Hillary Clinton's Disgrace!!

[RPR]

I reluctantly voted for Kerry in the last elections and that says plenty becuase W had a record of bad policies and double speak and I knew he would be bad as well.With Obama there is a lot that we don't know. We really need a third party in the US but it can't be a flunky from the ranks of the the Dems or the Repubs. A true third party with unique ideas.

[L_F_Miranda]

RPR wrote:

We really need a third party in the US but it can't be a flunky from the ranks of the the Dems or the Repubs.

I agree but I also know we don't live in Europe.

In Europe there are REAL Parties of the RIGHT, CENTER and LEFT.

In America there are only Moderate Right wingers ( Democrats) and More Right wingers (Republicans). Therefore the DEMO-REPUBLICAN party! A one party system that administers the government for the Corporations and the Over Class, who are the one's who really rule! Michael Lind's; theory, LOL

Both Gringo parties are within the spectrum of the RIGHT!

In fact Democrats and Republicans are nothing more than factions within the small ruling class. No Real difference.

Only folks who live in the U.S. and Puerto Rico see a real FUNDAMENTAL difference between the two. Go figure.

What about us?

Puerto Ricans are only interested in how much free money they can get. Most have figured out that Statehood is their best bet, thus locking us into the gravy train for eternity.

As for a Third party, most Puerto Ricans don't really care. As long as the free money keeps flowing in, we'll be with the party that gives more, in our case THE DEMOCRATS!

[RPR]

Originally Posted by L_F_Miranda

RPR wrote:

We really need a third party in the US but it can't be a flunky from the ranks of the the Dems or the Repubs.

I agree but I also know we don't live in Europe.

In Europe there are REAL Parties of the RIGHT, CENTER and LEFT.

In America there are only Moderate Right wingers ( Democrats) and More Right wingers (Republicans). Therefore the DEMO-REPUBLICAN party! A one party system that administers the government for the Corporations and the Over Class, who are the one's who really rule! Michael Lind's; theory, LOL

Both Gringo parties are within the spectrum of the RIGHT!

In fact Democrats and Republicans are nothing more than factions within the small ruling class. No Real difference.

Only folks who live in the U.S. and Puerto Rico see a real FUNDAMENTAL difference between the two. Go figure.

What about us?

Puerto Ricans are only interested in how much free money they can get. Most have figured out that Statehood is their best bet, thus locking us into the gravy train for eternity.

As for a Third party, most Puerto Ricans don't really care. As long as the free money keeps flowing in, we'll be with the party that gives more, in our case THE DEMOCRATS!

Is it any wonder that Rush Limbaugh ordered "Operation Chaos"? Supposedly,the plan was to bloody up the Democratic primaries. Some think it was his way to get people to vote fo Hillary instead of Obama. Who would have ever thunk that Bill would have ever gone on his show to reach out to voters? Many Republican insiders would rather see Hillary as prez.

[JaneMas]

Originally Posted by RPR

And who wouldn't want to be set back to the booming economy of the 90's

Ethics,morals, class....it's like beauty. All in the eye of the beholder.Obama has been hand picked by the left so no surpise that he is the presumptive nominee. I first learned about him a lil over a year ago when suddenly Yahoo and AOL news were spotlighting him out of the abyss. Back to the topic at hand.

The Clintons will do what it takes to win. Nevermind that they may "piss off" the most loyal voting block the Dems have. Why should they back down though? If Obama was white then this scenario wouid not be playing out. Fact is, Obama is benefiting from being the black,Harvard educated,well spoken candidate.

White Guilt is a funny thing really.....

Now,the general elections are a different animal.... On a lighter note:


YouTube - "NEW" Hillary Clinton campaign ad on Jimmy Kimmel Live

Me! I do not want to go back to the 1990s. Ever thought of moving towards the future?

1. The 90s was a time when drugs were rampant The prison industrial complex and PIC laws boomed in the 1990s. The Clinton Administration has done far more than its Republican predecessors to legitimize private prisons during the 90s. Big Business!
2. Puerto Rico was ignored again and again but worst than ever before and as a result the delapidation of Puerto Rico's economy, police force, and roadways suffered.
3. Minimum wage did not reflect the cost of living and still does not.
4. SSI replaced WELFARE!
5. Jobs moved overseas
6. Bin Laden & his followers attacked Naval ships, bases and embassies overseas and Bill Clinton did nothing to get him.
7. Bill Clinton reduced the military body count (which did much humanitarian work at that time) and record number of bases overseas and at home and ignored a decent wage for them.
8. Our president lied under OATH in front of the world, and since has been disbarred!
9. Housing, employment, healthcare and education remained as always, without any real PERMANENT change.

[RPR]

Originally Posted by JaneMas

Me! I do not want to go back to the 1990s. Ever thought of moving towards the future?

1. The 90s was a time when drugs were rampant The prison industrial complex and PIC laws boomed in the 1990s. The Clinton Administration has done far more than its Republican predecessors to legitimize private prisons during the 90s. Big Business!
2. Puerto Rico was ignored again and again but worst than ever before and as a result the delapidation of Puerto Rico's economy, police force, and roadways suffered.
3. Minimum wage did not reflect the cost of living and still does not.
4. SSI replaced WELFARE!
5. Jobs moved overseas
6. Bin Laden & his followers attacked Naval ships, bases and embassies overseas and Bill Clinton did nothing to get him.
7. Bill Clinton reduced the military body count (which did much humanitarian work at that time) and record number of bases overseas and at home and ignored a decent wage for them.
8. Our president lied under OATH in front of the world, and since has been disbarred!
9. Housing, employment, healthcare and education remained as always, without any real PERMANENT change.

[/size]

Who cares what Bill was doing with the cigar and his lie. No one died. Bin Laden....trained by the CIA....Bill could have gone after him but that would have meant invading/attacking SOVEREIGN nations. Don't we want out of Iraq?

I don't expect the goverment to be the solution to all our problems. There has to be some accountability to each individual. And there's nothing wrong with moving forward but what exactly are we moving forward to??

[JaneMas]

I don't care what Bill was doing with a cigar and Monica or any of the 4 other women. I cared that the president lied under oath and expects to be treated differently than you or me under the same circumstances. It could of been a lie over what he ate for dinner but the fact that he lied under oath as president matters greatly since he is the one who signs the law.

Why would you say "That would have meant invading/attacking SOVEREIGN nations"? Under what grounds? Why use Iraq as an example? He wasn't in Iraq nor was Bush after Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Everyone knows this. Why do people still use this example as a valid argument? No, it does not mean attacking sovereign nations, as if that ever stop the US before. Refer to Granada, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Panama. Boy do they like to bully Latin Americans! Which nations will the US attack? Afganistan? It's the only nation that harbors terrorists besides Pakistan who turned a blind eye to Al-Qaeda in their backyard. Who else? The Pakistan problem could be solved without attacking the nation directly, an issue already discussed by dumb PTSD McCain, Nuclear Hillary and Obama. Guess which one made more sense for any child's comprehension as logical and non-world destructive?

Clinton's Failures - A decade of terrorism, a decade of denial

Check the events of attacks... remember USS Cole?

Clinton's Failures as a President


Why Did Bill Clinton Ignore Terrorism? Answer: To Receive the Noble Peace Prize.

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

To understand why clinton failed so utterly to protect America from bin Laden, we begin by examining what clinton, himself, has said on the matter:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Bill Clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002

Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

The clintons made their decision not to go after the terrorists for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that the inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger


ASIDE: There was an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the clintons' mass proliferation of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology.

For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.

William J. Broad
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes,
The New York Times, May 30, 1999

[RPR]

Jane said:

I don't care what Bill was doing with a cigar and Monica or any of the 4 other women. I cared that the president lied under oath and expects to be treated differently than you or me under the same circumstances.

In a perfect world that might be the case. Nixon got pardoned,Ollie took the rap for Reagan, and Bill lied under oath. The economy was booming so no one mind because after all,it should have never been investigated. It should have been a personal matter witht him and Hillary.

Why use Iraq as an example? He wasn't in Iraq nor was Bush after Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

We invaded Iraq to find WMD'S and because the BUsh administration led the American public to believe Al-Qaeda was in kahoots with Saddam.Meanwhile Iran and North Korea are advancing their nuclear capabilities.

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

Exactly!. If there is any blame to go around it should go to Conde and Bush. As early as 1/2001 they were informed that terrorists plan to attack by flying planes into buildings and no one batted an eye.