# Mrs. Clinton 2004

• News
Jonathan
I don't know that this is reliable, my mother told me and she may have misunderstood, but she said that she heard on the Mike Gallager radio show on 10/9/03 that some government website had Mrs. Clinton's name in the list of people registered to run for the 2004 presidential election. Now this may not be true, or the website may have made a mistake (since I can't find it, though I don't know what website it was either), but assuming this is, you'd think you'd have heard about it. If it's true, it means that all those very vocal conservatives and independents are right, again, and that Mrs. Clinton has lied to the public, again. In which case, I'm pissed, because she only said how many innumberable times that she wouldn't run?! I hope to God that some government employee screwed up and that this isn't true, my only consolation is that I couldn't find a site that said anything like this, and I used google.

Last edited:

No! No! Liberals never lie. Mrs. Clinton never said she would not run for election, she said she would not run for election. It depends on what the definition of "run" is or "would" is, or "not "is or "election" is.

Originally posted by GENIERE
No! No! Liberals never lie. Mrs. Clinton never said she would not run for election, she said she would not run for election. It depends on what the definition of "run" is or "would" is, or "not "is or "election" is.
Uh huh...Repugnicans never lie either...this is an example of the hypocracy of the right-wing. If it were a Repugnican, it would be called 'shrewd strategy', and you know it.

Mentor
I certainly could be wrong (its happened twice already! ), but I don't think you "register" so far in advance. "Register" may even be the wrong word.

In any case, I doubt she will run in 2004 - its never a good idea to run in a race you are sure to lose, but I'd be shocked if she didn't run in 2008.

My mother told me that she heard on the radio that somebody somewhere saw on a website that I can't find that George Bush ate a live baby! Rather than disbelieve this dubious source, I've decided to become irate.

Njorl

Seems like regardless of what side of the fence a politician is on, the main requirement for getting there is being a good liar.

There is a lady from NC that plans to run for president. I don't know what party she is with but I definetly like what she's talking about. More concerned with the problems at home then overseas, and would like to mend the wounds overseas caused by lil bush.

Of course as you may or may not know, you can vote for me. Check my email address in my profile, its official

You know, it would be pretty cool if everyone who wasn't going to vote or didn't care who they voted for wrote in someone not even running for pres.

Jonathan
GENIERE:LOL!
ZERO:Obviously, everybody lies. This may be unrelated (I don't know his party) but I was watching Keith Olberman and he was making fun of the fact that Issa (he dropped out of, but started, Calif. elec.) had said that he was part of the security team that went with Reagan to the ('79?) World Series. MR. Olb. was pointing out that not only had Issa not done that, but that Reagan didn't even go to that World Series. LOL! That Olbermann!
russ_watters:you+wrong=ERRORERRORERRORERRORERRORERRORERROR...!

In any case, I doubt she will run in 2004 - its never a good idea to run in a race you are sure to lose, but I'd be shocked if she didn't run in 2008.

2012 or later, as a Democrat will (hopefully) beat Bush. I just hope Dean doesn't get the nomination, like the guy, but he'd lose. If Clark gets the nomination Bush will have a lot of problems...

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by RageSk8
2012 or later, as a Democrat will (hopefully) beat Bush. I just hope Dean doesn't get the nomination, like the guy, but he'd lose. If Clark gets the nomination Bush will have a lot of problems...
Uhmm as I understand American politics, they only get eight years as pres, so 2012 is out of Bush's possiblity/potential.
(unless they change that law, too!)

Originally posted by Jonathan
GENIERE:LOL!
ZERO:Obviously, everybody lies.
Yeah, but people only seem to care when it is a Democrat telling the lie...even when the lie is technically true!

Jonathan
1)When I find out any news anchor/politician I trust lies I become outraged. Though I have to admitt that I forget quicker if they're rep or indep. BTW, I gave that example of Issa thinking he is rep or indep, he is isn't he? BTW#2, regardless, I'll never vote for Issa now, I'm not forgeting, Olbermann drilled it into my head (I just love him!)
2)What do you mean "even when that lie is technically true"? I've never heard such an oxymoron stated so plainly, as if fact. I can't think of any example of a lie being true because if it is a lie then by definition it can't possibly have any semblance with truth, all one must do is see if it is consistent with reality, the one of the only two objective truth-keepers. And I'm not just pointing this out, I really want you to explain that one.

You expect a cogent reply from Zero???

Mentor
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Uhmm as I understand American politics, they only get eight years as pres, so 2012 is out of Bush's possiblity/potential.
(unless they change that law, too!)
You misunderstood his point. If a democrat gets elected in 2004, then the next election She would be up for would be 2012. That's 8 years for some unnamed deomocrat (apropos, since almost no one can name a current democratic candidate). But since Bush is going to be re-elected, the next time a democrat could be elected would be 2008. If she doesn't get it then, her next chance would be 2016. Get it?

Mentor
Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, but people only seem to care when it is a Democrat telling the lie...even when the lie is technically true!
Yeah, true lies.... uh huh.

Tell me though, Zero, did you care as much about Billy Bob's lies as you care about GW's 'lies'? I wish I had known you 3 years ago to hear the silence.

Jonathan
Of course I don't expect a cogent reply from Zero, I expect a reply thats like his previous post, one that's completely without basis in reality.

I don't care what he says (unless he misspoke, *cough!, Freudian slip, cough!*) because I know immediately from the fact that he's a liberal that the first and most important assumption underlying his axiomic system is the belief that there is no objective truth. This is the most fundamental, but not the most common kind of, root of evil. The assumption that the random musings of a mad man is just as relevant and real as anyone elses. The belief that no way of life or ideology is better than any other, so to heck with all of them.

LOL! I'm so funny!

Now it should be noted that these are all just generalities as not all liberals, including Zero, who I really don't know, are that way, it's really only the liberal 'elite'. This is evidenced by the fact that I like Olberman, and he's a liberal, and I wouldn't like him if he's the way I just described.

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by russ_watters
You misunderstood his point. If a democrat gets elected in 2004, then the next election She would be up for would be 2012. That's 8 years for some unnamed deomocrat (apropos, since almost no one can name a current democratic candidate). But since Bush is going to be re-elected, the next time a democrat could be elected would be 2008. If she doesn't get it then, her next chance would be 2016. Get it? ]
Hey! I'm a Canadian, what the heck am I supposed to know about American Democracy, HUH??? (Ya, I get it)

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, but people only seem to care when it is a Democrat telling the lie...even when the lie is technically true!
Ahem, there is a thing called a "partiallity of truth", so send me ten dollar$(NOT really!) and I teach you how to "Sun Tan under the STARS!".....and since I am using a "Partiallity of Truth", not telling you enough information, sorta, when I receive your ten Buck$, postal, (No, Not really!) I send you the rest of the 'Truth' you are missing, I tell you to go outside, and stand under the shining Star(s) that is our Sun, and all of the rest of them that actually add their light to the illuminance (tan 'Q) of the face of earth, even though you cannot see them because of the obscuring blue.

Technically I did tell you the truth.

Ya, but when you get right down to it, thats a lie. More of a con, but still a lie. Either one is wrong, and when a person in a business or government position takes such action some kind of punishment or atleast removal from that position seems to be in order.

Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by megashawn
Ya, but when you get right down to it, thats a lie. More of a con, but still a lie. Either one is wrong, and when a person in a business or government position takes such action some kind of punishment or atleast removal from that position seems to be in order.
And that person pleads to you, in court, that they "only told the truth".....followed by, well you have to Prove that it is otherwise, Burdon of Proof.

You can only punish, once you have proven, to do otherwise, is un-wise/just.

You'll notice the media lie that 'no one can name a Democrat'...why doesn't the media want us to know their names? Because it might mean actually doing a little backround work, and discussing the issues, which the media simply won't do.
No, they want to talk about Hillary Clinton, not because she has anything much to do with things, but because she is a name-brand player, who can get ratings.

