(04-23-2014 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:18 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  maybe less so if she proves more adept at moving things through congress than Obama has.

What?

The very best thing about Obama is that he's been so inept in working with congress that very little of his campaign agenda has passed. The worry with Hillary would be that she might be able to get some of her agenda through congress.

Okay, gotcha.

It would depend if Democrats had control of House and Senate, or not.

(04-23-2014 12:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:18 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  maybe less so if she proves more adept at moving things through congress than Obama has.

What?

The very best thing about Obama is that he's been so inept in working with congress that very little of his campaign agenda has passed. The worry with Hillary would be that she might be able to get some of her agenda through congress.

Okay, gotcha.

It would depend if Democrats had control of House and Senate, or not.

Remember the old argument about wanting Obama to fail meant wanting America to fail? And remember that my response was Obama fails = America succeeds and Obama succeeds = America fails? Well, so far I think for the most part it has been Obama fails enough for America to survive.

I'd fell somewhat better about Hillary if Bill played a major role. And I don't think she can have much more success with congress than Obama has had unless Bill does play a major role.

And I'll stick with my conclusion that Bill is a moderate democrat, Hillary is a left-wing democrat, and Obama is a socialist/communist.

Jeb just won my vote in a primary.

(04-23-2014 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd feel somewhat better about Hillary if Bill played a major role. And I don't think she can have much more success with congress than Obama has had unless Bill does play a major role.

I can hardly believe that Clinton's relationships with Congress while in office are being held up as a model to emulate. But if any future president desires to watch their signature legislative project crash-and-burn, preside over two government shutdowns, have the Senate reject a major foreign treaty, and get impeached in the bargain, then yeah by all means.

Quote:I'll stick with my conclusion that Bill is a moderate democrat, Hillary is a left-wing democrat, and Obama is a socialist/communist.

Wrong on Bill, but spot-on with Hillary! and Obama.

In the ~45 years they have known each other, is there any evidence that Bill and Hillary! have ever had a significant ideological disagreement in all that time? If so, let facts be submitted to a candid world. Until then, I suspect they are two peas in a left-wing pod, and that surface "differences" between them are attributable to him (but not her) starting his career of office-seeking in a rural/segregated part of the South, and therefore constrained to occasionally play the role of a non-liberal. And -- give the devil his due -- no one does political role-playing like the Man From Hope.

I voted for Killary in the first Dem. primary because I thought she'd be better than Obama. I wouldn't vote for her now for various reasons. One being that she wouldn't be any different than Obama. I don't want four more years of this fiasco.

(04-23-2014 12:23 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 07:51 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Sure, let's add 12 million more people to the government teat, to the school system, to Obamacare, and best of all, they'll need jobs. Who among you will lose your job to an illegal?

Quote:At a prominent conference of education innovators, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is considering a 2016 presidential run, called for more guest worker programs and a path to amnesty for all of the country's illegal immigrants.

Speaking at what is known as the "Davos in the Desert" event in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Monday evening, Bush said the United States needed "robust guest worker programs" and an expansion of H1-B visas for the high-tech industry," even though the notion that there is a shortage of American high-tech workers has been called a myth. He also called for a "tough but fair path to legalized status" for all of the country's illegal immigrants and an end to immigration quotas for countries.

Bush said that it was not an "American value to have 12-13 million people living in the shadows" and spoke about the need to protect borders and sanction companies that may hire illegal immigrants.

He asserted that the "rags to riches rate" in the country is only four percent and that the American Dream is being replaced with "stickiness at both ends," as those born either wealthy or poor are likely to remain so while the middle class feels the squeeze.

Bush has previously called illegal immigration "an act of love" and said the issue "shouldn't rile people up." Establishment Republican guru Karl Rove even conceded that Jeb Bush was not artful in those remarks. At the conference, which was co-hosted by Arizona State University and GSV Advisors, Bush made no reference to those prior comments, though he has previously defended them.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...Conference

Kinda disappointed in you that Jeb was in the running up until now

I would vote for him if he was running as the GOP candidate but not in the primaries. I don't think a 3rd Bush would have a chance of winning so we'd be wasting our time nominating this guy.

(04-23-2014 02:49 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I voted for Killary in the first Dem. primary because I thought she'd be better than Obama. I wouldn't vote for her now for various reasons. One being that she wouldn't be any different than Obama. I don't want four more years of this fiasco.

How are you able to say that you won't vote for Hillary without knowing who would be running against her?

I'm amazed at how quickly people decide who they are going to vote for with information.

No wonder we get such terrible candidates.

