|
|
| Would Hillary Clinton be a good president? |
| Yes |
|
25% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
75% |
[ 15 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:52 pm
Brian_Link High_Assassin Brian_Link My plan is simpler than that. Just invade Antartica. The only army to worry about is the penguin army. Which is pretty formabile, but they are also bird that we can roast over a fire. Lets see, you want to invade a neutral country because of political problems at home, crush the native army, which would be defending their home from foreign invasion, and use them for food while occupying their country. This is exactly the kind of thing the Libertarian Party is against. Do us all a favor. If you do go through with this, don't do it under the Libertarian banner, cause it will NOT be a libertarian action. Wait, Penguins count as people? When did that happen? I was just looking at them as a free meal. The reason the plan works so well is that there is no native group trying to defend it (The Penguin army was a joke). I don't see anyone's rights being taken away. The three scientists down there can stay there if they want. Either way, if you haven't learned yet, I'm still a Republican that is border-line Libertarian, not a full blown Libertarian. So I wouldn't be tauting the Libertarian flag. I'd be tauting the flag of the great nation of KickAssia(Name subject to change)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:18 pm
Brian_Link High_Assassin Brian_Link My plan is simpler than that. Just invade Antartica. The only army to worry about is the penguin army. Which is pretty formabile, but they are also bird that we can roast over a fire. Lets see, you want to invade a neutral country because of political problems at home, crush the native army, which would be defending their home from foreign invasion, and use them for food while occupying their country. This is exactly the kind of thing the Libertarian Party is against. Do us all a favor. If you do go through with this, don't do it under the Libertarian banner, cause it will NOT be a libertarian action. Wait, Penguins count as people? When did that happen? I was just looking at them as a free meal. The reason the plan works so well is that there is no native group trying to defend it (The Penguin army was a joke). I don't see anyone's rights being taken away. The three scientists down there can stay there if they want. Either way, if you haven't learned yet, I'm still a Republican that is border-line Libertarian, not a full blown Libertarian. So I wouldn't be tauting the Libertarian flag. I'd be tauting the flag of the great nation of KickAssia(Name subject to change) Well, in addition to peoples rights, I also like to consider amimal rights, (even though the animal rights activist are WAY out of control, they do have a valid, basic point.) Looking at Penguins as a "free meal" indicates (but doesn't prove) that you have no respect for their rights as living beings. Not that I would be against you hunting them, but I would at least try for something else first, like krill or seaweed, or maybe a greenhouse where you grow your own food. 3nodding Also, what makes you think the scientist won't resist? They come from a number of nations, and I think America is one of them. Hitlery would LOVE the chance to "Save a natural wonder from the grave threat of racidical political idealists." In other words, you could wind up making her look like the "good guy" and place libertarians in the same class as the terrorists. *Shudders.* But yeah, there is a certain Bush-ism in your plan. It just wouldn't represent us well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:21 pm
High_Assassin Brian_Link High_Assassin Brian_Link My plan is simpler than that. Just invade Antartica. The only army to worry about is the penguin army. Which is pretty formabile, but they are also bird that we can roast over a fire. Lets see, you want to invade a neutral country because of political problems at home, crush the native army, which would be defending their home from foreign invasion, and use them for food while occupying their country. This is exactly the kind of thing the Libertarian Party is against. Do us all a favor. If you do go through with this, don't do it under the Libertarian banner, cause it will NOT be a libertarian action. Wait, Penguins count as people? When did that happen? I was just looking at them as a free meal. The reason the plan works so well is that there is no native group trying to defend it (The Penguin army was a joke). I don't see anyone's rights being taken away. The three scientists down there can stay there if they want. Either way, if you haven't learned yet, I'm still a Republican that is border-line Libertarian, not a full blown Libertarian. So I wouldn't be tauting the Libertarian flag. I'd be tauting the flag of the great nation of KickAssia(Name subject to change) Well, in addition to peoples rights, I also like to consider amimal rights, (even though the animal rights activist are WAY out of control, they do have a valid, basic point.) Looking at Penguins as a "free meal" indicates (but doesn't prove) that you have no respect for their rights as living beings. Not that I would be against you hunting them, but I would at least try for something else first, like krill or seaweed, or maybe a greenhouse where you grow your own food. 3nodding Also, what makes you think the scientist won't resist? They come from a number of nations, and I think America is one of them. Hitlery would LOVE the chance to "Save a natural wonder from the grave threat of racidical political idealists." In other words, you could wind up making her look like the "good guy" and place libertarians in the same class as the terrorists. *Shudders.* But yeah, there is a certain Bush-ism in your plan. It just wouldn't represent us well. I have no problem with Penguins, its just can you really list any other food there is in Antartica? Green house would require the initial resources to build one, which wouldn't take place until after I got hungry. And I thought that the DemocRats only cared about domestic environmental issues. They don't complain about oil in the middle east do they? Oh and those scientists, that assuming that the settlement group met them prior to settling. Which is actually pretty rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:03 am
I remember hearing Hillary Clinton saying something about seizing oil company profits so the government can use it for "renewable energy research". WTF!? That's private property!!! The share holders of those oil companies are just average citizens trying to invest in their future. Heck, I haven't looked but my index fund might invest in some oil companies. Here is Hillary stating she wants to take oil company profits! mad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:04 am
5ubliminalM355ag35 Well I'll put it this way.... If she runs I'll consider voting for ANY candidate the republicans throw my way. This is what would happen if she was president: "HEY it's george's orwell's 1984 prediction coming true a little late...now!" did you know that orwells book 1984 is her favorite book according to an interview a few years back? im voting for Ron Paul whether he makes the ballot or not...thats what they call a write in...anyone else in the race is a joke to me. they will hand us over to the north american trade people and then well lose any rights as americans we had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:23 am
It is a sad state of affaiis that Hillary Clinton is now the official 2016 Democratic nominee. Since we already have a thread about Clinton's Candidacy, I figured ir might be better to revive it, rather than make a whole new thread just for bashing here. (Which is all I really expect anyone here to do.) I don't know if I can change the topic title, or if the Captian needs to do it, but I think we should remove the 08 part. That would free up this thread for current events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:59 pm
Ah, yes the old Hillary Clinton 08 thread. I remember this one. I had intended to confine all Election disussions to the 2016 POTUS Election thread, but since we already have one for Hillary, I suppose I should make one for bashing Trump, as well. I'll get right on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:14 pm
Unfortunately, Clinton seems to be winning the race. So it makes even LESS sense that she's now running ads telling people, "Don't vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning," and "we have a two party system, and now isn't the time for a protest vote."
EXCUSE ME?! Clinton is ALREADY winning in the race, so why does she need to bash down our candidate, who couldn't even make it into their precious debates. And if THIS isn't the time for a protest vote, then WHEN! When both parties are running candidates that people actually LIKE, and voting 3rd party doesn't matter?! No, NOW IS THE TIME! NOW, when BOTH candidates are viewed UNfavorably by a majority of the people, and they are crying out for a third option! Sorry, Clinton, but if you can't even beat Trump, without dragging people back into the two party trap they are so desperate to escape, you don't deserve to be President. Actually neither of you do, but thats beside the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
