Somebody give me a reason NOT to vote for Fred Thompson

[LTS TRN 2]

Wrong, chuck-suck, your pathetic comparison between the sniveling lies of Novak, Miller, and the neocon plants, with...Goering?...don't even get off the ground. Chomsky's assertions are always plainly founded upon openly available and agreed upon data. The hit pieces and "swift boat" efforts of the seething war freak neocons, on the other hand, are easily found to be circular bullshit--just like the Chalabi "sources" that started this fucking war!

Wake the fuck up, you dull puppet.

[Goober McTuber]

Look, the author of the anti-Chomsky hit-piece is an avowed Israeli supporter whose overall "take" suggests that America has NEVER done anything wrong.

And you’re nothing but an avowed Israeli hater whose overall "take" suggests that America has NEVER done anything right. I believe you still have about 99 points to specifically dispute.

Here's another ringing endorsement of your hero:

http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

[battery chucka' one]

But LTS, whom are the people that 'agree upon' that Chomsky's hate filled data should be accepted as truth? Are they the same ones who tell us that the holocaust never happened?

[LTS TRN 2]

The question here is Why should we be wary of the possibility of a lunatic war freak like Fred Thompson getting on the ticket to the White House?

A basic reason is that Thompson is a Global Warming denialist. This dire default of consciousness on the part of the actor candidate portends very badly for everyone. The last thing this world needs is a Reagan/Dr. Phil/Cheney corporate whore with five years to live.

Noam Chomsky and his observations, incidently, are not seriously challenged. You can't even pick one to actually address. And you certainly can't defend the howlers in the "100 points" hit piece.

[battery chucka' one]

And you can't answer any questions beyond a broad blanket statement that we, for some reason or another, are expected to believe. Now tell us who the as yet unnamed 'they' you mention are that accept Chomsky as a credible source. Mr. 100 points is leading you in argument, as yet. Now, please, give us some non-biased names that accept Chomsky as legitimate. Thanks.

[LTS TRN 2]

Look, Chuck Suck, Noam Chomsky, unlike ANY of the rightwing hacks you can roll out, is an actual scholar. But this is beside the point of his being an simple sane man. You're missing a BIG point in your inane agenda. You're really much like an easily whipped up brown shirt in your venomous attacks.

Pick a subject, any subject, upon which Chomsky has applied his clear and fearless assessment.

Go ahead, quit faking it.

And after you find you can't actually refute Chomsky, start looking at Fred Thompson and spit on the ground, metaphorically, every time.

Wake Up Now!!

[battery chucka' one]

Okay, I'll make this easy on you and then perhaps you can understand how silly you sound.

Look, Chuck SuckThis is an ad hominem attack, Noam Chomsky, unlike ANY of the rightwing hacks another ad hominem attack in which you use a blanket statement that offers no specificsyou can roll out, is an actual scholarAmbiguous. In whose eyes is he a 'scholar'?. But this is beside the point of his being an simple sane manIn whose eyes is he 'sane'?. You're missing a BIG point in your inane agenda. You're really much like an easily whipped up brown shirt We pointed out before that he is the nazi, not Fred nor the righties in your venomous attacks.

Pick a subject, any subject, upon which Chomsky has applied his clear and fearless pandering and ambiguous statementassessment. You received 100 that you chose not to answer

Go ahead, quit faking it. The fake is you

And after you find you can't actually refute Chomsky You received 100 refutations, all of which you choose not to answer, start looking at Fred Thompson and spit on the ground you still have yet to tell me why I shouldn't vote for him, metaphorically, every time.

Wake Up Now!!Already awake. How's life in dreamland?

Hope you now understand a little more about putting forth an argument.

[LTS TRN 2]

Who says Chomsky is a great scholar? How about MIT?

As for the "100 Lies" offered by the avowed Israel supporter, they're all basically bullshit, some more ridiculous than others. Go ahead and actually try to refute a Chomsky position. YOU do it, not by way of some sleazy hit-piece. What's the matter? Gee, got no game? Got no actual insight to these events?

As for Fred Thompson, I've provided three basic reasons not to trust him further than you could throw him.

1) He remains a steadfast supporter of the catastrophic disaster of invading Iraq;

2) He lobbied hard for the pardoning of Scooter Libby;

3) He is a Global Warming Denialist.

