RE: Commander in Chief

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Commander in Chief

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Commander in Chief

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/7/2005 4:52:26 PM

sub4hire

Posts: 6775
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Oh yeah. You missed the point all right.

Then what was the point? Someone said go to a deserted island...and your response was if ONLY you had the means.

No means required, just do it.

(in reply to RavenofPK)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/7/2005 4:53:05 PM

Guest

General warning to everyone (again) not specific.
Keep the personal attacks OFF BOARD.Personal opinions are always welcome.But if people start throwing insults around (again) another thread will be locked.

(in reply to RavenofPK)

Post #: 42

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/8/2005 3:11:00 PM

MasterBenedict

Posts: 309
Status: offline

Oh, krys, I could NOT agree with you ANY more!!

_____________________________

If you can LAUGH at it you can live WITH it!

(in reply to FLButtSlut)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/9/2005 3:01:17 AM

target

Posts: 46
Status: offline

Your right of course Mod Ten but this plane would fly smoother with one last passenger. And if you'll look to your right ( way way right) we're flying over a small deserted island...

(in reply to Guest)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/10/2005 10:00:46 PM

OscarHargraves

Posts: 693
Joined: 8/9/2005
Status: offline

I have said for several years that we need another 'Bush' in the White House. I think we should elect Barbara Bush! I'll bet that she would get more done in 30 days than Clinton did in 8 years.

_____________________________

Never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ! !

(in reply to MojoRisin)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/11/2005 12:23:02 AM

JohnWarren

Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OscarHargraves

I have said for several years that we need another 'Bush' in the White House. I think we should elect Barbara Bush! I'll bet that she would get more done in 30 days than Clinton did in 8 years.

You mean the lady who when looking at the mess at the Superdome said something like "These are poor people; they probably are better off now than before the storm"?

Reminds me of Rockafella (sp) who, when running for president, said "let's take the average American worker with a salary of, say, $100,000 a year"

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to OscarHargraves)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/11/2005 6:22:48 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

The only bush I'd like to see in the White House is Barbara Boxer's bush. Or maybe Dianne Feinstein's bush.

Ain't gonna happen though.

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/16/2005 12:01:06 AM

MasterBenedict

Posts: 309
Status: offline

Personally,
my view is restricted to our present CIC
I think that he essentially usurped the oval office & has done a great job of screwing the lives of the rest of us way up!
(as a DISabled US Army veteran (ms) I think that he was the WORST thing to EVER happen to us!

_____________________________

If you can LAUGH at it you can live WITH it!

(in reply to MojoRisin)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/16/2005 1:37:18 AM

frenchpet

Posts: 587
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline

Just read an article about this in the Guardian. Dick Morris, who worked for Bill Clinton, wrote : Condi v. Hillary : The next great presidential race. Now what would you think about such a choice ?
Anyway, friends and enemies of Hillary Clinton agree about one thing : She has friends at ABC.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/16/2005 4:10:49 PM

ShadeDiva

Posts: 1005
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Sacramento, California
Status: offline

Maybe we should ALL just vote for a party OUTSIDE of the Dems and Reps.

Just everyone in the nation agree on ANY third party - who cares which one it is, and everyone vote for that one and just shake shit up a little. Or hell, not even agree on which third party, just don't vote right or left no matter what.

That WOULD get their attention. They'd start considering choosing their candidates a bit more carefully after something like that. Right now they can stick WHOEVER they want up there and they don't spend a second REALLY considering on who the PEOPLE want or who speaks for us. They just stick whoever they want and that's that and we are left with some sad ass choices. Kerry and Bush were the best examples to date of two evils to choose from than any other election previously. NEITHER was a good choice. The porn star that ran or Gary Coleman would have been better than either of them, for pete's sake. lol. The porn star certainly wouldn't be pushing the war on porn - that's for sure, LOL!

_____________________________

~ShadeDiva
My projects of love:
theFetishForums
HumanFauna
Kinked
DommeWorld

(in reply to frenchpet)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/16/2005 4:16:22 PM

frenchpet

Posts: 587
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline

I get your point but Nader comes to mind... Since it happened before, I'd just say that I think that those who vote for neocons for christian extremists (half of the voters) wouldn't vote for any outside guy (or woman), so it certainly gets the attention but then you get neocons anyway:/.

< Message edited by frenchpet -- 10/16/2005 4:22:32 PM >

(in reply to ShadeDiva)

Profile

Post #: 51

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/17/2005 12:34:34 AM

gypsysoul

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/4/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MojoRisin

Just curious, does anyone take issue with a woman being President in the new ABC show, "Commander in Chief"? Just curious. I don't, but some people on here I'm sure do.

Not to get off topic here...but rather to get back on topic.

I've watched "Commander In Chief" twice. It's a tv show, and dammit, I wish Geena would move her facial muscles. If her jaw wasn't clenched so tightly, maybe she could enunciate clearly.

If ABC is using this to test the waters for Hillary Clinton's Presidential run in 2008, they should have looked for a better actress, better writers, etc. So far, this show has been hokey, with its blaring patriotic music when "Mac" is forced to ad lib her speeches.

How pleasant that this first woman President and her First Gentleman have not only allowed the dead President's widow to remain in residence at the White House, but the First Gentleman is setting up to get the former First Lady to take over his sorta-duties so that he and President Geena can look after the horrific state of the United States' image abroad.

I think the problem is that ABC is trying to portray a woman President as this die-hard liberal who has no problem taking charge in military matters. In the two episodes I watched, President Geena pretty much started playing Risk with American troops. First, she committed troops to some third world country to rescue a woman about to be executed for adultery. Then she did her "eres como dicen in mi tierra" hablay on some south American dictatorship. In both situations, she risked the lives of American youth to further her agenda. Naturally, no Americans were killed except for those middle-aged DEA agents. I kinda think that most American voters would picture a woman president as LESS, rather than MORE, likely to focus on global injustices rather than domestic issues. And LESS likely to use military force as if there weren't kids' faces attached to the military.

How nice that Geena and her generic First Man can lounge around with their little girl sleeping peacefully because Geena is saving the world from a large cocaine supply. In the meantime, hurricanes happen in the US; healthcare costs are still spiraling; and women, blacks, and Latinos are still getting short shrift in the workplace. Thank you, President Geena, for forcing our collective ideals regarding religion, morality and politics across the globe while neglecting our internal problems.

(in reply to MojoRisin)

Profile

Post #: 52

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/22/2005 6:17:17 AM

Manawyddan

Posts: 701
Joined: 1/2/2005
From: Petaluma (Northern California)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: frenchpet

Just read an article about this in the Guardian. Dick Morris, who worked for Bill Clinton, wrote : Condi v. Hillary : The next great presidential race. Now what would you think about such a choice ?

It would be just fine with me, especially if they did the v. thing in a big pool of mud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadeDiva

Just everyone in the nation agree on ANY third party - who cares which one it is, and everyone vote for that one and just shake shit up a little. Or hell, not even agree on which third party, just don't vote right or left no matter what.

I've been saying recently that the two-party system is the cause of so much that is wrong with American politics.

I think everyone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal ought to join the Libertarians.

Everyone that is socially liberal and fiscally liberal ought to join the Greens.

That leaves the socially and fiscally conservative to the Republicans, and the fiscally liberal & socially conservative to the Democrats.

That way, people would feel less of a compulsion to ally with those they actually disagree with just so that 'their team' can win. And even if we still got a Republican president, he'd still have to make coaltions rather than railroading through whatever he wanted.

_____________________________

_______________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor"
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
_______________________________________________

(in reply to ShadeDiva)

Profile

Post #: 53

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/22/2005 6:25:38 AM

JohnWarren

Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manawyddan
I think everyone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal ought to join the Libertarians.

Have you really looked at them -- listened to their in-party speeches (where they are talking to their own members)? I fit into your "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" parameters, but I'd be more likely to join the national socialists than this group of loonies. One of the problems of parties is that they are so much more than just a slogan. There are a whole set of values one has to accept or at least be able to hold one's nose and tolerate.

quote:

That leaves the socially and fiscally conservative to the Republicans, and the fiscally liberal & socially conservative to the Democrats.

Fiscal conservative Republicans? A perfect example of what I said before. Do you see any fiscal conservation taking place in Washington now?

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to Manawyddan)

Profile

Post #: 54

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/22/2005 6:29:34 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

As JohnWarren has already said, this is too simplistic. What exactly is the libertarian position on global warming and what to do about it? They ain't got one.

Eventually everyone in the world will be Green. It's just going to take some time, and we may well destroy ourselves first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manawyddan

I think everyone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal ought to join the Libertarians.

Everyone that is socially liberal and fiscally liberal ought to join the Greens.

(in reply to Manawyddan)

Profile

Post #: 55

RE: Commander in Chief - 10/23/2005 4:52:28 AM

frenchpet

Posts: 587
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline

For democrats, the road to the White House is paved with christian words, here and there.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 56