AlabamaGunn

Stagehnd1 is a HRC supporter. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:43:33

Your infatuation with crack seems to belie a homoerotic fixation. Larry Craig was looking for an intern recently. Perhaps you two can compare stances to see whose is the widest. If you're lucky, Mark Foley might join in as well. You can tell them about your love of the crack. posted 04/19/2008 at 20:36:20

More right wing pandering from HRC. Her faithful will whitewash it away just as they do her war vote, her continued hawkish aggression, her continue siding with Mccain, and her reviling "politics of fear" tactics. They'll blame Moveon for becoming too "left" (whatever that means). They'll blame Obama for getting Moveon's endorsement. Her surrogates will label a valuable grass roots organization as Judas. Bill will call them whiny thought their existence was due to his failures as they started as a defense/apologist of Bill campaign.
--
Yes, Hillary's shrill minions will attempt to tar, feather, and ride Moveon out of the Dem party on a rail just as they tried to do Obama. Her contagion will spread as a bad case of typhoid until her beholden echo her baseless charges against Moveon and continue to shit in their nests. posted 04/19/2008 at 12:49:19

Since when did it become a major gaffe to speak truth? If you're not bitter about the way our gov't has usurped the will of the people, you're not paying attention. Why don't you ask the folks down in NOLA how non-bitter they are about the abundance of gov't aide they received? Go ask those folks we have falsely imprisoned in Gitmo if they're a little bitter? How about the majority of our troops who want to come home, stop getting shot at, and be with their families how non-bitter they are?
--
I'm pretty fucking bitter that everything is much more expensive than it was eight years ago, but my income has dropped by about 25k in the same time period.
--
I guess that's a major gaffe on my part. posted 04/13/2008 at 01:46:28

Exactly what qualifications does HRC have that Obama does'nt? They're both lawyers. The both have elite college educations most of us only dream of getting. Bill's degress did nothing but help bankrupt this country. Don't you realize that many of the economic woes we face today are the result of NAFTA and CAFTA? Now Bill and Penn are cowardly attempting to get the same treatment for Columbia while HRC feigns indignation. No hypocrisy there?
--
The only delusional people are HRC supporters who cling to some sick nostalgic notion that the 90s were the heyday of America. Face it, folks, Bill ain't no FDR. Hell, he's not even a Jimmy Carter. He is a Repub who duped us (I voted for him twice and defended him till I was blue faced while he wended through the definition of is) into thinking he was progressive. He's not! HRC, the queen of closet repbus, certainly is not.
--
Go ahead and drink the Clinton swill while they destroy the Democratic party and our country solely motivated by their vampiric hunger for power.
--
You, and all the other HRC supporters, are true hypocrites. James Joyce wrote of Ireland, "Ireland is the sow that eats its farrow." The Clintons are the sow. Our country is the farrow. Enjoy being devoured, dipshit. posted 04/13/2008 at 01:24:38

Hypocrisyenabler.
--
Bill accepted 800k in blood money to endorse the Columbia trade deal. I guess HRC doesn't have access to those funds? No corruption opportunity when your husband and your chief campaign strategist shamelessly court trade with a bloodthirsty government that oppresses and kills labor leaders. How does that help blue collar voters. I guess if they're all dead, they don't have anything to worry about.
--
Your statement seems to indicate that HRC and Bill have no interest in political power by any means necessary. Aren't they the ones who are responsible for NAFTA? Didn't they fail at health care reform? Don't they have close ties with Mccain and Lieberman, and didn't HRC vote for the war for purely political reasons? How can you Clintonites sincerely believe she has any intention of bringing an end to a war she voted for? Yes, I know, Obama wasn't in the Senate, but he did take a stand against the damn thing when it was unpopular to do so. All HRC did was vote for it, not read the intelligence, and then hope people like you would forgive her. If you believe HRC, she either voted for the war knowing it was wrong, or she simply made an incorrect judgement because she didn't read the intell and trusted W. I suppose that's what you want in a president. At least Mccain believes in his vote and didn't do it out of expediency. Why don't you spend some time slaying that hypocisy? posted 04/13/2008 at 01:23:48

I'm bitter as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore. posted 04/13/2008 at 02:16:16

Right fucking on! posted 04/13/2008 at 02:13:42

I guess calling people vile and nasty isn't vile and nasty, it's repugnant, just like HRC. posted 04/13/2008 at 02:01:21

If you vote for Mccain, you and your veryliberalwhitechildren and verywhiteliberalgrandchildren better enjoy the swift loss of their civil rights. I'm sure veryliberalwhitewomen like yourself are highly anticipating the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
--
That the 45 year old and up veryliberalwhitewomen like you would condemn us to four more years of pillage and ruin out of veryliberalwhitewoman scorn is veryconservativewhitedumbassness at its finest. Please, change your party affiliation, get on the Mccain bandwagon, and stop pretending to be liberal. For some reason, I was under the impression liberal meant open and accepting, not smallminded and retributive.
--
Say it loud, your verywhiteconservative and proud. posted 04/13/2008 at 01:59:38

I expect nothing less from a Clinton hack.
--
The only people who are not satisfied w/how Obama addressed this issue are either a) not going to vote for him anyway; or b) Clinton hacks who want to disctract people from the following facts:

1) she lied about her Bosnia trip consistently for months
2) she lied about her vocal distaste for NAFTA when in fact she was an appeaser
3) her campaign is broke, neglecting or outright refusing to pay bills, and is almost in collections
4) her main strategist, Mark Penn, and her husband vocally support the Columbian trade deal which she says she opposes (one can only assume it's the same level of opposition she had to NAFTA)
5) Mark Penn is still on her payroll
6) she's losing
7) she's been losing
--
Lani's only effort is to rehash the past, raise false concerns, and use the WSJ to provide free advertising to the struggling Clinton campaign.
--
Good luck. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:53:38

Barbara? posted 03/28/2008 at 21:39:25

Vote Clinton! Fall free faces.
--
Vote Cliton! Less falls than the average face.
--
Vote Cliton! Everyone knows their faces are 100% fall free!
--
Take it from, me, Joementum, Hillary's face never falls.
--
Vote Clinton 'cause nine out of ten mothers agree, her face is fall-proof and less fatening than the average face. posted 03/28/2008 at 21:37:55

Grulg, if you bury your head in the sand long enough, you might just convince yourself it's 1992 all over again.

Aside from all those states she's busy losing, Hillary has Bill, Chelsea, Wolfson, the walrus, and you.

Sound very familiar to the company Dorothy kept: the brainless, the gutless, the heartless, and you! Enjoy the company, and watch out for flying monkeys.

By the way, Obama won TX in delegats, which is what decides the nomination, in case you haven't heard. He also won MO, VA, MD, WI, and about 15 other states she didn't.

Let's see, that makes it insurmountable delegate lead, 600k plus popular vote lead (also very formidible), more states won (including Utah) and more Supers since Feb 5th and counting. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:04:53

No need to attack the Clintons' ethics. They have none. For proof, please reference the following Clinton reference guides:
a) The Cigar and the Single Woman: A User's Manual
b) An Idiots Guide to the Definition of Is
c) Tarmac Dancing: A Parents Guide to Dodging Bullets
d) Felatiations: How to Negotiate with Your Mouth Full
e) LethargoTax: Stonewalling the IRS
f) Earwax: 10 Easy Steps to Earmark Anonimity posted 03/29/2008 at 12:00:23

Hillary and Bill are much worse, obviously.
--
It's no surprise that the same folks who were elected/re-elected in 2006 on the failed pledge to hold Bush and his minions accountable are also too weak, spineless, and heartless to stand up to Bill and Hillary and simply endorse Obama now so as to end Hill's futile bid. In many instances, these are the same people who were too gutless to oppose Bush's self-serving war (just like Hillary).
--
Obama's donors haven't threatened the Party. His spouse (and he) never endorsed Mccain. What will it take for the Inferior Delegates to show some outward signs of a spine and chagrin at the overt Clintonian efforts to destroy the party by blackmail, ruthelessness to you fellow Democrats, and outright glowing endorsement of Mccain?
--
No candidate is perfect, but the Clintons and their surrogates have proven they have no allegiance to the party or the voters. Theirs is a veiled self interest wherein avaricious power grabs are more important than improving the country. They give not shit one about us, and they have made it blatantly clear over and over again throughout this campaign. posted 03/29/2008 at 11:47:49

With the cigars... posted 03/28/2008 at 22:53:22

He didn't lie about it. Individuals are not corporations. Instead of studying Hillary's propaganda, do some research. posted 03/28/2008 at 22:52:45

Hillary's full of honesty, integrity, and is certainly not a run of the mill politician, nine out of ten Hillary supporters agree! posted 03/28/2008 at 22:51:09

When Hillary is to blame, what's wrong with blaming her? It's not blind allegience to simply state fact.
--
If individual donors' donations are tagged as "Corporate donations" incorrectly and Hillary's campaign is the one incorrectly tagging the donations thusly, it is not blaming Hillary to point out the outright lie.
--
How come HRC supports don't throw up a little in their mouths every time they defend Bill/Hill's a) continued endorsements of Mccain, b) consistent lies about herself, or c) consistent lies about Obama.
--
Pointing out the truth is not blaming Hillary. It's seeing with eyes unclouded by Hillshit. posted 03/28/2008 at 22:42:38

It can never be repeated enough: Killary Clinton supported this war, and she should not be the nominee as a result of this and this alone.
--
Forget racial subterfuge, idiotic Mccain endorsements, consistent fabrications and canards, overblown claims of experience and entitlement, and any other rotten campaign tactic Killary and Bill have employed. She supported the war, and she is responsible for over 4000 US deaths, tens of thousands of wounded, and possibly millions of dead, innocent Iraqis.
--
Resume embellisments aside, while she claims of dodging sniper fire, our brave men and women are dying from authentic gunshots and IEDs. Meanwhile, innocent Iraqis' blood runs in the street as they implode into Civil War. Hillary, simultaneously, experiences metaphoric fire from fellow Democrats to leave the race and continues to endorse Mccain and the war while defending her lie.
--
I urge everyone to watch Michael Franti's "I Know I'm Not Alone" documentary on Iraq to see the true human cost of Bush and Killary's war. After viewing this and or "Body of War," please let me know if she is still credible as a candidate.
--
She is a War Pig of the highest eschelon. and hers is the worst kind of war piggery: she uses politically expedient hawkishness to feign toughness. James Joyce once wrote "Ireland is the sow that eats its farrow." A more fitting description of Killary has never been written. posted 03/29/2008 at 14:51:05

More like Jeff Gillouly....she's kneecapping (as Mathews pointed out months ago). posted 03/25/2008 at 17:33:23

I'd like to see the support for you assertion the Nation of Islam and Farrakan are funding terrorism. Sounds like Bush bullshit to me.
--
As for Rev. Wright, the only comment I found remotely objectionable was the USKKKA snipet. The 9/11 snipet they keep running was taken out of context. He was channelling Malcolm X who used the "chickens have come home to roost" line in the 60s. Wright's point is our foreign policy (nukeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, our failure to condemn Isreal for their oppression of the Palestinians, our presence in Saudi Arabia, our meddling in the Middle East for 30 years+, and etc) is what influenced the terrorist attack on 9/11. To deny this truth is to be blind. While it's painful to look in the mirror, if we continue to deny that our actions create equal reactions is to be blind; furthermore, they will continue to attack us as we attack them. Unfortunately, we're responsible for much more innocent blood than they.
--
Wright's other comment about Goddamn the USA is also logical if you look at the entire context. If white people had been enslaved, Jim Crowed, denied property, wives raped, children terrorized, victimized by the criminal justice system, and unfairly imprisoned and executed at higher rates, we'd be goddamning things as well. Again, the mirror reveals a lot.
--
Study some history and perhaps you'll be enlightened. posted 03/22/2008 at 10:59:34

As normal, you're mistaken. If Kucinich were in Obama's shoes, as I wish he were, then I would buy your argument that the far left or the "religious left" were taking control of the Democratic party. Obama, though, is not as liberal as many fear. That's Right Wing branding at work, and it is apparently working as Dems like yourself are now starting to parot it (as though being liberal is a fault, it's not).
--
As far as religion is concerned, if the Right and HRC weren't trying to question Obama's religion (whether he's a Muslim or whether he's complicit in some of the more controversial statements by Rev. Wright--what an oxymoron), his religion would be (and should be) no more of an issue than HRC's or Mccain's.
--
Lastly, it's ludicrous to suggest the religious right will not have an impact if Mccain were the prez. He would certainly appoint more conservative justices (as I fear would HRC) who would be willing to overturn Roe. You're sadly incorrect in thinking Mccain is immune from dark religion.
--
I'm sorry you've lost your combative spirit from the 60s. That's a lamentable loss. What we need now is more folks who are willing to truly employ a 60s type mobilization to fight for middle and lower economic classes. HRC ain't it; Mccain certainly ain't either.

posted 03/23/2008 at 13:19:17

1) Lost the House and Senate
2) Passed NAFTA which is in part to blame for our current economic woes.
3) Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Lewinskygate, Flowersgate, theotherhogate (can't remember the redneck secretary's name), Whatisisgate, etc that led to eight years of Bush.
4) Eliminating welfare benefits for hundreds of thousands
5) Corporatism at its highest (aside from Bush, but enabled where we are now)
--
Bill Clinton showed promise, and I agree the good almost outweighed the bad. Let's not be delusional though and forget there were significant problems with the Clinton years. The problem with Clinton nostalgia is it overplays the import of the good while underestimating the tragedy of the bad. I voted for Clinton/Gore twice, but looking back now at the long term effects of some of their policies, I feel duped. Bill and Hillary are much more Republican than Democrat. I've accepted it begrudingly. Simply look at their economic policies and HRC's Senate record and you'll see it too.
--
No more dynasties!
--
Gunn posted 03/22/2008 at 10:33:40

Please reference Through the Looking Glass: The Walrus and the Oysters as told by Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. It is keenly on point here, in more ways than just appearance. posted 03/25/2008 at 08:34:18