Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(MSNBC)   Hillary Clinton announces that she is "committed to campaigning" in 2016. For herself, for Democrats, for whatever. What can I say? The woman loves to campaign. She's a campaigner. A born campaigner   (msnbc.com) divider line 54
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2014 at 12:48 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-23 09:54:12 AM  
Good. The best thing Clinton can do for the Democratic party is pretend to run.
 
2014-07-23 10:07:38 AM  
I know she wants this. And I would hold my nose and vote for her over anything the Republicans currently seem to be offering. But I do not like her. I do not trust her. I think she would govern even more to the right of her husband.
 
2014-07-23 10:18:34 AM  

DeaH: I know she wants this. And I would hold my nose and vote for her over anything the Republicans currently seem to be offering. But I do not like her. I do not trust her. I think she would govern even more to the right of her husband.


I feel the same.  I'll bring some oxygen and we can buddy-breathe.
 
2014-07-23 10:28:46 AM  
Campaigning is exhausting and stressful. I cant imagine anyone wanting to do that full time for the next 2 years.
 
2014-07-23 10:30:53 AM  
I'd vote for Hillary if the option was to vote for a Republican.

The exception being, of course, if the Republicans promote Ted Cruz to the general election. Man, if half the country is willing to put that shiatbag as a viable Presidential candidate, we don't deserve to exist and the only proper punishment is to put his stupid ass in charge and watch the place burn down.
 
2014-07-23 10:39:14 AM  

DeaH: I know she wants this. And I would hold my nose and vote for her over anything the Republicans currently seem to be offering. But I do not like her. I do not trust her. I think she would govern even more to the right of her husband.


Part of the country has moved right, but I don't think she has. Obama was more right than Clinton. In fact I would say her bigger problem is that she needs to embrace a wave of progressivism that is developing that is making Sanders and Warren look like such strong candidates, and do it without making herself look like she's shilling for votes.

Personally I think it's a lot harder being a woman in politics, especially where she's been. She's earned the nomination and IMO is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, legislative experience, and actual experience in the White House. Since when do we stop hiring people with the best experience? Oh because we don't like her. Well, women in her position often have to be tough to get their ideas by, and they end up being viewed as 'biatches' because of it. To me a lot of it is in the culture.

Sh*t, there are a ton of people who strike me as kind of phony on the outside. She's definitely someone who doesn't have that natural charisma and has to sort of build it up and display it. So? Maybe she's an introvert. Why can't we have some introverts in the White House?
 
2014-07-23 12:30:22 PM  
My vote for her would be more a vote AGAINST the Republican. Although I would love a female president...
 
2014-07-23 12:36:26 PM  

bdub77: DeaH: I know she wants this. And I would hold my nose and vote for her over anything the Republicans currently seem to be offering. But I do not like her. I do not trust her. I think she would govern even more to the right of her husband.

Part of the country has moved right, but I don't think she has. Obama was more right than Clinton. In fact I would say her bigger problem is that she needs to embrace a wave of progressivism that is developing that is making Sanders and Warren look like such strong candidates, and do it without making herself look like she's shilling for votes.

Personally I think it's a lot harder being a woman in politics, especially where she's been. She's earned the nomination and IMO is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, legislative experience, and actual experience in the White House. Since when do we stop hiring people with the best experience? Oh because we don't like her. Well, women in her position often have to be tough to get their ideas by, and they end up being viewed as 'biatches' because of it. To me a lot of it is in the culture.

Sh*t, there are a ton of people who strike me as kind of phony on the outside. She's definitely someone who doesn't have that natural charisma and has to sort of build it up and display it. So? Maybe she's an introvert. Why can't we have some introverts in the White House?


