Tired_Old_Man

Are you also that set against Arnold Schwarzenegger? His health care plan for California is 10 times as agreesive as Hillary's was.

The people of the state of NY gave Hillary 55% of the vote in 2000 when she first ran for the Senate, and in 2006, they gave her 67% of the vote for re-election. Maybe it takes actually seeing what she does up close, rather than hearing (and reading) propaganda from her enemies to convince people. Most of the extra 12% came from upstate NY, a Republican stronghold. It seems that even the Republicans liked her once they saw what she did for her constituency. She beat her Republican challenger with 1.7 million votes to one million votes in the predominantly Republican areas outside of NYC.

Let me find an excuse why I don't like her? Heads: I Win. Tails: you Lose.

I don't know where you are from, but here it Florida, you only need 3 things: $$$$$ a State ID and a clean (no felony, no mental hospitalization) record. :faint:

I can not speak for all states, since each state makes its own laws. But in NY, most anything can be considered a weapon and a person can be charged with (and convicted of) "possession of a deadly weapon" for almost anything. Here's the trick. If you stab me with a fork or pen, or hit me with a baseball bat or golf club, besides being charged with assault, you can also be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" and "possession of a deadly weapon", because you used the fork, pen, bat or club as a weapon. So while anything can be used as a weapon and you can be charged with "possession of a deadly weapon" for almost anything, there are some things that are considered weapons whether you use them as a weapon or not and they included firearms, knives (over 4 inches in length), certain chemical sprays and certain electrical immobilizers. So a person can only be charged with "possession of a deadly weapon" if he uses the item as weapon or if he is in possession of any of a small group of devices which are always considered weapons. Then again, there are some states where anyone (over 18 except a convicted felon) can carry a weapon and some places where it is the law that you must carry a gun.:faint:

Contrary to popular opinion, "an eye for an eye" was not justification for getting even, but a limit to the amount of retrobution. "No more than an eye for an eye" was what they meant.

So she believes in the sanctity of marriage and her vows of "til Death Do Us Part". How criminal!!!:faint:

I live in the city in Florida that gave John Kerry the highest percentage of votes in the state in the 2004 election. Our city council is all Democrat as is our mayor, but I see many Confederate Flags on Flag poles outside of houses, on trucks and on tee-shirts. Some people wear tee-shirts with the Confederate flag and a message, "If this Flag Offends you, You Can Kiss my ass". I have seen similar bumper stickers. I have seen bumper stickers which say, "If you are a Liberal, get the Hell out of Florida" next to a little Confederate Flag. The worst was, "If you are a Liberal, go Back to NY where they like Monkeys" next to a little Confederate Flag. A "moderate" tee-shirt which I saw had a Confederate Flag on the front and back and words below the flag on the back saying, "If you don't like this Flag, You don't know your History". No! The American Public is not ready for ANY BLACK PERSON to run for President. The only Black person that could win would be Condoleezza Rice and only if she was running against Hillary.

Is that why I keep saying "Vietnam" when I am discussing "Iraq"?:faint:

Except BuSh is responsible for more deaths.

BY ALLOWING WEAPONS TO BE SOLD TO THE ENEMY

Have you "Googled" his name? Have you listened when he was on TV shows were he is asked questions? He sure can put together a paragraph better that that guy in the White House right now. Have you tried Wikipedia?

Jodie, I envy your youth. I have grand-children older than you. I was a staunch Republican when I was your age and would have fought in Vietnam had football injuries not caused me to fail my enlistment physical. Some day, when you are my age and talking to your computer (typing will be so passe by then), I hope you can remember your youth with a little laughter, some pride and some humility. I do. Oh, how wrong I was way back then in 1964.:faint:

What does she stand for?

Ted Kopel when he was still doing NightLine, interviewed the Governor of Virginia. There was a man on death row who had been convicted of the rape and murder of a young women many years earlier and was approaching his execution. He was convicted based on his alleged confession to a cell-mate while awaiting trial. That cell-mate, who had been moved to the man's cell because he had been arrested numerous times before and had always been able to get off early by getting people awaiting trial to confess to him (even though it was proven a some occasions that lies were involved), testified that the man on trial had said that he had broken into the woman's home by himself and while raping her in a semi-missionary position had stabbed her repeatedly in the chest. Since his rape and murder conviction, DNA had come on the scene. The semen on the clothing that the victim was wearing when murdered proved to be that of another person after a DNA test. Virginia has a law that new evidence can not be submitted after a time-frame (I think 6 months or a year) so since this was over ten years later, no new trial could be ordered. The prosecuting attorney said he would not ask for a new trial, because the DNA only proved that he was not the rapist, not that he was not the murderer (even though the only evidence was the alleged confession to the cell-mate which said the rape and murder was done alone). Ted Kopel asked the governor who was a death penalty advocate what he was going to do. The governor said he might pardon him, but that Virginia was going to pass a bill that would cap appeals at about 5 or 6 years, so this situation would not happen again. Ted kopel said if that law had been in effect when the man was convicted, he would have been executed 5 years before it was found he was not guilty. The governor replied "yes I know".

Jodie: I will trade you some of my "Wit & Wisdom" for some of your years (left to live).:faint: That might make you a two time loser. :confused:

After the WTC was attacked in 1993, there were no attacks on US soil for 6 years and 7 months, and Clinton did not invade Iraq. Since 911, we have had no attacks on US soil for 5 years and 4 months, so that proves nothing about BuSh's Illogical Illegal Iraqi Invasion. It only proves that Al-Quaida takes its time. BuSh must wait for 15 months and hope, because he has done little to protect the US from invasion. As for Vietnam, the servicemen who insist we could have won there if we had just kept fighting need to get over it and stop basing their self-worth on winning or losing a war which should not have been fought. We could have dropped atomic bombs on Vietnam, but that would have not been anything except a inhumane statement and would have shown a callous disregard for human life, or maybe a callous disregard for life that does not look like us. But we left, saving the lives of many soldiers and now we are becoming trading partners with Vietnam. Soon you will have the opportunity to buy consumer goods manufactured in Vietnam. All of the reasons for fighting in Vietnam have been proven false. The "Domino Effect" never happened. A Half million lives were destroyed because of a stupid government policy.

Hasn't the Heritage Foundation been financed by the M&M Boys? Sun Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch?

There is talk about drafting Condoleezza Rice to run, but she said that she doesn't want to. Elizabeth Dole could always be trotted out again as could Alan Keyes who both ran in the 2000 Republican primaries. Republicans had been pushing for a Constitutional amendment so that people born outside the USA who have been naturalized citizens for over 25 years could run, but I doubt that they would still want Arnold for President.:faint:

Some people have been quick to point out that no one who has been executed for murder in the USA has ever been found to be innocent afterwards. :faint: Of course not. There is nothing in our judicial system that would allow a dead man to be retried. If a man was executed for a murder and a week later a man showed up with a video tape of himself committing the murder and the murder weapon, and then he confessed and related details only the true murderer could know, the executed man could still not be found innocent in a court of law. There is no process on the books to do it.

I went to college with James McCloskey, the man who started "Centurion Ministries", a group who has gotten dozens of innocent men (who had been convicted of murder and who were on death row awaiting execution) out of jail. "Centurion Ministries" never used technicalities to free the death row inmates, unless you consider "not having committed the murder" a technicality. There have been close to 100 death row inmates who were found to be not guilty. One inmate was on death row for 18 years. In Illinois, a graduate class at Northwestern, interviewed a death row inmate for a class project and decided to investigate his assertion that he was innocent. They eventually tracked down the real murderer who confessed when confronted. No believing their luck that they had picked the only innocent man on death row at that prison by random chance, they interviewed another death row inmate. By the time they were through, 13 of 25 death row inmates were found to be innocent and the students had tracked down all 13 of the murderers (who all confessed when found). You can set a man free when he is serving a sentence of “life with no chance of parole” if he is found innocent at a later date, but you can not free a man from a miscarriage of justice which culminates in his execution and death.

I respect you opinion and in fact I also thought that she was an intelligent classy women when she first came on the scene, but her alibiing for BuSh's screw ups and her failure to act on the CIA Daily Briefing letter of 8-6-2001 (which could have/should have averted 911), her lies about the letter and her failure to act to save the Innocent Lebanese civilians from death and destruction last year have soured me on her.

I have to agree with you for once, Ms. Mousecrazy. My answers to the questions about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were not just essentially the same; I copied and pasted from one thread to the other: I will vote for the person who has the best chance of changing the direction that the USA is headed. For too many years, only WASP's were USA Presidents. I would vote for Obama or Colin Powell, but not for Condoleezza Rice, though I would vote for Hillary.

Regrettably, in the 21st Century USA, if you are part Black, you are Black. I can never understand why a person with 3 white grandparents and one Black grandparent is considered Black, except for the "you wanted want your sister to marry him, would you?" problem.:confused:

Did you wonder why she was being questioned so intensively by Republicans? Did you wonder why she was being questioned so intensively by Republicans who had supported the Illogical Illegal Iraqi Invasion up until just recently? As far as "intellectually running circles around those guys": On my TV, she appeared to be avoided the questions and playing word games. Her assertion that the new BuSh strategy is not an escalation of the war but an augmentation was classical wordsmenship used to avoid the reality of the situation.:help: