you obviosly know nothing. the new white signs were because OBAMA demanded they be new signs, because he didn't want her CAMPAIGN logo signs.
also, the tall blue signs did not ONLY say unity. there were 3 types of the tall signs yur referring to, and they said "obama", "hillary", and "unity" and they were equally distributed. all clearly visible in the tapes of her speech.
i cant focus on anything you're saying in your videos because your big paedophile face takes up the whole screen and keeps me from concentrating on what you're saying. zoom the fuck out a little bit, stop smiling like a smug asshole and maybe then it'll be more about the message than about the attitude.
Nominay you never need to apologize for commenting on my vids, your input is always welcome. Look for Hillary to come thru in mid Octovber after the debates, in a state it appears Obama will win without her, like Penn, CRK
wow....your an idiot.......please i beg you to post another video the day after president obama is elected....i want to see what stupidity come out of your cracker mouth.
I watched it on CSPAN! I dont rely on major networks to filter my news! And the biggest bonus is that you dont have a huge banner at the bottom of the screen covering up the current speakers name! McCain/Palin 2008! LOL BTW, who is Palin?
No you idiot, this triviality means shit, Obama will win, period. It makes too much sense for Obama to win, it simply sets the Rothschildren up too well. McCain won't put the radicals to sleep, Obama will.
listen man u sound like your a little mad about hillary not wining...its ok she no's her place and you should to..OBAMA will be the next president so just deal with it..just go 4 him because n 4 years u will be glad u did!!OABAMA 08 VOTE OR DIE!!I THINK YOUR REALLY MAD CUZES HE BLACK MAN LOL AND THAT WILL BE "HNIC"NOV/2008 MAN THATS SOUNDS GOOD THE "HNIC"WOW I LOVE IT!!!!
So we learn this lesson better by disecting this video. And its so obvious you have a not so hidden agenda. No one should waste their time looking at this.
Why dont you dissect Bill clintons speech? Hillary is not that great of a speaker! Bill clinton mopped the floor with the right wing track record! You would have to be on crack to disagree! I have never been called to participate in a poll! Who are these people who do? The only poll that really matters is in nine weeks! One thing is for sure, Floridians will struggle to live up to their constitutional duty, but i really dont think it will matter this time!
Did anyone get to see that speech? Strange that none of the major networks ran it... I wonder why? And I wonder why he won't be attending tonight? Hmm,CRK
The polls are a B.S. smokescreen by the corporate-owned media meant to make it look legit when they attempt to steal our election using the rethuglican-owned paperless electronic voting machines which are unauditable. Rethuglican voter registration was up by only 20% in the primaries - Democratic registration? 300%!! You do the math. The polls are owned by corporations who'll get a big tax break under McCain and take a tax hit under Obama. It's in their interest to help McCain win by fraud.
WHat hasn't been explained is the electoral college. Sure, Obama is likeley to win Califoirnia and the Northeast by huge numbers, but that will only bring him the electoral votes of those states. The rerst of the country will remain red, CRK
Leave this moronic video up in november...so i can laugh at you. The Dems could send Mickey Mouse to run For Prez..and it wont matter one single bit...There is no way this country elects a republican again any time soon..after the eight years of dumb and dumber
She gave props for unity. Not one comment complimenting Obama, only mentioning that Obama supports many of the same issues and that her people should vote for him because of that.
Notice how Clinton avoided specifics in her speech about Obama... she said they need to put a democrat in the White House. Not once did she say he was ready to be president.
LOL I think the Hillary signs were white for "surrender."
dude you awaka for 8 years, repubs made companies filthy rich and u still gonna blaim democrats for wasting money? Repubs been wasting money, after 8 years clinton there was loads of surplus left? So kinda stupid to hear about the left wasting lol Wallstreet is rich, mainstreet gets porer, well at least no tax increases , only a worthless dollar, which cost u more then a tax increase, its basicly the same. U pay more for the same stuff thus u waste more money then any tax cut will give u
I watch my videos all day:) Seriously, this video is about Hillary's speech, not McCain or Obama, you're talking out of your ass, watch the video and make an inteligent comment on it, and I'll reply in kind, CRK
"Porer"? Well, clearly some are less literate than others.
Look, government did not make companies richer, nor anyone else poorer. They do that to themselves. The only thing government can do it interfere with commerce. And it does.
euh why do companies who make millions profit get taxcuts? Give taxcut to companies who need it at least. If your company is doing good, u shouldnt get extra taxcuts and bail outs.. Look at recent bailout of bigbank. Do u get a bailout if u can't pay your bills? Government makes companies richer by creating regulations that safes them money
Why should an unprofitable company get a break anyway? Seems to me, you just reward failure.
Congress creates tax policy party to control behaviour. If you qualify for a tax break, it is because you are doing what Congress wants. Invest in a particular technology, create new jobs, whatever.
Bear in mind, even huge companies that get big tax breaks-- eg Exxon Mobil-- still pay huge taxes.
Personally, I think corporate taxation should be eliminated altogether.
So u think companies who ship jobs to china should get taxcuts. Basicly u reward large companies for making huge profits on people who make it for very low incomes. Im talking about corruption with companies in bed with goverment. Sure many companies deserve breaks. But many don't.
I think warren buffet says he pays less taxes percentage wise then his secretary. So u support rich people paying less taxes then middle class when it wouldnt hurt them as much to pay equal or more?
What u think about haliburton or other co. Basicly the provided electrical routing thats been wired so badly and cheap! More profits.. That your own soldiers are getting electricuted to death taking a shower!! Im our country someone would get fired, or another company would be used. But i guess thats ok. Charging the gov for coca cola for the troops instead buying the local coca-cola arabic and charging for the real one which cost more. Incompetence and greed and u dont care.
Well my main point would be why do republicans vote people in power who support the 5% rich people(companies)and ignore their fraud,corruption and greed while not reaping the benefits themselves for voting like that and basicly vote that way out of fear, gay rights, abortion while they should realize that it hurts them. U have a repub family who hardly can pay their bills, still they vote for regulations that hurt them.
Apparently you don't live in the United States. Virtually all Republicans support equal rights for all, just not special rights for a few, such as gays.
Look at the history of socialism-- which is what the Democrats support. Wherever you see socialism, you seen increased suffering and poverty.
