word "attack" into the story about 20 times though, that certainly helps to cement the misperception.

I thought it was funny when you Reps started whining because Dem candidates were campaigning against GOP candidates. Now you're acting all offended because Dem candidates are running against each other? Such thin skins you have.


Attacking and criticizing/pointing out something are two entirely different things even if the end message is the same.

I can say I dont like the color pink that my gf chose for the bathroom, or I could call her a commie pinko and her choice in color is unamerican.

Personally I choose the latter, but that is just to keep her in line.
 
2007-12-20 03:11:49 PM
If somebody would please post that short clip where the stick figure dude wears down his fingers, then his hands, then his arm, then his head on his keyboard, I'd be much obliged. mkthxby
 
2007-12-20 03:12:44 PM
cause this doesnt happen every 4 farkin years with every damn candidate.....for christ sakes people, dont we have anything else to worry about
 
2007-12-20 03:12:44 PM
rtoahty 2007-12-20 01:55:37 PM Are you kidding me? She's a socialist hag who wants to be the "Oracle of Delphi" bestowing her blessings on the poor dumb whithered masses. She's tasted power and she hungers for it, she wants to be "Goddess Hillary of Planet Earth, All Knowing, All Blessing Provider of the little chillins of the Earth".

There's no farking way that wicked witch should ever become POTUS. She wants to seize an entire private industry and fold into a government bureaucracy. That makes me, and The Founders, kinda stabby.

Don't get me started on the choking stench of her evil bile.

Amen brother!


Yeah, that's not an emotionally based argument or anything.
 
2007-12-20 03:12:56 PM
cdharding: I just hate the fact we can't get someone as hot as Yulia Tymoshenko for POTUS....

I'd settle for someone that hot for first lady.
 
2007-12-20 03:13:09 PM
Rational Exuberance:

Would you go skiing if you didn't have any insurance? What about skydiving? How risky would your behavior be if you knew you had to foot 100% of the bill every time?

Again this sounds insane. I don't do those things because I don't enjoy thrill seeking. People who do enjoy thrill seeking would tell you, quite honestly, they would do it regardless of the risks or insurace.

Secondly, you don't in the least think that is intellectually dishonest? What percentage of health care costs are due sky diving accidents?

Besides that, broken bones are not expensive. Long term illnesses that are particular to populations that live well into their 70s are. We're dealing with diseases that don't get to people until they are in their 40s and 50s.

A society that gets progressively older due extended life span is not a risk calculation.
 
2007-12-20 03:13:32 PM
Recall all Repuglikkkans: tweekster: Well I agree, but he actually said he supports her. I am making a distinction between voting for and actually supporting. There is a huge difference, see Kerry as an example of that.

I support her, am actually voting for her, whatever the hell you guys want it to mean. I don't think Obama knows as much as Hillary does about what real African-Americans are going through and while I like Edwards, I think Hillary knows best how the beat the right-wing machine that's coming for her. I see it's already working quite well here.


Well Obama is not making the mistake of targeting a single audience just because he happens to be a member of said group. Unlike hillary, which the novelty of her being a woman, well that is fast losing its effectiveness on women voters who are switching their support to obama en masse.
 
2007-12-20 03:13:35 PM
Recall all Repuglicans The last great economist was Marx, who really cared about people and not about money

That's some funny stuff right there! It's also indicative of typical socialist rants based on emotion yet devoid of logic. Further, it invalidates the work of Keynes, Friedman, Fisher, Samuelson etc. who studied and then shredded the naive arguments associated with a flawed model. The richest countries in the world are almost all capitalist, and the poorest are socialist. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good cry.
 
2007-12-20 03:13:40 PM
Friction8r: this lecherous

Can a female be considered lecherous?
 
2007-12-20 03:13:42 PM
So one authoritarian goody two shoes nanny "I will solve all of the problems in the world" anti-American schmuck makes a web site slamming another authoritarian goody two shoes nanny "I will solve all of the problems in the world" anti-American schmuch, and I'm supposed to care...why?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. If all of the presidential candidates for the 2008 election, D and R both, were gathered in one building at the same time, and a meteor crushed the building destroying all life within said building, there are very few people who wouldn't breath a sigh of relief.

The slate from both sides of this one sided coin are so openly vile and outright authoritarian/evil this cycle it is stunning.
 
