« Get Crashed |
Teachers Unions Vs. The State »
on March 28 at
onless the word of sinbad or carrot top is backing this guy up no GOOD american is going to listen to what some distrustful funny sounding forgioner has to say
Is that Enya as the background music?
jesus christ, why doesn't she just come out and say "well, ya know, my penis is bigger than barack's, blah blah blah..."
The MPAA should totally sue for the unauthorized trademark infringement "This film is rated..." intro.
Hilary exaggerated/fabricated her foreign policy experience?!? NO WAY!?!?!
"Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!"
Im SO effen sick of the stranger and its hillary bashing obama coddling ways. FU stranger!
@7 - Umm...the Stranger had nothing to do with the making of this video, dude!
just because you take someone elses poo out of the toilet and show it to me doesnt mean your not guilty of holding the poo in the first place
@9 unless that shit is claiming to be a cinnamon roll, and you're thinking of eating it and serving it to me.
Look, let's just get this up front now and be done with: Neither Hillary, as First Lady or Senator from the State of New York, nor Obabma in his role as Senator from the State of Illinois has any significant foreign-policy experience outside of voting for a few related bills in Congress.
So, yeah, it's hyperbole to say so coming from the Clinton side, but it's just as disingenuous for the Obama side to bash her, implying at the same time that HIS foreign policy "experience" is somehow superior in comparison.
So long as everyone acknowledges the fact that NEITHER has ANY significant foreign-policy experience whatsoever, then we can rightfully take all this for what it is - simple election year posturing.
The issue isn't about foreign policy experience. It's about Hillary's credibility and the truthfulness of what she says.
@12 I aagree. It's about judgement. Hillaries record (including voting for the Iraq war twice) and her campaign proves her poor judgment.
That's a load as well. Anyone who expects 100% ideological "purity" from a politician is bound to be disappointed, because no elected official can achieve that mark, particularly if you're going to make a judgement call based on a limited pallet of issues.
Granted, her vote on Iraq was regrettable, but so then too were the votes of a majority of the other Senators who also voted "aye". If that's the ONLY issue of importance, then I guess that's what you base your vote on.
But, what about her stances on health care? Economic recovery? Immigration? Tax relief for working families? Our relations with other countries? These and scores of other important issues should also be considered when trying to decide which candidate to support, and yet it seems a lot of people - in both camps - have cast those other considerations aside in favor of allowing one single issue to overshadow everything else.
And that just seems to me to be a short-sighted, misguided, and ultimately foolhardy way of deciding which of these two is the better candidate.
shorter COMTE: "okay, so hillary lied about her foreign policy credentials and voted for invading iraq but... hey, look over there!"
Shorter Obama Supporter: "Well, yes, technically my candidate has NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE AT ALL, but - hey, look it's that lying Hillary Clinton over there!"
In case you hadn't noticed Hillary wasn't lying about Bosnia.
Uh, isn't Hillary's ENTIRE CASE for being better than Obama - as evinced by HER OWN ADS - based on her supposed experience? If so, doesn't that make stuff like this relevant?
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave
Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info |