And there's more. Your "position" is very easily refuted for the simple reason that the entire rightwing effort over the past six years has proven a non-stop perp walk/indictment/resignation/ parade of criminals and perverts.

[LTS TRN 2]

If you or any other Rove Monkey would actually attempt to refute a particular Chomsky position you'd appear a little less silly. The notion that some hit-piece of a Ziocon can somehow sustain your dismissal attacks (i.e., no need to actually take up an issue) is standard Limpdickian spoor.

The subject is the real and present danger that yet another actor with a dreadful rightwing agenda could be angling to the White House. Why should he be stopped? How can Fred Thompson and his positions be best exposed so that even a simple dolt in the heartland will Not Consider Voting For Him? these are the relevant and important questions. Deal with them now.

[battery chucka' one]

I like David Horowitz, but here's David Horovitz who I believe sums up a great deal in this video. Great points made.

David Horovitz-Journalist

Of course, short of calling him a drive by artist, the chomskyites in our midst won't bother with legitimate arguments.

Btw, chomsky-philes, you don't want me posting arguments by David Horowitz. Just sayin'.

[LTS TRN 2]

Here's Chomsky dealing with an early neocon, Silber, on the topic of the Contras. Note the similarity of Silber's fatuous hyperbole with the same nonsense being offered today by Limpdick, etc. Notice how Chomsky hands him his ass and leaves him a sputtering brownshirt. He even jokes about it.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1986----.htm

[LTS TRN 2]

I like David Horowitz, but here's David Horovitz who I believe sums up a great deal in this video. Great points made.

David Horovitz-Journalist

Of course, short of calling him a drive by artist, the chomskyites in our midst won't bother with legitimate arguments.

Btw, chomsky-philes, you don't want me posting arguments by David Horowitz. Just sayin'.

He's a British white boy in the middle of an occupied state. A thoroughly bizarre apartheid state experiment, to be precise, and he's pleading the case that the Palestinian suicide bombers are "necessitating the incursions."

Chucker, try to wrap yer mind around the little fact that this guy could be identical to a reporter in Cape Town 1978 complaining that the media was biased against the "necessary incursions" by the Western white civilized Boers who by divine mandate were maintaining their Homeland, etc.

It's the same thing.

Why do suppose it's different? Didn't South Africa have token negroes in its parliament? Wasn't its number one trading partner Israel? Nukes?

What exactly is your point in rolling this clown out into a debate on the reasons for Not Voting For Fred Thompson?

[battery chucka' one]

Here's Chomsky dealing with an early neocon, Silber, on the topic of the Contras. Note the similarity of Silber's fatuous hyperbole with the same nonsense being offered today by Limpdick, etc. Notice how Chomsky hands him his ass and leaves him a sputtering brownshirt. He even jokes about it.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1986----.htm

Wow. Where shall I begin?

1. The link you sent was from a pro-Chomsky site and hence of course it's incredibly in his favor.

2. Silber exposed Chomsky as a tired old liar spewing the same old 'blameAmericafirst,theUSSRwasn'tthat bad,reallyandifyouhavetobeinamericaatleastvotedemocratandonedayhopefullywecangetridofallthiscumbersomedemocraticsystemofgovernment' lines we've heard before. Extremely tired.

[LTS TRN 2]

The debate is a verbatim transcript that speaks for itself.

Silber is a interruptive attack dog. His claims as to the nature and actions of the Contras are insane and demented.

What can you bring in defense of the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers"?

"Who knows how long before the Lord returns?"



"moral equivalent, etc"


"From the mountains...to the prairies..to the oceans..white with foam....."

[Cuda]

Here's Chomsky dealing with an early neocon, Silber, on the topic of the Contras.

What a surprise, Chomsky siding with the communists

[Terry in Crapchester]

Sorry to put this thread (somewhat) back on topic, but . . .

I must have missed "Mommy Reagan" and her run for the White House !
Did you hear BJ Clinton say he was going to be "first Laddie" ???
Oh--my head !!

Wolfie, Wolfie, Wolfie, . . .

If that was a response to my earlier post, please tell me you were trolling when you typed that. If a retired teacher posted that, and meant it, then I worry for this country.