Last edited by a moderator:
Mentor
Originally posted by Zero
You'll notice the media lie that 'no one can name a Democrat'...
[?] [?] Those are POLLS, Zero. Thats real raw data.

Originally posted by russ_watters
[?] [?] Those are POLLS, Zero. Thats real raw data.
LOL, whatever, dude. The polls also say that most people believe the sames lies you do...the same lies that Fox Propaganda channel is promoting to the likes of you.

Last edited by a moderator:
Mentor
Originally posted by Zero
LOL, whatever, dude. The polls also say that most people believe the sames lies you do...the same lies that Fox Propaganda channel is promoting to the likes of you.
Sometimes, Zero, I just have no idea what is going on inside your head. You're being really rediculous. Its a pretty simple thing to call a few thousand people at random and ask them to name as many democratic presidential candidates as they can. Lots of people including Gallup have done this many times with similar results.

Zero, I know polls aren't perfect - some are downright deceptive, but this one is pretty straightforward. Hell, the candidates themselves see it as a problem even if you don't. They talk about it in their debates.

Originally posted by russ_watters
Sometimes, Zero, I just have no idea what is going on inside your head. You're being really rediculous. Its a pretty simple thing to call a few thousand people at random and ask them to name as many democratic presidential candidates as they can. Lots of people including Gallup have done this many times with similar results.

Zero, I know polls aren't perfect - some are downright deceptive, but this one is pretty straightforward. Hell, the candidates themselves see it as a problem even if you don't. They talk about it in their debates.
What I am saying is that if there is a recognition problem, it is due to the media focusing on the Clintons, instead of on the candidates. As I said in an earlier post, teh media is to blame, and then the submit these wacky articles wondering why many people don't know the candidates...they should just look in the mirror for the answer.

Mentor
Zero - you seem to be saying that its the job of the media to campaign for Democratic candidates. Personally, I see it as being the job of the democratic party to campaign for democratic candidates. The candidates are in any case on tv all the time. I guess maybe the media could do more though - free air time for advertisements for democrats for example.

Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero - you seem to be saying that its the job of the media to campaign for Democratic candidates. Personally, I see it as being the job of the democratic party to campaign for democratic candidates. The candidates are in any case on tv all the time. I guess maybe the media could do more though - free air time for advertisements for democrats for example.
Do you always have to reword what I say? I should be calling you a liar, maybe?

Don't you think that the media campaigns for Bush more than enough? Fox News is almost an official administration propaganda mill, after all. More importantly, aren't the top 2-3 camdidates worthy of some news coverage, not for campaigning purposes, but simply because an election is news?

Jonathan
I don't know what is wrong with you Zero! I've seen the Democratic debates several times (live too) and can name the front runners off the top of my head! And I watch Fox News and MSNBC almost exclusivly! If they weren't giving them fair time, how would that be possible? The reason most people don't know the names is because there are a lot and most people are waiting until they get whittled down to a more managable number. I have to admit though that I don't really know how they stand on things, I have only a general idea for them all, and I really don't see many differences between them, but I think this is due to my own lack of interest. Here it goes, though it doesn't exactly prove anything since I could be lying about what I watch and/or if I have a list of names in front of me: John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Dean something, and Al Sharpton. I remmeber them thus: Kerry is the one who's face is sliding off his head, Clark is the one who was with the military and might be a closet repulbican, Dean is the one with white hair who's last name I can't remember, Al Sharpton is that stupid black guy who isn't Jesse Jackson (I remember JJ as being the one who is the stupid, budging-eyed black guy w/ short hair). Man, I crack myself up!

