Hillary is becoming popular.

Bruxley, as you bask in praise for Bush, remember that far less than half of voters agree with you, and that the Democrats are very likely to win in 2008. When they win, it won't be because they think the Democrats are great, or because a third party candidate "steals" votes from the Republican. It will be because the voters have been thoroughly disgusted with the leadership, or lack thereof, displayed by Bush throughout his presidency.
 
a lying, draft dodging nincompoop
As a former naval aviator myself (2,000+ flight hours), I know Bush didn't take the easy way out by flying F-102s. Whether you like or hate the man, you should give credit where credit is due. Factually, he didn't dodge the draft because he was in the Air National Guard. Factually, his service as a pilot, especially as an F-102 pilot, entailed serious risk.

From http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

ANG members of the period who we've been able to locate indicate that only highly qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. ...

This poor safety record may have been due in part to a deadly flaw in the aircraft's design that caused an engine stall and loss of control under a certain combination of angle of attack and airspeed frequently encountered during takeoff. According to a former F-102 pilot we've interviewed, this problem caused the plane to roll inverted and resulted in several fatal crashes. Numerous accidents were also encountered during landing because of the plane's steep angle of attack and high airspeed that reduced the pilot's visibility and reaction time. These factors have traditionally been two of the primary disadvantages of delta wing aircraft and explain why the pure delta wing design was later abandoned. ... Luckily, F-102 operators overcame these deficiencies thanks to good pilot training and control lockouts that prevented the plane from reaching extreme conditions ....

Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. ... Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours.​
Getting back to the topic, let's see how popular Hillary is after she's faced a few more unscripted Q-and-A sessions.
 
I remember hearing reports that Bush did not show up for National Guard duty. I believe that was about the same time he was supposedly using cocaine. I don't remember the details of the allegations now though. Anyway, cocaine use is more dangerous than flying an F-102, so even if he was using cocaine I guess its just another sign of how brave he was.
 
I remember hearing reports that Bush did not show up for National Guard duty. I believe that was about the same time he was supposedly using cocaine.
So you're saying he got his pilot's wings but never went through flight training? That he then somehow managed to get assigned to an F-102 squadron? That he then never showed up, not even once, for ANG duty?

If you have proof of any of that, please provide it.

As for the cocaine issue, again, if you have proof of any of that, please provide it. Only the intellectually dishonest make unsubstantiated, bald assertions.
 
LOL no I don't have proof of this, and don't know if its true or not... thats why I said they were allegations. There were certainly multiple stories in the media about it though. Certainly this is not the first time you have ever heard of these allegations.

As for the cocaine problem though, when Bush was asked about it, he refused to answer the question. I have never used cocaine, so if someone asked me, I would have just said no. I have to assume that the reason he would not answer is because his answer would have been yes.
 
The media also hyped multiple stories about Jessica Lynch battling it out with Iraqi troops until her M16 ran out of ammo. Other multiple stories (multiple versions of the same NYT story) spoke of her humble beginnings surrounded by cornfields. All of these stories turned out to be false. The fact that there were multiple stories lends no particular credibilty to them, nor do sheer numbers add substantiation.

The only purpose I can think of for repeating unfounded allegations, which by the way have remained unfounded for several years, is mere character assassination. Generally, most people consider character assassination as beneath their dignity. At the very least, there's certainly nothing honorable about repeating allegations that are known to be unfounded.
thats why I said they were allegations.
Actually, no you didn't. Look back at your post.
I remember hearing reports that Bush did not show up for National Guard duty. I believe that was about the same time he was supposedly using cocaine. I don't remember the details of the allegations now though. Anyway, cocaine use is more dangerous than flying an F-102, so even if he was using cocaine I guess its just another sign of how brave he was.
You said you read reports about his NG duty. Allegations and reports are not the same thing. They are two different words for a reason.
 
So you don't think he used cocaine?

And actually, I did use the word allegation... The third sentence of post #63 reads: "I don't remember the details of the allegations now though."
 
True for the cocaine statement, but your phrasing of the NG statement, in my reading of your post, did not link it to the allegations. However, I'm willing to fault my interpretation here.

Regardless, what's the point in posting allegations that have been unfounded for several years? It's like posting allegations of that idiotic "Clinton Death List" that was so popular during Bill Clinton's presidency. Some of those allegations have proved untrue; some have never been proved untrue or true. Posting them without any proof is at best intellectual dishonesty whether you like Clinton or hated him. The same holds true here. Whether it's about Bush or about Mrs. Clinton.
 
I concur. Bush is not running in this election, as much as Hillary wants to run against him, and as much as others want to bash him, he is not a subject here.
 
But still, socialism isn't what America needs. I hope Hillary loses, or should I say, the Dems. The idea of socialism gives me goose bumps. Isn't that what they have in Latin America and South America, and in every other run-down country? Please...
 
If she is elected it will be a reign not a presidency...
I hope that I get to vote for someone I like instead of the lesser of 2 evils
 
In every other country in the Western world she'd be considered a moderate conservative

Yeah, that's a real problem for all of those other countries. :D

This article demonstrates one of Hillary's biggest problems:

On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.



After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.
 
After Hillary put her foot in her mouth in the last debate, concerning drivers licenses for illegal's, she won't make it to the nomination. The wheels to the coronation have come off.:D She's trying to have it both ways, as with everything else she talks about. She wants to satisfy and placate the far left loons in her party, as well as the illegal's, and she wants to try to satisfy the mainstream democrats as well. She can't have it both ways! Its a simple yes or no answer! 72% of New Yorker's oppose this plan, as do the majority of democrats across the country. Keep it up Hillary, you are sinking your own ship! Godspeed.:D She also tried to play the gender card in the debate, "your picking on me because I'm a girl".:rolleyes: Hillary is a real peice of work, utter and complete moron. I'm having a hard time believing that the general population is stupid enough to elect Hillary, but maybe I'm wrong, lots of stupid people out there.

Go Duncan Hunter '08!!:D
 
Malexander- That is crap. they have Hillary as being on the right. Who are they trying to kid?

They're not trying to 'kid' anyone. Hillary's position on the right of the economic axis is a reflection of how far the to the 'right' the 'centre' is in US politics compared to other developed Western democracies.

Although Hillary is right of centre compared to the rest of the Western world, she is still considerably to the left of all the Republican candidates.

I'm going to start a separate thread about this as we're drifting off topic.
 
Hillary's popularity seems in for a bumpy ride ahead. First, there was the planting of a question with Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff during one campaign stop; now, there's apparently an attempted planting of a question with Geoffrey Mitchell at another campaign stop, right after Hillary's campaign claimed it wouldn't happen again.

Ironic that she may have planted the seeds to her political derailment during a campaign stop at a biodiesel plant.
 
Back
Top