Let me spell it out for you. My earlier post referred to First Ladies as unelected power brokers. By definition, someone who runs for President and wins is not unelected. Regardless of whether one agrees with her politics, Hillary is within her rights to run for President. And in fact, if she wishes to exercise the powers of the Presidency, from my perspective that would be, at least from my standpoint, the preferred method of her doing so, even though she's not my first choice for President. It would also be my preferred method for Mommy Reagan to do the same thing, even though I wouldn't support her Presidential candidacy either.

As for Mommy, there were plenty of tell-all books after her husband's Presidency ended which suggested that she ran interference for her husband, even viz. his own advisers. It was also suggested that she made many of the important decisions in her husband's Presidency, often after consultation with her astrologer. She's never refuted these allegations, at least not effectively.

But Jeri Thompson, if she were to become First Lady, would be 100 times worse.

[LTS TRN 2]

The trophy wife angle will only hasten Thompson's quick exit (on a gurney). At least he's not some twisted perv like the Chimp, Rove, Craig, et al.

No, this isn't my granddaughter...why later tonight, with about four viagras, I'm going to attempt intercourse with her...



But Fred Thompson is still a complete piece of shit who will only continue the unmitigated catastrophe of the current (unelected) cabal.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Not to mention the whole thing about Fred Thompson representing a group advocating abortion rights. There is that.

But wait, it actually gets better than that. Much, much better.

You see, when the LA Times first broke that story, Thompson's M.O. was standard politician -- deny, deny, deny. Later, he went into a Peter Gabriel reset -- "I don't remember/I don't recall/I have no memory/Of anything at all."

Then, finally, the NY Times confronted him with his own billing records. At that point, he admitted his representation, and spouted off at great length about every person being entitled to legal representation, yadda yadda.

Fine and dandy, and I happen to agree with him on that point. And God knows that I've represented clients whose viewpoints differed from mine. There's only one problem, though. Thompson didn't represent those groups as a lawyer. He represented them as a lobbyist. And while the right to representation by a lawyer has Constitutional implications, the right to representation by a lobbyist, if any such "right" exists, most assuredly does not.

So Thompson intentionally blurs the rather significant distinction between representation by a lawyer and representation by a lobbyist, and the righties are reduced to swallowing this pabulum whole. Meanwhile, those same righties castigate Romney for his far less odious explanations about his election-year flip-flops on a variety of cultural issues.

As a certain U&L poster would say, ponderous.

And it's not about Thompson putting food on his family by representing an abortion-rights group, even as a lobbyist. It's the whole Watergate lesson coming back to roost once again. The coverup is always, always worse than the crime. And gee, if my memory serves, didn't ol' Fred used to work for the Senate subcommittee investigating Watergate? Seems that he, of all people, should have learned that lesson by now. Apparently not.

[Terry in Crapchester]

He asked for reasons why you wouldn't vote for him, you fucking tard.

You love abortion.

I love abortion?

But leaving that aside, you apparently missed this part the first time.

And it's not about Thompson putting food on his family by representing an abortion-rights group, even as a lobbyist. It's the whole Watergate lesson coming back to roost once again.

Oh, and btw, this was the original post:

I want to hear them all. I don't want to debate anybody here nor argue his side. I think I'm going to support this cat and want to know if there's any reasons not to. Let's hear them.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Go fuck yourself, douche.

[Terry in Crapchester]

How about this one?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80213.php

Fred Thompson Calls Himself 'Unabashedly Pro-Life,' Defends Lobbying Record
Main Category: Abortion News
Article Date: 22 Aug 2007 - 6:00 PDT

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.), who is considering running for the Republican presidential nomination, in an interview on Friday called himself "unabashedly pro-life" and said he has "no apologies to make" about his 20-year lobbying career, the AP/Boston Globe reports (Fournier/Glover, AP/Boston Globe, 8/18).

According to billing records for the law firm Arent Fox, where Thompson worked part time from 1991 to 1994, Thompson charged about $5,000 to the
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which supports abortion rights, for nearly 20 hours of work in 1991 and 1992. Thompson billed the group for 3.3 hours of lobbying "administration officials," as well as for 22 conversations with then NFPRHA President Judith DeSarno, according to the billing records.

DeSarno has said that in 1991, NFPRHA hired Thompson to urge the George H.W. Bush administration to withdraw or relax a federal policy on funding restrictions for clinics that provided abortion-related counseling. Minutes from a NFPRHA board meeting on Sept. 14, 1991, reportedly state that the group had "hired Fred Thompson Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration" on the abortion-counseling policy.

