http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/24/cli...rism/index.html

People actually want this power-hungry cunt to be President? I'm just confused by it all.

I don't much see the point in bringing it up, and it was slightly crass I guess, but what's so bad about that?

You never know, quotes like that could end up bringing her down like Dean's "YEAAAARARRGH!" did a few years ago.

I think the worst part was her saying "I would be the best candidate to handle a situation like that if it did happen." She actually tried to capitalize on a tasteless remark like that.

A terrorist attack would definitely benefit Republicans. Support for the war in Iraq would skyrocket, and we'd welcome more legislature like the Patriot Act.

Hillary Clinton is a cunt, but it's hard to disagree with her on this particular thing. She's running against (or could be running against) a man who owes his entire fame and national image to a heinous terrorist attack.

That. It's terrible political strategy to actually SAY that, but you can't pretend it isn't true.

I think it's been posted here already, but take a look at this chart of Bush's approval ratings over time.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/%7Eruggles/Approval.htm

...Uh...Well the statement is true. If a terrorist attack did happen, Republicans would benefit the most since they are all running a security platform campaign (defiantly Giuliani). All Hillary is saying is that she and her party is better suited for the task, in managing the crisis and situation. Where is the outrage of a conservative columnist that says we need another 9/11 to wake people up. Where is the outrage from conservative columnists saying the Democrats represent the terrorists more than the American people. Where is the outrage of Giuliani's campaign saying terrorists would benefit if a democrat was elected. I mean I can go on for days. It was a statement, partly true, though said at the wrong time. It's not going to kill her campaign. It's not going to kill anyone. People take this PC shit to new levels nowadays.

...and about this, some people say power-hungry, others say ambition. I'm actually scared of Giuliani running this country. If you thought your civil liberties are infringed now by Bush, just wait until Giuliani gets into office. He is probably going to expand Homeland Security to new levels and wreak havoc on privacy laws. So would I vote for Hillary, yes. At the moment I'd vote for Hillary, Obama, McCain and maybe Thompson.

It's not that Hillary didn't make a point - she probably does have one. It was still a very cold and classless remark to make, though.

I don't really like any of the Presidential candidates though, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Our country could benefit from more blunt stating of feelings and less "oh you hurt my feelings" PC crap. Not that I like Hillary by any means, but shit like you posted just distracts from actual discourse.

EDIT: Shocka, do you have a version of that graph that does not cut it off at 25 and goes all the way to 0? The one there is pretty misleading.

Shit like this is what's ruining politics. Even though I don't like Hillary, this is one of the only times she stood up and told shit the way it is. And what happens? It's "cold". It's "classless". I'll take a candidate who doesn't sugar-coat shit over anyone who wants to call a waaaahmbulance whenever someone is blunt.

I'm all for it too, but you're missing the point and acting like a fuckface, as usual.

The last thing we need is another reference to a terrorist attack when it comes to the presidency. It's a slap in the face of the American people and quite a waaaaahmbulance remark on Hillary's part in itself.

WTF, that was The Clown, not me. Ask him, haha.

So what, the President should just never mention terrorist attacks again, because it would offend American's?

Quit twisting my words with sarcasm. You know perfectly well what I mean.

I think mentioning an act of mass murder in the context of benefiting an election like the Presidency, no matter if it's true or not, is completely without class or dignity, and there's a huge difference between that and being PC.

Honestly, I didn't know perfectly well what you meant, I didn't really know what you meant at all, hence the question of "you're saying __________?" your first post was a lot less clear than the second one.

Stop right there. The only thing Giulianni has going for him is that 9/11 sensationalism, and it's actually working to win over Americans. We need to have tons of references to terrorist attacks. Why? Because half of America is willing to give up their way of life to defend against it, while the other half has no fear, due to being lied to so many times about it.

What the American people need IS a slap in the face, you ignorant shitfuck. No wonder you don't like any candidates, none of them are as stupid as YOU.



And then people wonder why politicians lie so much.

I couldn't find it when I googled it, but I have seen a version of the graph that both goes all the way down to 0 and all the way up to 100, as well as continuing past 9/2004 as the cutoff date. The downward trend of the approval rating continues, as do the spikes in the approval rating when an orange alert is declared or a major event happens. The only difference in the graphs is that his approval rating is on average lower now than it was in 04.

Good, keep talking down to me and trash-talking. Maybe if you call me some more names, I might actually pay attention.

Get bent and get out.

"Terrorist attack would benefit Republicans"

Already has. Before 911 Bush was an idiot. Afterwards he is a hero on a crusade.

He's a bonehead in many oil company's pocket.

Yeah, like, totally man. Pass the blunt.

I'm pretty sure you were the one who started the namecalling. Sorry he tore your point apart. I'll take truth over decorum any day, just like he would.

I love that you follow me around.

This is every post you make to me. I'm going to leave it that way.

And by replying to his post, you knew beforehand you would throw fuel on the fire. If you have something intelligent to add, fine. If not, swallow your pride, and go back to the lounge.

And you just keep posting reply after reply to me.

It's my topic and I don't have any reason to go anywhere.

For someone who graduated with a degree in journalism, you have some pretty childish writing.


EDIT: Is that why you can't make it in your field?

Edit back: And I did make it, actually. A while ago. Once again, you dazzle me with how little you know about me.

Keep hating. I feed off of it.

No, you made it taking pictures of ugly chicks.

I'm not hating on you. We actually have a lot in common with our aspirations, but you're 4 years older than me, and 4 years further ahead.

Once again, shows how little you know about me. Photography's only one aspect of my life.

Keep hating. You might be getting somewhere with the petty insults on my career.

Hating on what? After graduating, you posted about having to take a shit job for a few months.

I, sir, am just a college sophomore, and I'm content with where I am now.

I really don't care who or what you are, and that's where the difference between you and I lies.

I quit that shit job a while back and graduated well over a year ago because I've done better since. You're way behind and levying personal insults towards my career because you can't think of anything else to say. I shouldn't even have to explain myself to you; I do because it just makes people like you and Luna looks like tools and I get a kick out of how much you two like to follow me around.

If you don't like me, piss off and stay out of my topics. I'll do the same. And that's all I've gotta say.