Re: James Carvelle is bitter

On Mar 30, 5:45 pm, jose <josefsop...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 30, 4:45 pm, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepra...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Mar 30, 12:45 pm, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"

<FranzKa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
I am from the right, Winston. How was my simple question unhinged? I
merely wanted to know how you thought Hillary fits these commendable
words. Get serious.

BLP

Hillary has her faults. Many of them. I have catalogued them since
before she announced her 2008 candidacy.

She is considered a cold, aloof person certainly by her critics, on the
basis of no evidence whatsoever. Completely absurd assumptions are made
about her because her husband had such an ego that he had several affairs
in his life; it is a fact of life that no matter who the spouse is, a
person with a huge ego is likely to cheat on the marriage.

But I think she will "sincerely...greet you," "open herself to you,"
"listen to you," and "warmly...take her leave of you." She certainly does
that much. I was told today that both conservatives like George Will and
liberals have said that her ability to deal with the nation's economy is
better than that which either McCain or Obama would do. Obama would
probably have a better foreign policy: with his manner and style, he
could charm heads of state in all countries like birds out of the tree. I
can't think of anything McCain would do right, except run a war if I had a
war I wanted to run. Indeed, since McCain said he'd chase bin Laden to
the gates of Hell, President Hillary could offer him DoD if McCain
promised to run the Afghanistan operation and get out of Iraq.

As for your declaration that you are from the right, I am a bit confused,
since I've never seen you say a kind word about Bush. Are you one of
those "economic" conservatives who believes in balanced budgets and tax
cuts to zero, but could do without the social conservatism ("faith-based
government")? Anyway, you can define yourself, since you now seem to
contradict the definition of you as a result of the content of the history
of your posts.

I am an economic and social conservative. I have always supported a
strong military, used intelligently and sparingly. Bush does not.

How can you call yourself an economic and support Democrats?

When did I say who I would vote for?

I believe in the smallest government possible and the lowest taxes
possible consistent with maintaining a strong national defense and an
educated populace. Bush does not.

I don't believe you. How can you support candidates like
Obama and Clinton who both have proposed trillion dollar
schemes that expand further government penetration of
our medical system and more government intrusion into
our lives?

When did I ever say I was voting for either?

I believe we should be strong enough to take a punch without
hysterical overreaction and cutting back on our freedoms. Bush and his
administration used that punch to try to scare Americans, rather than
letting it toughen them up. I believe he and his administration are
guilty of criminal acts, possibly of treason, and support a full
investigation, trial, and execution if it is warranted.

How very Democrat of you.

What do you mean?

As for my posting history, you will find that I have always been
consistently anti-Bush, pro-military, anti-abortion, anti -welfare
except to protect the well-being of children, pro religion as a
*personal* choice, strongly pro-science and technology and pro
education, including charter schools and monitored home schooling.

Bull ***. How can you say you are anti-welfare and yet support
the party that wasted trillions of dollars on welfare programs that
have only made these problems worse?

When have I claimed to support Democrats?

You are apparently too
young to have lived through LBJ's Great Society.

I was in my late teens at the time.

I believe Hillary is strong enough, smart enough, tough enough and
devious enough to be president. However, I think she is an egotist on
the same order as Bill Clinton. Both she and Bill are brilliant
politicians, Bill more so, but I know of incidents in Denver during
the G8 where huge flaws in her personality showed that she does not
have the grace and finesse to deal well with people consistently. This
is a big problem for our foriegn relations, something we desperately
need to repair.

I think Bill Clinton suffers from pathological narcissism that he
attempts to conceal with charm. Hillary has no charm and is
politically tone dead.

You mean tone deaf, but I agree. Nonetheless, they are both extremely
gifted politicians. I'm not going to lie about their abilities just
because I don't like them. Hitler did good architectural sketches and
watercolors.

She has no vision for America beyond the
tiresome bromides and snake oil sold by Democrats since FDR.

I think she may have some that we don't know about, but I have not
heard much from her that I agree with.

What you probably remember about my posting history is that I
continually tweak Republicans. Remember that Republicans are for the
most part *not* conservatives. The ones I go after and the worst of
the bunch, those who are trying to divide the country for political
gain, painting Democrats as traitors. As far as I am concerned, we are
better off if people like this would just kill themselves, putting
them and others out of their misery.

Name one Republican who has called any Democrat a
traitor.

You must be kidding. Look up Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Sean
Hannity with the keyword "traitor".

BLP
.

Quantcast