(04-23-2014 02:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd feel somewhat better about Hillary if Bill played a major role. And I don't think she can have much more success with congress than Obama has had unless Bill does play a major role.

I can hardly believe that Clinton's relationships with Congress while in office are being held up as a model to emulate. But if any future president desires to watch their signature legislative project crash-and-burn, preside over two government shutdowns, have the Senate reject a major foreign treaty, and get impeached in the bargain, then yeah by all means.

On the other hand, he also carried out an effective triangulation strategy that got a lot of stuff passed with significant republican votes. I still think where we started getting off the track is that Newt and Bill had what I think was an opportunity to play Ike/LBJ/Rayburn and instead got everybody's panties in a wad over Monicagate. I think the two of them could have sat down over bourbon and branch about 3 times a week and run the country, and done far better than what has happened instead. If nothing else, Newt could have given Bill the phone numbers of a bunch of better looking female playmates than Bill seems to have been able to find on his own.

Quote:

Quote:I'll stick with my conclusion that Bill is a moderate democrat, Hillary is a left-wing democrat, and Obama is a socialist/communist.

Wrong on Bill, but spot-on with Hillary! and Obama.
In the ~45 years they have known each other, is there any evidence that Bill and Hillary! have ever had a significant ideological disagreement in all that time? If so, let facts be submitted to a candid world. Until then, I suspect they are two peas in a left-wing pod, and that surface "differences" between them are attributable to him (but not her) starting his career of office-seeking in a rural/segregated part of the South, and therefore constrained to occasionally play the role of a non-liberal. And -- give the devil his due -- no one does political role-playing like the Man From Hope.

More explaining my position than answering your question directly, but Bill wrote some stuff in the late 1980s that was pretty strongly fiscally conservative. Bascally he advocated a balanced budget and welfare reform along the lines that actually took place once republicans retook congress.

Bill was certainly more fiscally conservative than W. Art Laffer (of the Curve) has written pretty extensively praising Clinton's fiscal policies.

There is always the possibility that he has been a crypto-leftist all these years, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I will concede that one thing in favor of your point is that he has been very strong in praise of some things that Obama did that I quite frankly did not expect him to support.

Bill is a power hungry opportunist. I really don't think he has much of a philosophical compass... he just wants to be loved so he goes along with the majority every time.

(04-24-2014 12:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bill is a power hungry opportunist. I really don't think he has much of a philosophical compass... he just wants to be loved so he goes along with the majority every time.

Putting aside the debate as to whether that's accurate or not, I'd much prefer that to Obama.

(04-24-2014 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Bill is a power hungry opportunist. I really don't think he has much of a philosophical compass... he just wants to be loved so he goes along with the majority every time.

Putting aside the debate as to whether that's accurate or not, I'd much prefer that to Obama.

Agree. Also the fact that Obama is a terrible executive and manager of the administrative, non-political side. Hillary isn't Bill, however, and I don't think she'll let him control her.

(04-24-2014 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:49 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I voted for Killary in the first Dem. primary because I thought she'd be better than Obama. I wouldn't vote for her now for various reasons. One being that she wouldn't be any different than Obama. I don't want four more years of this fiasco.

How are you able to say that you won't vote for Hillary without knowing who would be running against her?

I'm amazed at how quickly people decide who they are going to vote for with information.

No wonder we get such terrible candidates.

Well, let's put it like this, in ways that even you would understand. You, for instance, after all your posts on this board tells me what kind of person you are and if you are compatible with my beliefs. And. You're not. So if you were running for office I would already know your mindset and I wouldn't vote for you. Same with her. During her demo. primary she was really an unknown entity and I was basing my trust in how her husband was as a president. She's no Bill, by the way, and is more Barack. So does that answer your question?

(04-22-2014 08:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 08:35 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Gotta do something. They're not going away.

If your home was infested with mice would you try to get rid of them or make them house guests?

And that sentiment, articulated perfectly by you, sums up the rabid anti-amnesty crowd.

And that's why the GOP is continue to perform very poorly with Hispanic American voters.

(04-24-2014 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 08:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 08:35 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Gotta do something. They're not going away.

If your home was infested with mice would you try to get rid of them or make them house guests?

And that sentiment, articulated perfectly by you, sums up the rabid anti-amnesty crowd.

And that's why the GOP is continue to perform very poorly with Hispanic American voters.

Maybe some but not I. How do you vote for a party (demo) that is entirely not your cup of tea and not vote for a party that goes against only one of your beliefs. You pick the one that is more of your liking instead of the complete opposite. Most of the time if you're not a lackey for a certain party you pick the one most favorable to you. And like I mentioned before I am an independent.