2007-12-20 03:13:57 PM
CaptainFatass:

By and large, very little discussion in this thread actually involves the article. Find something else to get holier-than-thou about
 
2007-12-20 03:14:03 PM
brifar: cause this doesnt happen every 4 farkin years with every damn candidate.....for christ sakes people, dont we have anything else to worry about

Nope. Politics are our number one concern.
 
2007-12-20 03:14:22 PM
tweekster: Because they intelligently crafted something that works?

What makes you say that? People in those times didn't have healthcare, didn't have education, didn't have affordable housing, they died of common illnesses. Government nowadays does, and people like Ron Paul think that people 200 years ago know better than those around today as to how our system should be run. That's why I'm against the Repuglikkkans. While Hillary looks forward, Paul looks backwards.
 
2007-12-20 03:14:52 PM
I'm Hillary Clinton and I am really
getting a kick out of these replies.
Love the pictures too...
 
2007-12-20 03:14:58 PM
Shintagara: They are the only two that aren't stuck up a big corporate asshole and will actually do good for the country in some way shape or form.

You could check out Obama, but you're dumb.
 
2007-12-20 03:15:23 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Can a female be considered lecherous?

I'll introduce you to some people.
 
2007-12-20 03:15:51 PM
MagusAzod: distrust of government: I don't see anything wrong with a healthy distrust of people with as much power as the government, as long as it doesn't reach paranoia.

Paranoia, summarized, is an irrational fear that others mean you harm.

When public protesters, even peaceful ones, can be snatched and disappeared, and their property confiscated, for the crime of "Domestic Terrorism" (if you disagree with policy you can be declared a terrorist - see HR-1955), I think that eliminates any possibility of 'irrational' fear. The people who voted for that POS mean you harm.

If you don't know about HR-1955, your voter-reg card should detonate within 17 hours of this posting. I apologize for the delay, please be patient, as there are a lot of idiots in this country and the voter-reg card explosive devices are an old technology.

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were two of the handful who voted against HR-1955, by the way.
 
2007-12-20 03:15:55 PM
Recall all Repuglikkkans: didn't have education,

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Are you serious?
 
2007-12-20 03:16:00 PM
Oak: 8 years of "Goober" Lindsey in office, and all the Democrats can offer is a contest between Endora, Urkel, and Lionel Hutz.

Keyboard. You owe me one.
 
2007-12-20 03:16:30 PM
Who's supporting her? None of my liberal friends & family are voting for her. I don't get it.
 
2007-12-20 03:16:48 PM
cameroncrazy1984 Can a female be considered lecherous?

Yes - but even if the answer were "no", it would still apply to Shrillary.
 
2007-12-20 03:17:04 PM
The richest countries in the world are almost all capitalist, and the poorest are socialist.

b-b-b-b-but the US oppresses them!!!11
 
2007-12-20 03:17:18 PM
JDAT: How anyone can vote for this lying, conniving, power hungry, murderous biatch is beyond me

Wow... murderous? better adjust your tinfoil hat there. I was kind of on the fence about Hilary but watching how rabid she makes the 'tards. I have to vote for her now.

I don't think I've seen a single well reasoned argument against her or her views. Just a lot of twitching, name calling, and flying spittle.
 
2007-12-20 03:17:35 PM
Friction8r: The richest countries in the world are almost all capitalist, and the poorest are socialist. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good cry.

You actually think that has to do with the economic system and not the US military destroying those socialist nations one by one? Look, Chavez was doing fine moving towards socialism but now, once he attacks the US, suddenly there are shortages of the goods that he enacted price controls on? Think that is a coincidence?
 
2007-12-20 03:17:35 PM
GaryPDX: That makes me, and The Founders, kinda stabby.

In other news, GaryPDX now speaks for the founders.
 
2007-12-20 03:18:06 PM
Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans retards.

Oops, not that it matters anyway.


www.hackingdemocracy.com
 
2007-12-20 03:19:19 PM
DarnoKonrad: Rational Exuberance:

Would you go skiing if you didn't have any insurance? What about skydiving? How risky would your behavior be if you knew you had to foot 100% of the bill every time?

Again this sounds insane. I don't do those things because I don't enjoy thrill seeking. People who do enjoy thrill seeking would tell you, quite honestly, they would do it regardless of the risks or insurace.

Secondly, you don't in the least think that is intellectually dishonest? What percentage of health care costs are due sky diving accidents?

Besides that, broken bones are not expensive. Long term illnesses that are particular to populations that live well into their 70s are. We're dealing with diseases that don't get to people until they are in their 40s and 50s.

A society that gets progressively older due extended life span is not a risk calculation.


Quit extrapoliting every tiny example I use to the entire argument. Skiing and skydiving are just examples of risk taking behaviors - there are lots more, both subtle and unsubtle. You're the one being intellectually dishonest on this one.

I find it hard to believe that you don't believe people evaluate risks, though. Risk compensation is a pretty well known phenomena, and it works with costs as well.
 
2007-12-20 03:19:27 PM
tweekster: Recall all Repuglikkkans: didn't have education,

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Are you serious?


What? You think the slaves were educated? You think that the system they had 200 years ago was better?
 
2007-12-20 03:20:13 PM
As for the Repubs, honestly, it's going to be Rudy and uh...somebody.

Charlie Crist!
 
2007-12-20 03:21:00 PM
AlwaysRightBoy: Why does this matter.....she's already been nominated by the powers that be

This.
 
2007-12-20 03:21:32 PM
tweekster 2007-12-20 03:11:46 PM Attacking and criticizing/pointing out something are two entirely different things even if the end message is the same.

My point exacty. Is it unfair criticism to point out a politician's penchant for voting "present."
 
2007-12-20 03:21:40 PM
LowPlainsDrifter:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. If all of the presidential candidates for the 2008 election, D and R both, were gathered in one building at the same time, and a meteor crushed the building destroying all life within said building, there are very few people who wouldn't breath a sigh of relief.

The slate from both sides of this one sided coin are so openly vile and outright authoritarian/evil this cycle it is stunning.


Well, then what do you propose we do to solve this problem? I think we need massive campaign reform and severely limit the amount of money involved. Also, we need a different voting mechanism than the current winner take all formula. Something which doesn't penalize you for voting for a third party candidate.

It's one thing to complain, but if you don't have any suggestions then you aren't really contributing to the solution.
 
2007-12-20 03:21:48 PM
Smarshmallow: In other news, GaryPDX now speaks for the founders.

I always suspected GPDX was from the Gamma Quadrant...
 
2007-12-20 03:21:49 PM
Rational Exuberance: ...What about STD testing? That could be a public health thing too. If you subsidize that, you are making it easy to not be careful.

I understand the sentiment, but single payer creates all kinds of perverse incentives like this.


Though I find most of your arguments...without merit, this one is just plain silly.

People who are not going to worry about STD's, are not going to worry about being tested for them. Also, how does knowing you can get a test for AIDs free make anyone feel safer about having unprotected sex? I don't know anyone that is going to say "Hey, I don't need a condom, I can find out later if I farked up my life thanks to my free health care."

Universal Health care would not ruin the insurance industry. It has not done so in other countries like Canada. You can still buy private coverage in those countries for things like private rooms in hospitals.

As for paying 45% of my paycheck for taxes, I might actually save money considering what I pay now for taxes and insurance premiums with coverage that gets worse every year. The problem with insurance is it is not something you as an individual can shop for to find something competitive with equivalent services. You are basically stuck with whatever your company offers. Otherwise you need to be in good health and pay a fortune out of your own pocket.
 
2007-12-20 03:21:55 PM
Recall all Republicans: tweekster: Because they intelligently crafted something that works?

What makes you say that? People in those times didn't have healthcare, didn't have education, didn't have affordable housing, they died of common illnesses. Government nowadays does, and people like Ron Paul think that people 200 years ago know better than those around today as to how our system should be run. That's why I'm against the Republicans. While Hillary looks forward, Paul looks backwards.


200 years ago they didn't have cars, vaccines, or any advanced medicine. Education was rare, sure. Benjamin Franklin didn't have much of an education, but that didn't stop him. Housing was decent. Hell, you could build your own home without a government bureaucrat telling you what to do. Things might have been simpler, but the government they made is just as valid now as it was then. To dismiss a good governmental system just because it was old is bullshiat.

But I guess you don't like it because the government made people think and act for themselves, instead of expecting the government to take care of them.
 
2007-12-20 03:22:15 PM
Cromar: As for the Repubs, honestly, it's going to be Rudy and uh...somebody.

Charlie Crist!


He is from florida. There is a reason why florida has a tag.
Keep all people from arkansas, florida and texas out of the ring, in fact people from those states shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
 
Displayed 50 of 569 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report