Originally posted by Jonathan
I don't know what is wrong with you Zero! I've seen the Democratic debates several times (live too) and can name the front runners off the top of my head! And I watch Fox News and MSNBC almost exclusivly! If they weren't giving them fair time, how would that be possible? The reason most people don't know the names is because there are a lot and most people are waiting until they get whittled down to a more managable number. I have to admit though that I don't really know how they stand on things, I have only a general idea for them all, and I really don't see many differences between them, but I think this is due to my own lack of interest. Here it goes, though it doesn't exactly prove anything since I could be lying about what I watch and/or if I have a list of names in front of me: John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Dean something, and Al Sharpton. I remmeber them thus: Kerry is the one who's face is sliding off his head, Clark is the one who was with the military and might be a closet repulbican, Dean is the one with white hair who's last name I can't remember, Al Sharpton is that stupid black guy who isn't Jesse Jackson (I remember JJ as being the one who is the stupid, budging-eyed black guy w/ short hair). Man, I crack myself up!
Then Russ is wrong, and people DO know the names of the candidates? Of course YOU know, or you wouldn't be posting on the P&WA board, silly! My point was that every time that the media wastes time talking about Bill or Hillary, they are not taking the time to inform people of teh positions of the candidates. Then again, even when we get down to the Democratic nominee, we will likely have a repeat of 2000, where the media dropped the ball on Bush's lies in order to talk about Gore's suits.

Last edited by a moderator:
Mentor
Originally posted by Zero
Do you always have to reword what I say? I should be calling you a liar, maybe?
If you feel it is justified and you can substantiate it, go ahead. Its not something I take lightly though.

But you DID say that the media actively suppresses information about democratic candidates - which is absolutely absurd. And it is not the job of the media to campaign for democrats. I'm sorry, but being the most powerful man in the world makes Bush news-worthy. The democratic candidates don't have that. And when the tables are turned, it still works the same way - Clinton was pretty news-worthy when he was in office.
Don't you think that the media campaigns for Bush more than enough? ...... More importantly, aren't the top 2-3 camdidates worthy of some news coverage, not for campaigning purposes, but simply because an election is news?
I don't think the media campaigns for Bush at all and I do think the top 2-3 candidates are news-worthy and are being covered in the news. I don't know what news you watch, but I've seen quite a bit of the top 2-3 candidates. Maybe that's the problem - people aren't watching the news enough or reading the paper enough.
My point was that every time that the media wastes time talking about Bill or Hillary, they are not taking the time to inform people of teh positions of the candidates.
1. It isn't the media's job to inform the people of the positions of the candidates - its the candidates' job.

2. Bill and Hillary are high profile democrats by virtue of their previous office. They are news-worthy.
I don't know what is wrong with you Zero! I've seen the Democratic debates several times (live too)
Ditto.

Last edited:
Originally posted by russ_watters
If you feel it is justified and you can substantiate it, go ahead. Its not something I take lightly though.

But you DID say that the media actively suppresses information about democratic candidates - which is absolutely absurd. And it is not the job of the media to campaign for democrats. I'm sorry, but being the most powerful man in the world makes Bush news-worthy. The democratic candidates don't have that. And when the tables are turned, it still works the same way - Clinton was pretty news-worthy when he was in office.
I don't think the media campaigns for Bush at all and I do think the top 2-3 candidates are news-worthy and are being covered in the news. I don't know what news you watch, but I've seen quite a bit of the top 2-3 candidates. Maybe that's the problem - people aren't watching the news enough or reading the paper enough. 1. It isn't the media's job to inform the people of the positions of the candidates - its the candidates' job.

2. Bill and Hillary are high profile democrats by virtue of their previous office. They are news-worthy. Ditto.
Actually, Russ, I think this is just my general malaise with the media poking through again. I don't think we disagree on basic facts, but we interpret them completely differently. just find the entire political coverage of teh mainstream media to be too ratings-oriented, which throws away what I consider to be the primary goal of the press-informing the public.

Jonathan
What happened to my post? Zero, did you delete it?!

Originally posted by Jonathan
What happened to my post? Zero, did you delete it?!
Yep...next time, you can leave off the name calling.

Jonathan
**Edited for being off-topic**

I can do this all day and night, Jonathan...and it pads my post count too!

Jonathan
What does the post count have to do with anything? Also, will others please note for the record the vindictive tone on the previous post? And the bloated egotism that is characteristic of malignant narcissicism? I can change the topic midthread if I want, it is my thread.

Last edited: