Would you vote for Hilary Clinton for president?

[jaques]

Originally Posted by ninthdoc

Wow! Way to confuse the issue. Believing that adding to my quote is fundamentally any different than substituting or creating anew a quote by you. It doesn't truly matter, either way, neither of us said what was written by the other.

We'll just have to disagree here. Nothing in my addition contradicted the content of your actual quote. All it did was complement your content with the addition of a simple concept which I would hope you agree with: that in matters of life and death, voters should demand honesty.

[jaques]

Originally Posted by lightfight

I don't think the Republicans would have tried to impeach Gore, c'mon this is an excuse for war we're talking about here. Clinton was impeached because he did the worst thing you can do when dealing with Conservatives, screwing with their set in concrete moral sensibilities. Republicans would have less ire for a democrat that killed people for fun than one who was gay or atheistic.

Dude, do you not remember what the Republicans said when Clinton bombed al Qaida's training camps? If there's one thing Republicans love more than war, it's smearing Democrats. (And to be fair, I'm sure there are many things Republicans love more than war. But there aren't many they love more than smearing Democrats.)

Originally Posted by lightfight

First of all, the president doesn't really need Congress's permission to send in troops and effectively start a war. Once the president has started it Congress can't just back out, so they're effectively tied to the war.

Well, no. This President takes the most expansive view of executive power of any President in probably a hundred years. He has repeatedly and explicitly talked about areas in which he feels he does not need Congress's permission. But he did go to them for permission. He wouldn't have done so unless he felt he had to.

[lightfight]

Firstly, smearing is a politics thing not a Republican thing.

Secondly, you made my point for me. While, technically presidents can get around congress when it comes to war realistically they don't try. Congress runs things, and who owns Congress. Consequentially, as I said earlier, the president doesn't really matter.

[ninthdoc]

Originally Posted by lightfight

The sad thing is I can't tell whether or not he's joking.

I wish I had a nickel for every time you've felt compelled to write that about one of my posts.

Just be glad that you weren't on the HQ when I made my comment about Carebears.

[lightfight]

I'd give you a bagful of nickels if you would tell me because I still can't tell. In all honesty though, I'm pretty sure you're joking. Unless, you're not.

I do not, I repeat DO NOT want to hear about the carebears.

[jaques]

Hey, guys. No offense, but I'm bowing out. I appreciate the time lightfight & ninthdoc have invested in the conversation, so thanks for the back and forth.

I knew going into it that contributing to this thread would probably be more aggravation than entertainment for me, and I was right. (No one's fault but my own.)

Anyhoo, I'll see you on other threads, I'm sure. And if I ever let myself get sucked into another online political debate, feel free to remind me what a miserable drubbing I got on this one.

You have my permission to declare me the loser and yourselves the winners -- I know ninthdoc in particular always waits for permission in these cases.

[lightfight]

I'm sorry you feel that way. If it matters at all, I thought that you had very valid points and probably more realistic than my own ideas. I only posted like 5 messages anyways.

Both ninthdoc and I are hard to have a conversation with because we both have egos the size of small continents and inferiority complexes (now it's ninthdoc's turn to guess whether or not I'm joking).

I don't think you got a drubbing, mostly because as I said, I thought your ideas were valid. And, you're a fun debater because unlike most you don't resort to personal attacks when angry (from what I read, I haven't read everything you've written.)

All that said, I still disagree with you; we traded our kings for businessmen a long time age.

[ninthdoc]

Darn, no offense anyone.

Well, I guess I'm out; I've got a continent to go tame.

[Doc_Savage]

I said yes because of the wording of the question... Would I vote for Hillary Clinton?

Yes, it is possible, depending who the opponents are. I would prefer not to and if she is the Dem nominee I would vote for McCain or Peter Camejo before her...

I am an independent and think that now is the time for everyone to change their registration to independent just to scare the carp out of the Repubs and Dems...

[jaques]

Originally Posted by lightfight

I'm sorry you feel that way. If it matters at all, I thought that you had very valid points and probably more realistic than my own ideas. I only posted like 5 messages anyways.

Both ninthdoc and I are hard to have a conversation with because we both have egos the size of small continents and inferiority complexes (now it's ninthdoc's turn to guess whether or not I'm joking).

I don't think you got a drubbing, mostly because as I said, I thought your ideas were valid. And, you're a fun debater because unlike most you don't resort to personal attacks when angry (from what I read, I haven't read everything you've written.)

All that said, I still disagree with you; we traded our kings for businessmen a long time age.

Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate it.

As for whether I got a "drubbing," the fact is that I consider debates on this level to be as important or more important than actions by our elected officials. This is a representative democracy, and we are the government.

That's why I get so aggravated in these kinds of discussions -- because I always end up feeling that I'm taking them much more seriously than anyone else does. When I talk politics, I am engaged in the process of governing the country. Others are just talking about an abstract, distant activity that they feel they have no real influence on anyway.

So the drubbing I referred to was the sense of defeat that comes from understanding that my desired goal for political discussion is apparently entirely different from that of my fellow debaters. And that because their goal is different, mine is impossible.

I have tried at times during this discussion to shift into a less serious, more jovial approach, but it just hasn't worked for me.

Anyway, thanks again for being so positive in your previous post.

[skyknight]

I am surprised no one jumped on my Vote for Newt Gingrich in 08 line I posted earlier. In all honesty I do not believe he is electable but that man has some great ideas.

[lightfight]

Jacques,

That's a really nice idea, and I would say a pretty virtuous ideal.There is, however, one major problem I see with it. By my view, America never was, never will, and was never intended to be a democracy. The founding fathers made it pretty clear they wanted the appearance of a democracy with the elite actually running things. It hasn't changed much--and probably never wile--the idea of the poles wresting control from the elite is unlikely. And every time we manage to elect some down home, good ol' boy to Congress--he becomes one of them real quick like.

You, may have read me wrong--I take discussions like these seriously as well--just for different reasons.