Thompson in a column posted July 11 on the blog Power Line said he does not remember but will not dispute evidence alleging that he lobbied for NFPRHA. In the column, Thompson wrote that if a "client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him" (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 7/24).

Thompson on Friday said he has an unclear memory of his work for NFPRHA, adding, "I clearly did some work. I proceeded after that to go to the United States Senate and oppose them on every matter that came up." He said there is nothing abnormal or wrong about lawyers representing clients with different views than their own, adding, "It has nothing to do with one's political views" (AP/Boston Globe, 8/18).
Senate Letters
In related news, Thompson while serving as a senator had two letters to respond to people who wrote to him about abortion -- one labeled "pro abortion" and the other labeled "con abortion," the AP/WKRN reports. The letters, dated 1995 and obtained at the University of Tennessee, both call abortion a "subject on which many people have strong and deeply held personal convictions" and say that Thompson generally believed "government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."

The letter to abortion-rights opponents contains a statement not in the other letter that Thompson voted for an amendment banning federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when a pregnant woman's life is in jeopardy. The letter to abortion-rights supporters says that Thompson did not believe health care workers should have to perform abortions "against their personal convictions" and that he opposed "the use of taxpayer funds to promote or perform abortions" (Mansfield, AP/WKRN, 8/18).

It's beyond reasonable dispute that Thompson represented NFPRHA as a lobbyist.

[Terry in Crapchester]

It's all the same shit, you fucking moron. What you have is 16 years ago his firm was hired to talk to the administration and Thompson may or may not have been involved in those trivial discussions.

Nice spin. Too bad those of us with a brain aren't buying it.

Hardly the stuff of an abortion crusader.

I never said he was, and his viewpoints on abortion are secondary, at best, to this conversation. Once again, you're trying to move the goalposts.

The problem I have with him was his reaction to this story: first outright denying, then the Peter Gabriel reset, then attempting to blur the lines between representing a client as a lawyer and representing a client as a lobbyist. What he should have said:

I am a political whore with no underpinning moral compass other than attempting to get over. I will say anything if it is in my best interests to do so.

It wouldn't have made me any more likely to vote for him, but at least I would have respected his honesty.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The problem I have with him

...is that he is a Republican. You were saying something about "respecting honesty" earlier?

I came correct. I said that I wouldn't be more likely to vote for him if he had been honest, just that I would've respected his honesty.

Thompson wasn't honest about this, and you know it. But by all means, continue the spin. Not too long ago you were denying that he had ever worked as a lobbyist for an abortion rights group. This is really quite amusing.

[Cuda]

It's all the same shit, you fucking moron. What you have is 16 years ago his firm was hired to talk to the administration and Thompson may or may not have been involved in those trivial discussions.

Nice spin. Too bad those of us with our heads up our asses aren't buying it..

FTFY, fuckpuddle.

Let me get this straight... back in 1991 & 1992, Thompson billed some group for 20 hours of work over the span of 2 years?

GODDAM! You really NAILED his ASS on that one, Sherlock. Nice job!

Too bad for you there's another lawyer/candidate in the presidential race who billed a certain crooked client for several hundred hours in a fraudulent land scheme and that amount of work was deemed "inconsequential" by the media & the Justice Dept, & the voters. True, it's old news, but, after all, you're the one dredging up old stories..

[battery chucka' one]

Terry,

I had heard of this work he did. I do agree with MVScal that 20 hours of work 16 years ago does not make one pro-choice. I don't think this is anything to get in a twist over. It wasn't his company. It was a client of a company he worked for (something I've already heard him admit to). He wasn't hired. The company was hired.

I give you my wholehearted thanks for your evidence, but I'll need more than that not to vote for him.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Ahhh, once again you missed the point.

Nobody's suggesting that Thompson did anything illegal. I pointed out only that he was less than forthright about it.

As for the length of time ago, yes, it was awhile ago, but it was more recent than Hillary's billing to which you allude. Not that I'm supporting Hillary anyway.

BCO merely asked for reasons why he shouldn't vote for Thompson. I merely brought one up, 's'all. The fact that you righties are spinning non-stop over it suggests that you might think it's more damaging than you're saying it is.

I do agree with MVScal that 20 hours of work 16 years ago does not make one pro-choice.

I never suggested that it did. And I brought it up more due to his obfuscation over this particular work history than because of anything else.

It was a client of a company he worked for (something I've already heard him admit to). He wasn't hired. The company was hired.

Not entirely correct.

He worked for a law firm as a lobbyist. The firm was approached by the client, specifically looking for a Republican lobbyist to lobby the Bush Administration. They recommended Thompson. The firm was retained for the lobbying work, at least some of which Thompson personally performed.

[Cuda]

Ahhh, once again I missed the point.

FTFY again, bitchcakes

As for the length of time ago, yes, it was awhile ago, but it was more recent than Hillary's billing to which you allude. Not that I'm supporting Hillary anyway.

The point is, dumbfuck, that Hillary did at least 10 times more legal work (to further the perpetration of a fraud, btw) than Thompson is supposed to have done and it was decided that her several hundred hours of billable work was insignificant & inconsequential. How do you then make the leap that Thompson's work was somehow significant?

Go fuck yourself, idiot.

[Terry in Crapchester]

BCO merely asked for reasons why he shouldn't vote for Thompson. I merely brought one up, 's'all.

If that's all you got, you might as well get used to addressing him President Thompson.

How about this: the next person who stays awake through one of his speeches and isn't an immediate family member will be the first.

If Thompson is the best you've got, you might as well get used to the idea of a Democratic President for at least four years.

[battery chucka' one]

You might want to take a closer look at your own line up, dumbshit. You've already lost.

The only suspense in this election is who will win the Republican primary. Even that gibbering tard, McCain, would roll the Democratic field.

Check back in when you assholes get serious.

He's right. Look at the blue side of the equation and tell me who can win.

Hillary is the Democrat's Newt. She'll bring people out of the woodwork to vote against her. She can't win.

Obama would do well to set himself up for a bid in '12. If the Republicans botch this next administration, he should be sitting pretty.

Anything below them is dreaming. Take your pick. Richardson, Edwards, Biden, Kucenich, Dodd. None can win.

Hillary will get the nomination. The only suspense will be if Obama's dumb enough to go down in flames with her as a running mate. I don't think he is. I say she'll give the invite to political hell to Richardson. I think he'll take her up on it. Nice knowing both of you.

[BSmack]

Hillary is the Democrat's Newt. She'll bring people out of the woodwork to vote against her. She can't win.

Absolute bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

Go peddle your GOP talking points somewhere else.

[BSmack]

Hillary is the Democrat's Newt. She'll bring people out of the woodwork to vote against her. She can't win.

Absolute bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

Go peddle your GOP talking points somewhere else.

Still clinging to bullshit polls? No wonder you fucking tards spend so much time moping around all confused.

Still clinging to faith based politics? Or do you have a reasonable issue with this poll's methodology.

[battery chucka' one]

Absolute bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

Go peddle your GOP talking points somewhere else.

Still clinging to bullshit polls? No wonder you fucking tards spend so much time moping around all confused.

Still clinging to faith based politics? Or do you have a reasonable issue with this poll's methodology.

This poll reminds me of that Simpson's episode where they had the movie competition. Remember?

We did 20 takes and THAT was the best one.

I wonder how many polls it took to get her those numbers. Hmm? I can imagine how the conversation went at the Post:

The following is fiction and in no way meant to be accepted as truthful, unlike the output of peeps like Michael Moore which, though being fiction, is expected to be accepted as true. Enjoy.

Writers: She's still down, editor sir.

Editor: What the hell's wrong with you? Poll more people!!! Expand the poll. Have you polled her family yet?

Writers: Yes.

Editor: What about the New Yorkers?

Writers: Yes.

Editor: Well, poll them all again. Get those numbers up. We gots us a story to write here!!!

[Cuda]

Hillary is the Democrat's Newt. She'll bring people out of the woodwork to vote against her. She can't win.

Absolute bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

Go peddle your GOP talking points somewhere else.

Still clinging to bullshit polls? No wonder you fucking tards spend so much time moping around all confused.

BSmack fancies himself as Hillary's Monica. He can't wait to suck Hillary's dick.

[BSmack]

This poll reminds me of that Simpson's episode where they had the movie competition. Remember?

I suppose in your case it is a far better choice to spin and deflect rather than expose your total lack of knowledge. Just admit it, you served up one of Rove's talking points without any proof and you got served.

[BSmack]

BSmack fancies himself as Hillary's Monica. He can't wait to suck Hillary's dick.

I actually plan on voting for Edwards in the NY primary. Not that you've ever let facts get in your way before.

[battery chucka' one]

This poll reminds me of that Simpson's episode where they had the movie competition. Remember?

I suppose in your case it is a far better choice to spin and deflect rather than expose your total lack of knowledge. Just admit it, you served up one of Rove's talking points without any proof and you got served.

No, I didn't. Several things you need to know here, son.

1. Rove is gone. Bye bye. Sayonara. He has no talking points.

2. Such a talking point, if false, is more reckless than saying that, 'Kerry can't possibly lose....it's Bush, for goodness sake...it'll be a Dems victory in '04'. If there's nothing to back it up, then why do you get so defensive when you see it? The SILENT MAJORITY hates this woman. Her husband's numbers were down when they ran the whole '2 for 1' gambit in '92. She can't and won't win. The dems know that. This election, for them, is just to get her out of the way. They'll come back in '12 with Obama.

3. That Simpson's episode was funny.

Hats off to her for sticking with her hubby in light of his infidelities. I can respect that a bit, at least. More than I can say for many. She needs more time in finishing school. What she puts forth now won't win the presidency. Heck, the only reason she's a senator is because of a rather convenient (for her) case of cancer for Giuliani.

[battery chucka' one]

Here's a better question for ya', Bsmack.

Clinton got into office due to Perot sucking away a ton of votes from the Republican party. He was re-elected via triangulation (middle class tax cuts, welfare reforms, etc.). On what will she triangulate to get that ever so important moderate vote? If she was running against Bush, she could use the size of government and the deficit. Without the administration to attack, how will she achieve this?

Thompson's first debate is tomorrow. It's very important that he shows well. If he does so, I think he'll become front runner. If not, then he's back with the pack. Important debate tomorrow.

[BSmack]

1. Rove is gone. Bye bye. Sayonara. He has no talking points.

Seriously, just STFU. You're WAY too easy to shoot down.

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton's opponents are hyping this bit of conventional wisdom: If she wins the Democratic nomination, her high negative ratings in polls will make it especially difficult for her to win the general election in November 2008.

Karl Rove, the guru behind President Bush's political career, framed this widely held view when he called Clinton a "fatally flawed" candidate because of her high negatives.

"There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling," Rove said.

You're either dumber than a fucking post or a flat out liar. Which is it?

2. Such a talking point, if false, is more reckless than saying that, 'Kerry can't possibly lose....it's Bush, for goodness sake...it'll be a Dems victory in '04'. If there's nothing to back it up, then why do you get so defensive when you see it? The SILENT MAJORITY hates this woman. Her husband's numbers were down when they ran the whole '2 for 1' gambit in '92. She can't and won't win. The dems know that. This election, for them, is just to get her out of the way. They'll come back in '12 with Obama.

I'm hardly defensive. I'm just taking a few minutes in between some work I'm doing to beat your brains in with your own bullshit.

Hats off to her for sticking with her hubby in light of his infidelities. I can respect that a bit, at least. More than I can say for many. She needs more time in finishing school. What she puts forth now won't win the presidency. Heck, the only reason she's a senator is because of a rather convenient (for her) case of cancer for Giuliani.

Why do you make me continually have to point out yet another falsehood? Hillary was in the process of dismantling Rudy in 2000 when he VERY conveniently bowed out. Does the name Judith Nathan mean anything to you? I didn't fucking think so. Rudy bailed because he had no chance against Hillary then. It was a move that allowed him to maintain the kind of political viability that a 15 point loss to Hillary wouldn't have.

Not that it matters. When the wingbat evangelical wing of the GOP gets done blowing up the party over Rudy, there won't be anything left of the "Grand Old Party". Seriously, they are soon to be the new Whigs.

[Cuda]

BSmack fancies himself as Hillary's Monica. He can't wait to suck Hillary's dick.

I actually plan on voting for Edwards in the NY primary. Not that you've ever let facts get in your way before.

He's not going to let you suck his dick either- despite what he says about teaching his kids that gays are good

[battery chucka' one]

Since we're trotting out the Washington Post, here's another article about Hillary that I'm sure you'll agree with.

Who Made Hillary Queen???

Enjoy, son.