The Democrats decry our unemployment rate of 5.7%. At the same time, they want us to be just like France.
Yet, the French would love to have an unemployment rate as low as 5.7%
Marriage is not a right at all. That is the point. It is a traditional recognition by the state, harking back to the beginning of civilization. It recognizes the family unit and the union of two people.
The notion of gay marriage is simply a redefinition that destroys that essential tradition.
That said, gays can still live together, plan their lives together, without restriction.
But it is simply not "marriage", any more than blue is red.
appearantly you don't know how to use a dictionary.. a right is a claim or privilege one has.
So, gay couples don't have the 'right' to break tradition or be recongized by the state -- because that 'right' to claim marriage are for those that follow tradition and are straight.
Sorry, changing the words around doesn't affect it's prime meaning. A union is a union, it shouldn't be discriminated against because it doesn't follow a particular rule such as 'gender'
Strictly speaking, marriage is a contract. It is recognized as such by the state. It is a tradition, because as an institution it precedes all existing governments. Yet, governments recognize it because it logically and obviously benefits society.
Homosexuality simply lacks that benefit, and is not within the tradition.
Now, none of that denies civil rights to gays, does it? It simply denies them the ability to claim to be what they are not-- non-deviant.
I'll just cut to the chase, it's not the government's job to force people to follow tradition. All citizens should have equal rights under the government, regardless of gender.
Your bullshit explanation doesn't justify ignoring gay marriage. You try to give a reason, but technically you don't need a reason for two people to be married.
Precisely. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... nor prohibiting the free expression thereof.
Did I get that right? Close, I'm sure.
Destroying a tradition is equally forcing "new" tradition down our throats. Government has no right to do this, according to the Constitution... and you.
a dog isn't a citizen. If you want to marry your dog, go at it, but the state isn't obligated to recognize that marriage because our state doesn't guarantee equal rights of dogs..
redpanda: I think you're missing my point. A democratic society can create whatever laws they want to create; if we wanted, we could grant citizenship (or perhaps just marriage rights) to a dog. We haven't done this...but we could. And trust me. In this country, there are people that will try anything.
I support gay marriage, but only as a civil matter (govt recognition of benefits, etc.). As a religious matter, it's up to each church to decide.
JohnR22926: Well my comment was towards RogerOnTheRight. He said he's against special privileges for gays, which is backwards on the issue of gay rights.
That's the premise of my comments. If you're against gay rights, fine. But there's no legal justification for it. You're not against gay rights.. but that's where I was coming from.
Once again, I am not against rights for anyone. Gays have the same rights as anyone else.
And, gays can marry. They do all the time. Often, as with the case of New Jersey Governor McGreevey, it ends tragically. His wife simply did not appreciate her husband's homosexual behaviour, which was outside that marriage.
The tradition of marriage preexists all existing government by thousands of years.
technically, yes. Polygamy is okay. It's a tradition that exceed any form of government and follow along with marriage. Any argument you use to defend your position for tradition.. goes with Polygamy.
But I never 'made' that argument, you did. I'm just saying a person should be able to marry any legal person of age that's not in their direct family, regardless of gender.
once again "I never 'made' that argument" you did. If you want to follow tradition.. having more than one wife is apart of it. According to your logic on tradition, polygamy is okay.
But my stance is still clear, gender should not be a limit for marriage
No more than a man might engage in his heterosexuality with his 16 year old daughter. if the local age of consent permits
You're trying to muddle the argument in showing there should be limits. however.. there are ALREADY limits. But gender in itself should not be a limit.
technically, polygamy isn't illegal, it's just not recognize by the state.
Anyway, you asked me me if these 'other' groups should or have the rights to do what they want. It has nothing to do with why gender should be a limit, i answered your question.
Gender should not be a limit for marriage. Unlike the 'other' issue, gender in itself is irrelevant.
Actually, polygamy is quite illegal, in all 50 states. Punishable and all that.
No point discussing the gender matter further. You seem to think marriage is some sort of "right", and thus should be redefined from its millenia old structure and function to satisfy some political agenda for a special few.
You are apparently impervious to logic, and offer none of your own.
I was wrong about the polygamy.. Yeah, it's illegal in 50 states.. But unlike what you describe, I only been saying "Gender should not be a limit for marriage" You didn't really talk about the gender issue.
There's nothing 'special' about it, or any 'redefinition' -- well except people now don't offer Dowries -- but tradition changed over the past few centuries. The only special 'law' is trying to deny it.
eh.. our government has a history of changing it's laws.. normally for the 'better'. Keeping tradition when it discriminate isn't a good reason.. Or do you still acknowledge that it's a form of discrimination.
Anyway, that's what the adjustive is for. It's not just a marriage, it's a 'gay' marriage. You're already using the definition you're opposing. But you don't have to accept it - government shouldn't force or deny tradition. It's not government place to say there's no gay marriage.
i already said it "government should not force or deny tradition. It's not government place to say there's no gay marriage" If a state have a law recongizing a union as two people regardless of gender like California, then the state has to recongize it.
Well, you inadvertently made my point for me, at least twice now. Unfortunately, you do not see it.
Since there is no tradition of gay marriage, any law providing for it is an imposition of tradition by government.
That California makes such a law, and indirectly imposes it on other states who do not want to allow gay marriage, gives rise to the call for a Constitutional amendment to protect the existing traditional definition of marriage.
You fail to understand my phrase and decided it goes along your logic. "Government can not force or deny tradition" Traditional is moot because it's not government's job to recongize it as tradition - that's for individuals (which is why you're allow to go to a judge to get marry without the traditional wedding). We don't have laws based on tradition.. we have laws based on people.
And that is where you are simply wrong. Our entire legal system is based on tradition, going back to the Ten Commandments and including the Magna Carta. It is directly taken from English Common Law, which is not even written down-- entirely based on tradition.
But our legal system is also subject to 'change' which can happen if the people determine it over all. That's why tradition is moot for this argument. The premise of Civil Rights went against tradition.
Before the laws did use tradition.. but that's because the 'people' thought it was the best way to go.
actually your historic context is a bit flawed.. Lincoln would have allowed the south to keep their slave if they stop the civil war. If they refused the offer, the U.S. would be against slavery, which prevented foreign countries to help the confederate -- because the other countries did not support slavery. Even after that, blacks were a second class citizen until half a century ago.
But to overturn slavery adds to my point, breaking 'tradition' for fairness.
Lincoln in fact did allow slavery in those slave states that did not rebel. But at that time, most of the world still practiced slavery, so I don't quite see your point there.
Still, while the "tradition" of slavery was changed, it took overwhelming force to do so. It was not just the whim of some sitting judge.
"Republican Party was founded specifically to overturn slavery. And it took a war to accomplish that." My point was.. the civil war wasn't specifically about slavery. It was simply a part of it.
also, apparantly you don't understand the California Supreme Justice decision to allow gay marriage. They didn't 'create' a law. It was based on the language of California's constitution, which was the key factor on the Justice's past decision to allow mix race marriages. Their state did not recongize gender in marriage.
Now making a constitutional amendment to protect marriage... would be creating special privelege for people... Can you say contradiction?
When judges "interpret" law to mean something it has never meant before, and something entirely not approved by some political process such as a Legislative or direct vote, then those judges are indeed making new law.
It may satisfy you, or someone else as to its immediate outcome, but it is bad law nonetheless.
Making an amendment to protect marriage is a political process. Difficult to do, but certainly democratic in nature.
It's not a 'bad' law.. you just think of it as that. But it's not making a law.. it's only interpreting the current one. If the law does not restrict gender, then a judge would only be his duty.
But since we're on 'tradition', the real question would be, should our law follow this tradition. You already admitted it's discrimination.. so should we have laws that are unfair to individuals.
You still didn't answer my question "should we have _LAWS_ that are unfair to individuals." It's about the law, not your individual choice
Our society isn't in agreement on gay marriage -- but apparently when principle fails you, you want to create a special law even though such to the opposite is 'bad'. So what if there's there is an admendment to 'allow' gay marriage.
Don't forget.. this all started with "special rights for a few, such as gays"
I suppose that is an answer.. "equal protection is itself apart of the constitution"
So.. what makes gay marriage 'special'.. to be special would mean it differ from others. So if a man and a woman can form a union and call it marriage.. what make a gay couple getting married any 'different'.
Or does tradition make marriage special that it exclude gay couples.
When marriage came about, many thousands of years ago, homosexuality was not even considered.
What is different is that the taboo over homosexuality is gradually being lifted. Nevertheless, it was never considered possible for gays to be married.
Now, the gay political movement wants to redefine marriage to suit their political agenda, which is to "normalize" homosexuality.
actually different cultures had marriages, some culture allowed it, such as the idians in Austrialia.. There's not 'one' history.
The reason why gays were never considered to marry was because gays were never considered to exist. Remember the stoning to death part. To publically announce yourself as gay was a suicide wish.
But this enter something with you. So you believe gays have equal protection under the law?
Yes.. ignore the other part about the suicide wish and the explaination why a person who may be stone to death would never ask to marry someone. And unless the dictionary definition of equality and sameness are wrong... those to words are interchangeable.
Anyway, gender exist, but it shouldn't be a principle to making laws. Discrimination is against this country's principle of law. Two people of opposit sex should have no 'different' right or recongision than two of the same.
my premise.. women have the exact same rights as men -- well they should.. though there's a pay difference between them.
Now for your example it depends on which law is being broken. I'm not a lawyer, but would it be a crime in itself, or crime in regard the owner of the restroom does not premit, there are unisex Restrooms for both men and women. It seems too technical to generalized. We accept men shouldn't go into the women's restroom, but that doesn't prevent both sex from cleaning them.
it would be discrimination if there wasn't a men's restroom. But there are restrooms for men and women. Now why they are different restrooms, that's another issue..
They both have a restroom.. if you want to put this in context.. instead of having a marriage.. they would have a 'gay' marriage. The magic of adjectives..
And so we come full circle. Gays have the ability to construct contractual relationship resembling marriage, including property inheritance, power of attorney, joint ownership, etc.
But, it is not marriage, any more than the men's room is the women's room.
They have teh ability.. it's just not recongized by the government - which is the problem, or as convenient as a license issued by the state.
But the name of it is honestly subjective, it's the governmental license that's the real issue. Should the government should recongize all of that regardless of the name?
If the accommodation was equal in ever espect legaly, then that would be good enough. People who want to call it marriage will, and the people who want to call it something else will.
Marriage, like any word in our language, is subjective to interpretation. You may never consider it marriage, and that's okay for you. But in the eye of the law, equal protection is what matters.
"It's not the government's place to cram it down our throats" And i think that's where your real logic lies... And where i disagree. It's not about your throat, no more than someone's traditional marriage. It's not about you. It's about the people who want to make a contract recongized by the government that they are together, own the same property, and have rights.
You're thinking about the social espect of it... and the government has no place in leaning 'that' way.
roger: My "dog" example was obviously ott but my point was that you have to draw the line somewhere. Your examples of polygamy and Nambla are much better.
However, I tentatively support gay marriage because I can't deny it from a moral perspective. But, I only support the civil aspect of it (govt recognition of inheritence rights, etc.). The religious aspect is entirely private and must be left up to each church to decide.
I say you don't live here, because you clearly don't understand how Americans think.
We don't have a class-based society. We have phenomenal economic mobility.
Thus, Americans tend not to resent the wealthy. Rather, they know they or their children can become wealthy themselves.
Where else do you have blue collar workers who own vacation homes and investment portfolios? And whose children get university degrees and become doctors, engineers or whatever they like?
If you actually read what I wrote, you would see I don't think corporations should be taxed at all. Logically then, nobody would be getting a particular tax break.
You decry connections between government and corporations. Why not disconnect the two altogether?
Consumers reward or punish companies who are efficient or not. Keep government out of the marketplace and you reduce most corruption right there.
Have you never noticed, most corruption comes from government, not the private sector?
Yeah she is only being nice and supporting Obama now because She needs him to pay her huge campaign debts. And shes thinking of 2012 she wants him to lose but she can't admit to it.
umm clearly hillary is going to run for president. or i hope she does. she wants him to win so she doesnt get the blam and then she can run. and save the country from the mess i'm sure obama will leave
LOL, The point is, and the fact remains that Obama will lose. If he wins then Hillary will never be President. If OIwins, she can't run for 8 years, and by that time she'll have to run against Obama's VP or an incumbant Repub.