Clinton was way to the right of Obama in the primaries eight years ago. When he got the job, he moved into what was basically her position. The ACA is basically Hillarycare, and he campaigned on single payer. She was a Republican when she was younger. Her family still is Republican. Her husband dragged the Democrats to the right, and I think she will go further. There isn't the slightest thing about her that reads liberal. As for the woman thing, there are many conservative women politicians. Yes, Hillary is to the left of Bachmann, but Hilary is, and always has been, to the right of Bill. She was on the board of Wal-Mart, for God's sake!
 
2014-07-23 12:54:34 PM  

DeaH: bdub77: DeaH: I know she wants this. And I would hold my nose and vote for her over anything the Republicans currently seem to be offering. But I do not like her. I do not trust her. I think she would govern even more to the right of her husband.

Part of the country has moved right, but I don't think she has. Obama was more right than Clinton. In fact I would say her bigger problem is that she needs to embrace a wave of progressivism that is developing that is making Sanders and Warren look like such strong candidates, and do it without making herself look like she's shilling for votes.

Personally I think it's a lot harder being a woman in politics, especially where she's been. She's earned the nomination and IMO is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, legislative experience, and actual experience in the White House. Since when do we stop hiring people with the best experience? Oh because we don't like her. Well, women in her position often have to be tough to get their ideas by, and they end up being viewed as 'biatches' because of it. To me a lot of it is in the culture.

Sh*t, there are a ton of people who strike me as kind of phony on the outside. She's definitely someone who doesn't have that natural charisma and has to sort of build it up and display it. So? Maybe she's an introvert. Why can't we have some introverts in the White House?

Clinton was way to the right of Obama in the primaries eight years ago. When he got the job, he moved into what was basically her position. The ACA is basically Hillarycare, and he campaigned on single payer. She was a Republican when she was younger. Her family still is Republican. Her husband dragged the Democrats to the right, and I think she will go further. There isn't the slightest thing about her that reads liberal. As for the woman thing, there are many conservative women politicians. Yes, Hillary is to the left of Bachmann, but Hilary is, and always has been, to the right of Bill. She was on the board of W ...


Not sure if serious.
 
2014-07-23 12:55:36 PM  

DeaH: I know she wants this. And I would hold my nose and vote for her over anything the Republicans currently seem to be offering. But I do not like her. I do not trust her. I think she would govern even more to the right of her husband.


And I think she probably governs far better than she campaigns. But even assuming the worst case scenario, her SCOTUS nominees will be far more palatable than anyone that a Republican president (even Huntsman) would offer. As far as I'm concerned, that's the biggest thing to consider when voting for President in '16.
 
2014-07-23 12:57:01 PM  
At this point I almost think she is just doing this to screw with the republicans out of sheer spite.

Get them all built up to campaign against her, get them to devote a maginot line to stop her-

Then just not run.

And watch as they collapse into screaming, apoplectic rage.

Well. More screaming apoplectic rage than *USUAL*.
 
2014-07-23 12:57:06 PM  
I couldn't blame anyone for not wanting to run for POTUS.

after seeing how this country treats their elected leaders, you'd have to be some kind of masochist.
 
2014-07-23 12:57:37 PM  

DeaH: The ACA is basically Hillarycare, and he campaigned on single payer.


Wait, what now? The ACA was the Heritage Foundation counter-proposal to Hillarycare. And Obama only wanted minors to be covered under his campaign proposals... pushing the ACA seemed like one of his concessions to Hillary for taking the nomination.
 
2014-07-23 12:58:24 PM  
And you should trust her because she totally didn't lie and state that she wasn't running several times in several papers and TV shows. :|

If you vote for her, you're voting for the people that gutted the manufactuing industry and prepared the way for Bush, who prepared the way for Obama.

If you vote for her, you're farking the country over and you know nothing of what they do.

Pick a different woman, one who isn't evil.
 
2014-07-23 12:59:20 PM  
Hopefully she's just a Trojan horse for Booker or somebody else, because I'm exhausted for the 2016 campaign already.
 
2014-07-23 01:02:08 PM  
Her behavior over the last 18 months has been the political version of a striptease. Cool, if you like lap dances. Sickening, if one is serious about politics.
 
2014-07-23 01:02:24 PM  

walktoanarcade: And you should trust her because she totally didn't lie and state that she wasn't running several times in several papers and TV shows. :|

If you vote for her, you're voting for the people that gutted the manufactuing industry and prepared the way for Bush, who prepared the way for Obama.

If you vote for her, you're farking the country over and you know nothing of what they do.

Pick a different woman, one who isn't evil.


BSABSVR!!!
 
2014-07-23 01:03:49 PM  
I would absolutely vote for HC. I'd vote for Warren and Sanders too.
 
2014-07-23 01:06:15 PM  

theknuckler_33: walktoanarcade: And you should trust her because she totally didn't lie and state that she wasn't running several times in several papers and TV shows. :|

If you vote for her, you're voting for the people that gutted the manufactuing industry and prepared the way for Bush, who prepared the way for Obama.

If you vote for her, you're farking the country over and you know nothing of what they do.

Pick a different woman, one who isn't evil.

BSABSVR!!!


No, just stop voting. It only encourages them. Both all sides are tremendously horrible.

No party speaks for me, but if you think one speaks for you, well..
 
2014-07-23 01:09:34 PM  
whoa whoa whoa...I thought Obama was the Supreme Campaigner, you know, always in campaign mode. And, remember, he's a huge narcissist, so he can't have someone stealing the limelight from his campaigning. This will cause him to turn on Hillary.

Pay me, Fox.
 
2014-07-23 01:11:59 PM  

worlddan: Her behavior over the last 18 months has been the political version of a striptease. Cool, if you like lap dances. Sickening, if one is serious about politics.


But that's wrong.

Her behavior has been quite consistent:

"HC are you running for POTUS?"
"Haven't decided yet."
"But are you running?"
"Haven't decided yet."
"OMG why won't you tell us if you're running?"
"Haven't decided yet."

Anyone with any political experience is aware that timing matters, especially with primaries almost two years away.

But your concern is noted.
 
2014-07-23 01:20:59 PM  

walktoanarcade: No, just stop voting.


That'll learn 'em.
 
2014-07-23 01:31:31 PM  
i560.photobucket.com

Yeah ...notsureifwant.jpg
 
2014-07-23 01:36:51 PM  

DeaH: Clinton was way to the right of Obama in the primaries eight years ago. When he got the job, he moved into what was basically her position. The ACA is basically Hillarycare, and he campaigned on single payer. She was a Republican when she was younger. Her family still is Republican. Her husband dragged the Democrats to the right, and I think she will go further. There isn't the slightest thing about her that reads liberal. As for the woman thing, there are many conservative women politicians. Yes, Hillary is to the left of Bachmann, but Hilary is, and always has been, to the right of Bill. She was on the board of Wal-Mart, for God's sake!


Is that why Obama beat Hillary in most of the red states? Because Obama was clearly more left? Frankly speaking they were both quite centrist. Obama went further left on healthcare and foreign policy, but he was more conservative in my estimation on economics. As far as party platform goes they both towed the line.

Sh*t, I was a republican when I was younger. My family is still Republican (the parents at least). Clinton was definitely a centrist, and a very successful one.

Yes, she was on the Walmart board, but Clinton was an Arkansas governor at the time (Walmart is based in AR), so it doesn't surprise me. That's what elites of both sides tend to do. At the same time, what do you know of the decisions she was involved in or fought for?

Now, there's an argument to be made about what Clinton would do against a more progressive candidate. But there aren't very many of those with the experience necessary to be in the White House. And she's a good politician, as much as you might dislike her.
 
2014-07-23 01:49:05 PM  

bdub77: At the same time, what do you know of the decisions she was involved in or fought for?


I have it on good authority that HC is the leftyist lefty who ever lefted a left so I'd assume she was trying to get the board to turn ownership & control of Walmart over the the employees.
 
2014-07-23 02:17:52 PM  

theknuckler_33: walktoanarcade: No, just stop voting.

That'll learn 'em.


If in mass numbers, yes.

Yes, I know, fat chance of that happening.

Also, if it's public service they want, then minus protective detail, they should not be paid.

Remember we're supposed to elect smart people, not the richest people, such as the system has become.
 
2014-07-23 02:29:45 PM  

vernonFL: Campaigning is exhausting and stressful. I cant imagine anyone wanting to do that full time for the next 2 years.


That is why she is going to bail for personal/health reasons I think the term is Cam-Palin-ing.
 
2014-07-23 02:38:56 PM  

Uncle Tractor: [i560.photobucket.com image 850x353]

Yeah ...notsureifwant.jpg


I don't like Hillary, but you really need to think about the definition of "victim".
 
2014-07-23 02:46:07 PM  

GameSprocket: I don't like Hillary, but you really need to think about the definition of "victim".


Casualties are victims. As are those traumatized by causing or witnessing casualties. As are the wives and children of the casualties, but I'd hesitate to say they're the "primary victims".

That being said, it's a really dumb quote to try and make hay over. What's the implication? She's too woman-centric to be president?
 
2014-07-23 02:48:34 PM  

GameSprocket: Uncle Tractor: [i560.photobucket.com image 850x353]

Yeah ...notsureifwant.jpg

I don't like Hillary, but you really need to think about the definition of "victim".


Was it not the point that she made an asinine comment? Plus the farker's comment afterwards confirmed it.

It's like women that say being a stay at home mom is the hardest job in the world, but when a man does it he's a lazy bastard.
 
2014-07-23 02:52:12 PM  

GameSprocket: Uncle Tractor: [i560.photobucket.com image 850x353]

Yeah ...notsureifwant.jpg

I don't like Hillary, but you really need to think about the definition of "victim".


Well, the women lose loved ones, but the men lose life and limb ... hmm... hmm ....

Of course, if the choice was between Clinton and a Republican, I'd hold my nose and vote Clinton ...But I don't live in the US so I'll just have some more popcorn.
 
2014-07-23 02:59:23 PM  

bdub77: Is that why Obama beat Hillary in most of the red states? Because Obama was clearly more left? Frankly speaking they were both quite centrist. Obama went further left on healthcare and foreign policy, but he was more conservative in my estimation on economics. As far as party platform goes they both towed the line.


Can you provide any examples of this at all? I sure can't think of any.

Sh*t, I was a republican when I was younger. My family is still Republican (the parents at least). Clinton was definitely a centrist, and a very successful one.

Yes, the man who signed off on the death of Glass-Steagall, promoted welfare reform, promoted NAFTA, and promoted lots of deregulation was a centrist economically - if you define the center as something smack-dab in the right.

Yes, she was on the Walmart board, but Clinton was an Arkansas governor at the time (Walmart is based in AR), so it doesn't surprise me. That's what elites of both sides tend to do. At the same time, what do you know of the decisions she was involved in or fought for?

I remember about Hilarycare. I remember her meeting with members of congress to promote NAFTA. And not only was she on the board of Walmart, she was a significant stockholder.

Now, there's an argument to be made about what Clinton would do against a more progressive candidate. But there aren't very many of those with the experience necessary to be in the White House. And she's a good politician, as much as you might dislike her.

Clinton's experience as Secretary of State does give her foreign policy experience that many candidates lack, but foreign policy doesn't really hold a lot of sway domestically. She was a senator for a while, but she certainly was not a long-term one. Other than that, she doesn't have a deep experience as an elected official or one in an executive position. While I wouldn't hold that against a candidate because I think being a governor, CEO, or senator is not necessarily a good match for the position of POTUS, if that is what you are relying on as the bedrock for your case, it's pretty sandy ground.

What I would like to see, however, are the exact points where you think Clinton was to the left of Obama when they were both campaigning. Saying that you think she was more liberal economically doesn't really prove it. I just looked at their campaign platforms, and I am simply not seeing consistent pattern of being to the left of Obama. And we both know that Democrats will move to the right after the election.
 
2014-07-23 03:00:14 PM  

incendi: That being said, it's a really dumb quote to try and make hay over.


Perhaps. If it's just one of those dumb things people sometimes say, then it's no big deal. I've said dumber things myself. However, she calls herself a feminist, and that puts a different light on that quote.

 What's the implication? She's too woman-centric to be president?

If her feminism is anything more than a label, then yes.
 
2014-07-23 03:06:02 PM  

clkeagle: DeaH: The ACA is basically Hillarycare, and he campaigned on single payer.

Wait, what now? The ACA was the Heritage Foundation counter-proposal to Hillarycare. And Obama only wanted minors to be covered under his campaign proposals... pushing the ACA seemed like one of his concessions to Hillary for taking the nomination.


Obamacare is Hilarycare with the Heritage Foundation's mandate.
 
2014-07-23 03:07:13 PM  

clkeagle: DeaH: I know she wants this. And I would hold my nose and vote for her over anything the Republicans currently seem to be offering. But I do not like her. I do not trust her. I think she would govern even more to the right of her husband.

And I think she probably governs far better than she campaigns. But even assuming the worst case scenario, her SCOTUS nominees will be far more palatable than anyone that a Republican president (even Huntsman) would offer. As far as I'm concerned, that's the biggest thing to consider when voting for President in '16.


Yes, that is why I will vote for the Democrat, who ever it is. The Supreme Court appointments are vastly different.
 
2014-07-23 03:09:29 PM  

max_pooper: DeaH: bdub77: DeaH: I know she wants this. And I would hold my nose and vote for her over anything the Republicans currently seem to be offering. But I do not like her. I do not trust her. I think she would govern even more to the right of her husband.

Part of the country has moved right, but I don't think she has. Obama was more right than Clinton. In fact I would say her bigger problem is that she needs to embrace a wave of progressivism that is developing that is making Sanders and Warren look like such strong candidates, and do it without making herself look like she's shilling for votes.

Personally I think it's a lot harder being a woman in politics, especially where she's been. She's earned the nomination and IMO is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, legislative experience, and actual experience in the White House. Since when do we stop hiring people with the best experience? Oh because we don't like her. Well, women in her position often have to be tough to get their ideas by, and they end up being viewed as 'biatches' because of it. To me a lot of it is in the culture.

Sh*t, there are a ton of people who strike me as kind of phony on the outside. She's definitely someone who doesn't have that natural charisma and has to sort of build it up and display it. So? Maybe she's an introvert. Why can't we have some introverts in the White House?

Clinton was way to the right of Obama in the primaries eight years ago. When he got the job, he moved into what was basically her position. The ACA is basically Hillarycare, and he campaigned on single payer. She was a Republican when she was younger. Her family still is Republican. Her husband dragged the Democrats to the right, and I think she will go further. There isn't the slightest thing about her that reads liberal. As for the woman thing, there are many conservative women politicians. Yes, Hillary is to the left of Bachmann, but Hilary is, and always has been, to the right of Bill. She was on the boar ...


Yes. The ACA is a cross between Hilarycare and the Heritage plan. Obama campaigned on single-payer.
 
2014-07-23 03:17:44 PM  

El Pachuco: worlddan: Her behavior over the last 18 months has been the political version of a striptease. Cool, if you like lap dances. Sickening, if one is serious about politics.

But that's wrong.

Her behavior has been quite consistent:

"HC are you running for POTUS?"
"Haven't decided yet."
"But are you running?"
"Haven't decided yet."
"OMG why won't you tell us if you're running?"
"Haven't decided yet."


What? You obviously have not been paying any attention....

"HC are you running for POTUS?"
"No, but now that I am leaving the Cabinet the President is granting me a prime time TV spot to say goodbye and tell everyone how awesome I am."
"But are you running?"
"Nope, I am on a book tour that is taking me to all the states that matter in an election and giving me a great database of people to hit up for donations."
"So, are you running now"
"No, but check out my daughter. She is really interested in politics by which I mean she's going to play a central role in my campaign, like the manager. Any objections?"
"OMG why won't you tell us if you're running?"
"Sheesh, dudes lay off already. Obviously I'm going to campaign for the party. ;-)"


This has been a carefully orchestrated strip-tease, open your eyes you damn fool.
 
2014-07-23 03:23:54 PM  

Uncle Tractor: GameSprocket: Uncle Tractor: [i560.photobucket.com image 850x353]

Yeah ...notsureifwant.jpg

I don't like Hillary, but you really need to think about the definition of "victim".

Well, the women lose loved ones, but the men lose life and limb ... hmm... hmm ....

Of course, if the choice was between Clinton and a Republican, I'd hold my nose and vote Clinton ...But I don't live in the US so I'll just have some more popcorn.


A soldier who gets injured or killed is not a "victim". A victim is someone who had no active participation.
 
2014-07-23 03:38:25 PM  

DeaH: bdub77: Is that why Obama beat Hillary in most of the red states? Because Obama was clearly more left? Frankly speaking they were both quite centrist. Obama went further left on healthcare and foreign policy, but he was more conservative in my estimation on economics. As far as party platform goes they both towed the line.

Can you provide any examples of this at all? I sure can't think of any.

Sh*t, I was a republican when I was younger. My family is still Republican (the parents at least). Clinton was definitely a centrist, and a very successful one.

Yes, the man who signed off on the death of Glass-Steagall, promoted welfare reform, promoted NAFTA, and promoted lots of deregulation was a centrist economically - if you define the center as something smack-dab in the right.

Yes, she was on the Walmart board, but Clinton was an Arkansas governor at the time (Walmart is based in AR), so it doesn't surprise me. That's what elites of both sides tend to do. At the same time, what do you know of the decisions she was involved in or fought for?

I remember about Hilarycare. I remember her meeting with members of congress to promote NAFTA. And not only was she on the board of Walmart, she was a significant stockholder.

Now, there's an argument to be made about what Clinton would do against a more progressive candidate. But there aren't very many of those with the experience necessary to be in the White House. And she's a good politician, as much as you might dislike her.

Clinton's experience as Secretary of State does give her foreign policy experience that many candidates lack, but foreign policy doesn't really hold a lot of sway domestically. She was a senator for a while, but she certainly was not a long-term one. Other than that, she doesn't have a deep experience as an elected official or one in an executive position. While I wouldn't hold that against a candidate because I think being a governor, CEO, or senator is not necessarily a good match for the position o ...


Let's just say for the sake of time (I don't really have the time today) that Clinton and Obama are much in the same sphere on a whole host of issues, and that Clinton will be forced to embrace a more populist, progressive agenda within her own party than she would have eight years previously. Inequality is a major problem in this country.

Without diving into it, I don't think NAFTA was much of a job killer. It had its pros and cons. It certainly didn't implode the US economy. Deregulation is another thing, especially banking deregulation.

The thing is, I agree with your points. And I think Clinton has that centrist baggage to deal with, especially when you look at the progressive movement. But she's also honestly just not as terrible as people are making out - OMG board of Walmart how could she? Please that was 2 decades ago. And unlike some people, I don't think having corporate ties means you will screw everyone over for money. Obama and Clinton are much of the same - they are both centrist-right but neither of them are as ugly as a single GOP candidate. I'll never forget Sam Palmisano, king of outsourcing, gladhanding Obama in 2009 - the biggest joke of the century.

Maybe there will be a better progressive in 2016. I would love to see it. But frankly I think Clinton has gotten a lot more flak than she deserves. She simply can't go any further right in her party without major blowback.
 
2014-07-23 04:23:19 PM  

bdub77: Let's just say for the sake of time (I don't really have the time today) that Clinton and Obama are much in the same sphere on a whole host of issues, and that Clinton will be forced to embrace a more populist, progressive agenda within her own party than she would have eight years previously. Inequality is a major problem in this country.

Without diving into it, I don't think NAFTA was much of a job killer. It had its pros and cons. It certainly didn't implode the US economy. Deregulation is another thing, especially banking deregulation.

The thing is, I agree with your points. And I think Clinton has that centrist baggage to deal with, especially when you look at the progressive movement. But she's also honestly just not as terrible as people are making out - OMG board of Walmart how could she? Please that was 2 decades ago. And unlike some people, I don't think having corporate ties means you will screw everyone over for money. Obama and Clinton are much of the same - they are both centrist-right but neither of them are as ugly as a single GOP candidate. I'll never forget Sam Palmisano, king of outsourcing, gladhanding Obama in 2009 - the biggest joke of the century.

Maybe there will be a better progressive in 2016. I would love to see it. But frankly I think Clinton has gotten a lot more flak than she deserves. She simply can't go any further right in her party without major blowback.


Based on our current Supreme Court, I will vote for the candidate with the "D" next to his or her name. No more Republican appointees.
 
2014-07-23 06:11:37 PM  

GameSprocket: A soldier who gets injured or killed is not a "victim". A victim is someone who had no active participation.


You're saying a soldier who is KIA is not a victim of war?
 
2014-07-23 06:28:07 PM  

Uncle Tractor: GameSprocket: A soldier who gets injured or killed is not a "victim". A victim is someone who had no active participation.

You're saying a soldier who is KIA is not a victim of war?


That is what I am saying. He is a participant.

Doesn't make it any less sad for the families. It is just a matter of terms.
 
2014-07-23 06:35:09 PM  
I guess I should be outraged or something.
 
2014-07-23 06:35:14 PM  
Bill might sabotage her. It goes against his very being to be the First Gentleman. His ego is a force of nature.
 
2014-07-23 06:38:44 PM  

Uncle Tractor: GameSprocket: A soldier who gets injured or killed is not a "victim". A victim is someone who had no active participation.

You're saying a soldier who is KIA is not a victim of war?


An active participant is not a victim. For example a suicide bomber is not a victim.
 
2014-07-23 07:05:55 PM  

GameSprocket: That is what I am saying. He is a participant.

Doesn't make it any less sad for the families. It is just a matter of terms.


Very well, then; Men lose their fathers, brothers, sons colleagues, and friends in combat. Why is this loss less than that suffered by women?
 
2014-07-23 07:22:17 PM  

Uncle Tractor: GameSprocket: That is what I am saying. He is a participant.

Doesn't make it any less sad for the families. It is just a matter of terms.

Very well, then; Men lose their fathers, brothers, sons colleagues, and friends in combat. Why is this loss less than that suffered by women?


Some of them are participants. Also, women tend to outnumber men. Therefore, the number of female victims would normally exceed male victims.

Not sure why this is such a scandal.
 
2014-07-23 09:21:43 PM  
She can't win. It'll be neat to see her up there giving it her best, but women are still unelectable in America as President. Give it another 20 years.
 
2014-07-24 12:13:38 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: She can't win. It'll be neat to see her up there giving it her best, but women are still unelectable in America as President. Give it another 20 years.


I'll eat an edible hat if she doesn't win.
 
2014-07-24 12:27:31 AM  

AeAe: HST's Dead Carcass: She can't win. It'll be neat to see her up there giving it her best, but women are still unelectable in America as President. Give it another 20 years.

I'll eat an edible hat if she doesn't win.


Deal!
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report