No, the only change Hillary has is Obama losing.
If she thought that Obama was going to win, she would've forced her way on to the ticket, CRK
Thanks again CRK! You couldn't be more right. She wants McCain to win because I think she believes she can beat him in 2012. Also, I think Biden will certainly not help his chances. He doesn't have the name recognition plus the fact, he along with Pelosi have been completely racked by the Catholic church for their views on abortion. Ship going down anyone?
Great video. I must admit that she's had me fooled, but I know that she has to want Obama to loose in order to giver herself a shot in 4-years, so I couldn't rectify all that Obama cheering from Hillary in my mind. Your video makes a lot of sense.
unity is so overrated. Everyone says Obama 'brings people together'.. Obama united the same socialists, anti Americans, and other unsavory non producers that every other far left nut job 'unites'.
Good point on her still being able to keep controlling the theme, even in the midst of a faint-hearted concession to the Soros owned Dem council of fools.
They're starting to realize that this election is a bust. You saw Michelle Obama, she didn't look like a woman en route to the WHite House.
And look at the media, MSNBC is canibalizing itself, reporters were so sure they were a part of history, and now, like a hangover, they're sobering up to the hard truth... the Left gave it all away... just like they'd do if they ran the USA. CRK
HILLARY 2012!
roydk06 2 years ago
on a side note, what would be wrong with hillary getting ready for another run in 2012???
she is just as qualified, and twice as smart as obama. so why shouldn't she run??
have you made video's also condemning Ted Kennedy for running against incumbent JImmy Cartner in 1980????? Hillary 2016!
lostalex77 3 years ago
you obviosly know nothing. the new white signs were because OBAMA demanded they be new signs, because he didn't want her CAMPAIGN logo signs.
also, the tall blue signs did not ONLY say unity. there were 3 types of the tall signs yur referring to, and they said "obama", "hillary", and "unity" and they were equally distributed. all clearly visible in the tapes of her speech.
watch the c-span youtube video of her speech.
you are an idiot.
lostalex77 3 years ago
i cant focus on anything you're saying in your videos because your big paedophile face takes up the whole screen and keeps me from concentrating on what you're saying. zoom the fuck out a little bit, stop smiling like a smug asshole and maybe then it'll be more about the message than about the attitude.
jonvoid 3 years ago
You're ridiculous. This video is wrong. And it will be proven wrong.
len0726 3 years ago
I'm sorry I never commented on this video before. It's more relevant now than when you posted it.
Nominay 3 years ago
Nominay you never need to apologize for commenting on my vids, your input is always welcome. Look for Hillary to come thru in mid Octovber after the debates, in a state it appears Obama will win without her, like Penn, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
short: i love Hillary she is brilliant
drainyou2008 3 years ago
wow....your an idiot.......please i beg you to post another video the day after president obama is elected....i want to see what stupidity come out of your cracker mouth.
nab276 3 years ago
johnr, Yes, who am i to judge you? you will get no tax breaks, but if you want to marry your dog, so be it! You are a sick fuck btw!
holyhorror 3 years ago
I watched it on CSPAN! I dont rely on major networks to filter my news! And the biggest bonus is that you dont have a huge banner at the bottom of the screen covering up the current speakers name! McCain/Palin 2008! LOL BTW, who is Palin?
holyhorror 3 years ago
...Wait did you just say... this man losing?
No you idiot, this triviality means shit, Obama will win, period. It makes too much sense for Obama to win, it simply sets the Rothschildren up too well. McCain won't put the radicals to sleep, Obama will.
cosmicjaira 3 years ago
listen man u sound like your a little mad about hillary not wining...its ok she no's her place and you should to..OBAMA will be the next president so just deal with it..just go 4 him because n 4 years u will be glad u did!!OABAMA 08 VOTE OR DIE!!I THINK YOUR REALLY MAD CUZES HE BLACK MAN LOL AND THAT WILL BE "HNIC"NOV/2008 MAN THATS SOUNDS GOOD THE "HNIC"WOW I LOVE IT!!!!
hbx11 3 years ago
So we learn this lesson better by disecting this video. And its so obvious you have a not so hidden agenda. No one should waste their time looking at this.
bittergreen1 3 years ago
Obviously the video scared you... hmmm, that's all the endorcement I need:)CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
You're scaring me with this talking to yourself.
6flaga 3 years ago
He is talking to me and many others who know that Barack Obama is a piece of shit.
eschuela 3 years ago
you're a piece of sh*t
6flaga 3 years ago
Also, you are obviously on something. I am sure your relatives are proud.
JasonDGlover 3 years ago
Obama is up by 6 points today. Just so you know.
JasonDGlover 3 years ago
Sure is... That's quite a bounce;)CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
you look like bart from how high, noob
pajothedragon 3 years ago
faggot noob cracker eat a dick
pajothedragon 3 years ago
are you auditioning for a fox job?
bayridaz 3 years ago
If they're hiring I'd take the job! But MSNBC looks like they're in more dire need of a voice of reason:)CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Why dont you dissect Bill clintons speech? Hillary is not that great of a speaker! Bill clinton mopped the floor with the right wing track record! You would have to be on crack to disagree! I have never been called to participate in a poll! Who are these people who do? The only poll that really matters is in nine weeks! One thing is for sure, Floridians will struggle to live up to their constitutional duty, but i really dont think it will matter this time!
holyhorror 3 years ago
Did anyone get to see that speech? Strange that none of the major networks ran it... I wonder why? And I wonder why he won't be attending tonight? Hmm,CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
The polls are a B.S. smokescreen by the corporate-owned media meant to make it look legit when they attempt to steal our election using the rethuglican-owned paperless electronic voting machines which are unauditable. Rethuglican voter registration was up by only 20% in the primaries - Democratic registration? 300%!! You do the math. The polls are owned by corporations who'll get a big tax break under McCain and take a tax hit under Obama. It's in their interest to help McCain win by fraud.
craigjones21 3 years ago
WHat hasn't been explained is the electoral college. Sure, Obama is likeley to win Califoirnia and the Northeast by huge numbers, but that will only bring him the electoral votes of those states. The rerst of the country will remain red, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
spell check your description, CrackrocKid.
and PS - all politians lie. LMFAO
MorbidKittyProd 3 years ago
No, really? CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
what are you on?
googlishious 3 years ago
YouTube, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Barack paid for the signs.
Humbleone123 3 years ago
No doubt, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Pro tip: dont take political advice from some one named Crack rock kid.
realbells 3 years ago
Is that, the only thing you found wrong with my analysis?
Pro-tip, don't vote for someone named Barack Hussien Obama:) CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
"barack hussien obama"
All you have proved is who still supports the GOP, people like you, white, biggoted morons spewing garbage out of there ass.
You have no experience in politics, you are not an analyst, you are not a professional, you are a SELF ADMITTED crack head on youtube.
realbells 3 years ago
"white" is this that piece of shit racist Obama?
eschuela 3 years ago
Leave this moronic video up in november...so i can laugh at you. The Dems could send Mickey Mouse to run For Prez..and it wont matter one single bit...There is no way this country elects a republican again any time soon..after the eight years of dumb and dumber
badumpy 3 years ago
I leave all videos and comments up, I don't remove either, ever. I look forward to hearing from you on 11/06, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
like i have told many people...for years..POLL NUMBERS DONT MEAN JACK
badumpy 3 years ago
rue, but if they were going the other way, we'd be hearing about it all day, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
There is no party unity PUMA is still in full attack mode. KEEP IT UP!
bittergunowner12 3 years ago
Will do, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
She gave props for unity. Not one comment complimenting Obama, only mentioning that Obama supports many of the same issues and that her people should vote for him because of that.
RevolutionOfCG 3 years ago
True, but the signs sent the real message, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
The new N word is Nobama Noway!
bittergunowner12 3 years ago
Gallop Tracking has McCain up 45-44, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Notice how Clinton avoided specifics in her speech about Obama... she said they need to put a democrat in the White House. Not once did she say he was ready to be president.
LOL I think the Hillary signs were white for "surrender."
againsttheherd 3 years ago
Well we'll be seeing them in 2012, that's the point, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
dude you awaka for 8 years, repubs made companies filthy rich and u still gonna blaim democrats for wasting money? Repubs been wasting money, after 8 years clinton there was loads of surplus left? So kinda stupid to hear about the left wasting lol Wallstreet is rich, mainstreet gets porer, well at least no tax increases , only a worthless dollar, which cost u more then a tax increase, its basicly the same. U pay more for the same stuff thus u waste more money then any tax cut will give u
OnlineAlien 3 years ago
Well, the only thing that is for sure about what you just said is, I sure hope you can talk better than you spell, Holy Crap Man!
Way to go government run schools!
cbmbdb 3 years ago
im european stupid, youtube is international lol, close minded hick
OnlineAlien 3 years ago
None of what you wrote about in this comment has anythign to do with my video, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
yes, maybe u should watch your own video..
OnlineAlien 3 years ago
I watch my videos all day:) Seriously, this video is about Hillary's speech, not McCain or Obama, you're talking out of your ass, watch the video and make an inteligent comment on it, and I'll reply in kind, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
"Porer"? Well, clearly some are less literate than others.
Look, government did not make companies richer, nor anyone else poorer. They do that to themselves. The only thing government can do it interfere with commerce. And it does.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
im sorry is this a spoof?????
badumpy 3 years ago
euh why do companies who make millions profit get taxcuts? Give taxcut to companies who need it at least. If your company is doing good, u shouldnt get extra taxcuts and bail outs.. Look at recent bailout of bigbank. Do u get a bailout if u can't pay your bills? Government makes companies richer by creating regulations that safes them money
OnlineAlien 3 years ago
Why should an unprofitable company get a break anyway? Seems to me, you just reward failure.
Congress creates tax policy party to control behaviour. If you qualify for a tax break, it is because you are doing what Congress wants. Invest in a particular technology, create new jobs, whatever.
Bear in mind, even huge companies that get big tax breaks-- eg Exxon Mobil-- still pay huge taxes.
Personally, I think corporate taxation should be eliminated altogether.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
So u think companies who ship jobs to china should get taxcuts. Basicly u reward large companies for making huge profits on people who make it for very low incomes. Im talking about corruption with companies in bed with goverment. Sure many companies deserve breaks. But many don't.
I think warren buffet says he pays less taxes percentage wise then his secretary. So u support rich people paying less taxes then middle class when it wouldnt hurt them as much to pay equal or more?
OnlineAlien 3 years ago
What u think about haliburton or other co. Basicly the provided electrical routing thats been wired so badly and cheap! More profits.. That your own soldiers are getting electricuted to death taking a shower!! Im our country someone would get fired, or another company would be used. But i guess thats ok. Charging the gov for coca cola for the troops instead buying the local coca-cola arabic and charging for the real one which cost more. Incompetence and greed and u dont care.
OnlineAlien 3 years ago
Your writing is basically a semi-literate stream of disconnected thoughts.
Is there a point, or a single thesis you want to put forth?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Well my main point would be why do republicans vote people in power who support the 5% rich people(companies)and ignore their fraud,corruption and greed while not reaping the benefits themselves for voting like that and basicly vote that way out of fear, gay rights, abortion while they should realize that it hurts them. U have a repub family who hardly can pay their bills, still they vote for regulations that hurt them.
OnlineAlien 3 years ago
Apparently you don't live in the United States. Virtually all Republicans support equal rights for all, just not special rights for a few, such as gays.
Look at the history of socialism-- which is what the Democrats support. Wherever you see socialism, you seen increased suffering and poverty.
The Democrats decry our unemployment rate of 5.7%. At the same time, they want us to be just like France.
Yet, the French would love to have an unemployment rate as low as 5.7%
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
"special rights for a few, such as gays... "
because marriage is a special right for straight couples... and people can be fire for being straight?
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Marriage is not a right at all. That is the point. It is a traditional recognition by the state, harking back to the beginning of civilization. It recognizes the family unit and the union of two people.
The notion of gay marriage is simply a redefinition that destroys that essential tradition.
That said, gays can still live together, plan their lives together, without restriction.
But it is simply not "marriage", any more than blue is red.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
appearantly you don't know how to use a dictionary.. a right is a claim or privilege one has.
So, gay couples don't have the 'right' to break tradition or be recongized by the state -- because that 'right' to claim marriage are for those that follow tradition and are straight.
Sorry, changing the words around doesn't affect it's prime meaning. A union is a union, it shouldn't be discriminated against because it doesn't follow a particular rule such as 'gender'
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Strictly speaking, marriage is a contract. It is recognized as such by the state. It is a tradition, because as an institution it precedes all existing governments. Yet, governments recognize it because it logically and obviously benefits society.
Homosexuality simply lacks that benefit, and is not within the tradition.
Now, none of that denies civil rights to gays, does it? It simply denies them the ability to claim to be what they are not-- non-deviant.
But gays still have civil rights.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
"Homosexuality simply lack that benefit" And you call fighting for equality "fighting for special rights".
Though homosexual can form a union and also form a contract. Honestly, there's no 'logical' reason to make a difference based on gender.
Can you say discrimination, I know i can.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Sure, it has to do with reproduction and families. Check it out. Ever notice? Gays don't breed.
Of course gays can form contracts. Share property, inherit, assign powers of attorney, all that.
Still is not marriage.
And yes, it is discrimination. Of course it is. But it certainly is not immoral, nor illegal discrimination.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
yes.. let's ignore the fact that one doesn't need to be married to have children.. and a married couple don't need to produce children.
But.. Roger, being someone who believe we don't have a class base society.. appearantly gay people don't have equal rights as straight.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
I'll just cut to the chase, it's not the government's job to force people to follow tradition. All citizens should have equal rights under the government, regardless of gender.
Your bullshit explanation doesn't justify ignoring gay marriage. You try to give a reason, but technically you don't need a reason for two people to be married.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Precisely. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... nor prohibiting the free expression thereof.
Did I get that right? Close, I'm sure.
Destroying a tradition is equally forcing "new" tradition down our throats. Government has no right to do this, according to the Constitution... and you.
Thanks for the affirmation.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
redpanda: So if I want to marry my dog (to gain tax breaks afforded married couples, etc.) I should have a "right" to do this?
JohnR22926 3 years ago
a dog isn't a citizen. If you want to marry your dog, go at it, but the state isn't obligated to recognize that marriage because our state doesn't guarantee equal rights of dogs..
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
redpanda: I think you're missing my point. A democratic society can create whatever laws they want to create; if we wanted, we could grant citizenship (or perhaps just marriage rights) to a dog. We haven't done this...but we could. And trust me. In this country, there are people that will try anything.
I support gay marriage, but only as a civil matter (govt recognition of benefits, etc.). As a religious matter, it's up to each church to decide.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
JohnR22926: Well my comment was towards RogerOnTheRight. He said he's against special privileges for gays, which is backwards on the issue of gay rights.
That's the premise of my comments. If you're against gay rights, fine. But there's no legal justification for it. You're not against gay rights.. but that's where I was coming from.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Once again, I am not against rights for anyone. Gays have the same rights as anyone else.
And, gays can marry. They do all the time. Often, as with the case of New Jersey Governor McGreevey, it ends tragically. His wife simply did not appreciate her husband's homosexual behaviour, which was outside that marriage.
The tradition of marriage preexists all existing government by thousands of years.
There simply is no tradition of gay "marriage".
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
A more pertinent example-- polygamy. All citizens, to be sure. Or at least residents. In any case, constitutionally protected humans.
So, polygamy is okay?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
technically, yes. Polygamy is okay. It's a tradition that exceed any form of government and follow along with marriage. Any argument you use to defend your position for tradition.. goes with Polygamy.
But I never 'made' that argument, you did. I'm just saying a person should be able to marry any legal person of age that's not in their direct family, regardless of gender.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
"direct family"?? When did that restriction get introduced?
I thought we all enjoyed the same rights. No? Suddenly there are restrictions on otherwise free humans?
But, that you defend polygamy certainly reveals your thinking. I appreciate your frankness, however misguided your logic.
Why is polygamy okay, but not marriage between direct family members?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
once again "I never 'made' that argument" you did. If you want to follow tradition.. having more than one wife is apart of it. According to your logic on tradition, polygamy is okay.
But my stance is still clear, gender should not be a limit for marriage
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
How about NAMBLA? Do they have the same rights as others? To marry children?
Recently, near my home, a Muslim forced his daughter to marry a man while she was only 13. It was their religious right, n'est-ce pas?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
we already have age of consent laws.. that's not the issue.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
And thus a man might engage in homosexuality with his 16 year old son, if the local age of consent permits?
So, might that man marry his son at some point?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
No more than a man might engage in his heterosexuality with his 16 year old daughter. if the local age of consent permits
You're trying to muddle the argument in showing there should be limits. however.. there are ALREADY limits. But gender in itself should not be a limit.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
But you are trying to muddle the point by introducing arbitrary limits, and equally arbitrarily eliminating other, existing limits.
You acknowledge there are existing limits, as though those limits should stand because of their pre-existence.
But then you say polygamy is okay, despite it long-existing illegality.
So, pre-existence of a restriction is a factor, or not? Which is it?
Why the arbitrary rejection of the gender limit, but not of polygamy? Or a man marrying his own daughter?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
technically, polygamy isn't illegal, it's just not recognize by the state.
Anyway, you asked me me if these 'other' groups should or have the rights to do what they want. It has nothing to do with why gender should be a limit, i answered your question.
Gender should not be a limit for marriage. Unlike the 'other' issue, gender in itself is irrelevant.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Actually, polygamy is quite illegal, in all 50 states. Punishable and all that.
No point discussing the gender matter further. You seem to think marriage is some sort of "right", and thus should be redefined from its millenia old structure and function to satisfy some political agenda for a special few.
You are apparently impervious to logic, and offer none of your own.
Nice chatting.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
I was wrong about the polygamy.. Yeah, it's illegal in 50 states.. But unlike what you describe, I only been saying "Gender should not be a limit for marriage" You didn't really talk about the gender issue.
There's nothing 'special' about it, or any 'redefinition' -- well except people now don't offer Dowries -- but tradition changed over the past few centuries. The only special 'law' is trying to deny it.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Well, my point is that marriage is a tradition predating existing governments, and is defined as between a man and a woman.
There is no tradition of gay marriage at all.
To accommodate this minority requires a change in that definition and thus a destruction of the existing institution.
And though traditions change, as you yourself pointed out, it is not government's place to cram it down our throats.
Thus, government ought not redefine marriage.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
eh.. our government has a history of changing it's laws.. normally for the 'better'. Keeping tradition when it discriminate isn't a good reason.. Or do you still acknowledge that it's a form of discrimination.
Anyway, that's what the adjustive is for. It's not just a marriage, it's a 'gay' marriage. You're already using the definition you're opposing. But you don't have to accept it - government shouldn't force or deny tradition. It's not government place to say there's no gay marriage.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
So, simply legislate it into social acceptance? Because it is a law, it must therefore be right?
By the way, what is an "adjustive"? new word to me.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
i already said it "government should not force or deny tradition. It's not government place to say there's no gay marriage" If a state have a law recongizing a union as two people regardless of gender like California, then the state has to recongize it.
And it was a typo... the word is -adjective-
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Well, you inadvertently made my point for me, at least twice now. Unfortunately, you do not see it.
Since there is no tradition of gay marriage, any law providing for it is an imposition of tradition by government.
That California makes such a law, and indirectly imposes it on other states who do not want to allow gay marriage, gives rise to the call for a Constitutional amendment to protect the existing traditional definition of marriage.
So, thanks for your rhetorical assistance.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
You fail to understand my phrase and decided it goes along your logic. "Government can not force or deny tradition" Traditional is moot because it's not government's job to recongize it as tradition - that's for individuals (which is why you're allow to go to a judge to get marry without the traditional wedding). We don't have laws based on tradition.. we have laws based on people.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
And that is where you are simply wrong. Our entire legal system is based on tradition, going back to the Ten Commandments and including the Magna Carta. It is directly taken from English Common Law, which is not even written down-- entirely based on tradition.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
But our legal system is also subject to 'change' which can happen if the people determine it over all. That's why tradition is moot for this argument. The premise of Civil Rights went against tradition.
Before the laws did use tradition.. but that's because the 'people' thought it was the best way to go.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Sure, the Republican Party was founded specifically to overturn slavery. And it took a war to accomplish that.
So, people make such decisions, as a group. Not individual judges. As least not legitimately.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
actually your historic context is a bit flawed.. Lincoln would have allowed the south to keep their slave if they stop the civil war. If they refused the offer, the U.S. would be against slavery, which prevented foreign countries to help the confederate -- because the other countries did not support slavery. Even after that, blacks were a second class citizen until half a century ago.
But to overturn slavery adds to my point, breaking 'tradition' for fairness.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Lincoln in fact did allow slavery in those slave states that did not rebel. But at that time, most of the world still practiced slavery, so I don't quite see your point there.
Still, while the "tradition" of slavery was changed, it took overwhelming force to do so. It was not just the whim of some sitting judge.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
"Republican Party was founded specifically to overturn slavery. And it took a war to accomplish that." My point was.. the civil war wasn't specifically about slavery. It was simply a part of it.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
It was the central issue. Provoked by a sense of betrayal over the Kansas Nebraska act.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
also, apparantly you don't understand the California Supreme Justice decision to allow gay marriage. They didn't 'create' a law. It was based on the language of California's constitution, which was the key factor on the Justice's past decision to allow mix race marriages. Their state did not recongize gender in marriage.
Now making a constitutional amendment to protect marriage... would be creating special privelege for people... Can you say contradiction?
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
When judges "interpret" law to mean something it has never meant before, and something entirely not approved by some political process such as a Legislative or direct vote, then those judges are indeed making new law.
It may satisfy you, or someone else as to its immediate outcome, but it is bad law nonetheless.
Making an amendment to protect marriage is a political process. Difficult to do, but certainly democratic in nature.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
It's not a 'bad' law.. you just think of it as that. But it's not making a law.. it's only interpreting the current one. If the law does not restrict gender, then a judge would only be his duty.
But since we're on 'tradition', the real question would be, should our law follow this tradition. You already admitted it's discrimination.. so should we have laws that are unfair to individuals.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. If I prefer blondes to brunettes, I discriminate.
Our society recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Some judge decided otherwise, but his will alone defies the public will.
Which is what makes it bad law, and why an amendment may be needed.
You do believe in democracy, right?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
You still didn't answer my question "should we have _LAWS_ that are unfair to individuals." It's about the law, not your individual choice
Our society isn't in agreement on gay marriage -- but apparently when principle fails you, you want to create a special law even though such to the opposite is 'bad'. So what if there's there is an admendment to 'allow' gay marriage.
Don't forget.. this all started with "special rights for a few, such as gays"
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Yes, special rights, such as having a ancient traditional institution redefined to suit their purpose.
Equal protection is itself part of the Constitution.
I understand your position. You feel the existing definition of marriage is inadequate, and gays are unfairly affected.
I might feel discriminated against for any number of reasons, but that would not mean my personal predilections require the rest of society to comply.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
I suppose that is an answer.. "equal protection is itself apart of the constitution"
So.. what makes gay marriage 'special'.. to be special would mean it differ from others. So if a man and a woman can form a union and call it marriage.. what make a gay couple getting married any 'different'.
Or does tradition make marriage special that it exclude gay couples.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
When marriage came about, many thousands of years ago, homosexuality was not even considered.
What is different is that the taboo over homosexuality is gradually being lifted. Nevertheless, it was never considered possible for gays to be married.
Now, the gay political movement wants to redefine marriage to suit their political agenda, which is to "normalize" homosexuality.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
actually different cultures had marriages, some culture allowed it, such as the idians in Austrialia.. There's not 'one' history.
The reason why gays were never considered to marry was because gays were never considered to exist. Remember the stoning to death part. To publically announce yourself as gay was a suicide wish.
But this enter something with you. So you believe gays have equal protection under the law?
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
If gays did not exist, then who got stoned?
"Hey, gang! Let's go stone some people who don't exist!"
Sure, gays have equal rights. Constitution says so.
But equality is not sameness. Gender exists, and no law can change that.
For example, if I walk into a women's restroom at the airport, there is a good change I will be arrested and charged with a crime.
Likewise, gays can insist there is no difference between them and heteros, but they simultaneously celebrate those differences.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Yes.. ignore the other part about the suicide wish and the explaination why a person who may be stone to death would never ask to marry someone. And unless the dictionary definition of equality and sameness are wrong... those to words are interchangeable.
Anyway, gender exist, but it shouldn't be a principle to making laws. Discrimination is against this country's principle of law. Two people of opposit sex should have no 'different' right or recongision than two of the same.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
So, clearly gays did exist. I take it you did not mean to say they did not exist, then.
Yes, homosexuality has been found disgusting by most societies throughout time. That would be an important point.
Still, to say gender has no place in making law is absurd. What is the basis of your "shouldn't"?
Do you think it should be okay for me to use the women's restroom in public places?
Is that your position?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
my premise.. women have the exact same rights as men -- well they should.. though there's a pay difference between them.
Now for your example it depends on which law is being broken. I'm not a lawyer, but would it be a crime in itself, or crime in regard the owner of the restroom does not premit, there are unisex Restrooms for both men and women. It seems too technical to generalized. We accept men shouldn't go into the women's restroom, but that doesn't prevent both sex from cleaning them.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Why do we accept disallowing men to enter a women's restroom?
Sounds like gender discrimination to me. Or is it some tradition we need to respect?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
it would be discrimination if there wasn't a men's restroom. But there are restrooms for men and women. Now why they are different restrooms, that's another issue..
They both have a restroom.. if you want to put this in context.. instead of having a marriage.. they would have a 'gay' marriage. The magic of adjectives..
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
And so we come full circle. Gays have the ability to construct contractual relationship resembling marriage, including property inheritance, power of attorney, joint ownership, etc.
But, it is not marriage, any more than the men's room is the women's room.
The magic of reality.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
They have teh ability.. it's just not recongized by the government - which is the problem, or as convenient as a license issued by the state.
But the name of it is honestly subjective, it's the governmental license that's the real issue. Should the government should recongize all of that regardless of the name?
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Some accommodation could certainly be made for same-sex couples, but "marriage" it would not be.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
If the accommodation was equal in ever espect legaly, then that would be good enough. People who want to call it marriage will, and the people who want to call it something else will.
Marriage, like any word in our language, is subjective to interpretation. You may never consider it marriage, and that's okay for you. But in the eye of the law, equal protection is what matters.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
This conversation just keeps dribbling on, doesn't it?
Let's just end it here, okay?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
"It's not the government's place to cram it down our throats" And i think that's where your real logic lies... And where i disagree. It's not about your throat, no more than someone's traditional marriage. It's not about you. It's about the people who want to make a contract recongized by the government that they are together, own the same property, and have rights.
You're thinking about the social espect of it... and the government has no place in leaning 'that' way.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
roger: My "dog" example was obviously ott but my point was that you have to draw the line somewhere. Your examples of polygamy and Nambla are much better.
However, I tentatively support gay marriage because I can't deny it from a moral perspective. But, I only support the civil aspect of it (govt recognition of inheritence rights, etc.). The religious aspect is entirely private and must be left up to each church to decide.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
I say you don't live here, because you clearly don't understand how Americans think.
We don't have a class-based society. We have phenomenal economic mobility.
Thus, Americans tend not to resent the wealthy. Rather, they know they or their children can become wealthy themselves.
Where else do you have blue collar workers who own vacation homes and investment portfolios? And whose children get university degrees and become doctors, engineers or whatever they like?
Freedom. It works.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
If you actually read what I wrote, you would see I don't think corporations should be taxed at all. Logically then, nobody would be getting a particular tax break.
You decry connections between government and corporations. Why not disconnect the two altogether?
Consumers reward or punish companies who are efficient or not. Keep government out of the marketplace and you reduce most corruption right there.
Have you never noticed, most corruption comes from government, not the private sector?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Yeah she is only being nice and supporting Obama now because She needs him to pay her huge campaign debts. And shes thinking of 2012 she wants him to lose but she can't admit to it.
sleazypig 3 years ago
You got it, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
umm clearly hillary is going to run for president. or i hope she does. she wants him to win so she doesnt get the blam and then she can run. and save the country from the mess i'm sure obama will leave
thatsright0669 3 years ago
LOL, The point is, and the fact remains that Obama will lose. If he wins then Hillary will never be President. If OIwins, she can't run for 8 years, and by that time she'll have to run against Obama's VP or an incumbant Repub.
No, the only change Hillary has is Obama losing.
If she thought that Obama was going to win, she would've forced her way on to the ticket, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Are you in a tent!?
TheHonourableJLD 3 years ago
I'll never tell:)CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Thanks again CRK! You couldn't be more right. She wants McCain to win because I think she believes she can beat him in 2012. Also, I think Biden will certainly not help his chances. He doesn't have the name recognition plus the fact, he along with Pelosi have been completely racked by the Catholic church for their views on abortion. Ship going down anyone?
cbmbdb 3 years ago
Oh yeah, the latest polls show McCain in the lead 45-44. CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
More likely, McCain won't run again in '12, so it will be a new game. Anybody's.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
McCain 08
TrekkieAtlantis 3 years ago
Shonuff, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Great video. I must admit that she's had me fooled, but I know that she has to want Obama to loose in order to giver herself a shot in 4-years, so I couldn't rectify all that Obama cheering from Hillary in my mind. Your video makes a lot of sense.
vitalfinds 3 years ago
Thanks. It's true, she's way too smart to come with overkill now. If she really thought he had a shot, she'd have forced her way onto the ticket, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Five Stars!
MadBadVoodo 3 years ago
Thanks MadBadMan, CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
unity is so overrated. Everyone says Obama 'brings people together'.. Obama united the same socialists, anti Americans, and other unsavory non producers that every other far left nut job 'unites'.
Good point on her still being able to keep controlling the theme, even in the midst of a faint-hearted concession to the Soros owned Dem council of fools.
FarFromEquilibrium 3 years ago
They're starting to realize that this election is a bust. You saw Michelle Obama, she didn't look like a woman en route to the WHite House.
And look at the media, MSNBC is canibalizing itself, reporters were so sure they were a part of history, and now, like a hangover, they're sobering up to the hard truth... the Left gave it all away... just like they'd do if they ran the USA. CRK
CrackrocKid 3 years ago
Stalin brought people together. Starved millions in Ukraine in the name of the "collective". They all died together.
Hitler brought people together.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago