Forbidden Donut

I am surprised as well as disgusted.

Cunt.

so if Hillary wins then USA would have the clintons and the bushs from 1989 to 2012? :/

I'm not surprised. people in this state love her for some god awful reason

fucking democrats

Seriously, though. I'm quite honestly worried about the direction she would take the country. After looking over her views and ideas again, I am more convinced than ever that she really is completely bat-shit insane and she'll kill everyone.

I'll gladly take her over huckabee. That being said, everyone going into a fucking shitfit because she won one, of 50(?) state primaries is absolutly hillarious.


THE SKY IS FALLING. If we were all going to die as a result of a president being incompetant and taking the country in the wrong direction I'm guessing it would have happened by now.

Bill

wise words spoken by bill. i in no way would like to see her as commander and cheif, but i would rather see her than huckabee....that man scares me.

Bill, as of two days ago, everyone believed her momentum was crushed and expected her campaign to literally fold with a loss tomorrow. I don't think she necessarily is going to win the nomination, I'm just frustrated and surprised that she still has a shot.

Well first off apologies that my state is so foolish. But next I'd like to say to Bill that people are freaking out because New Hampshire typically sets the pace for the rest of the country.

Court, Jimmy: My response was more or less aimed at this. Again, I'm still a little surprised everyone's so surprised, but this is just fucking alarmist.

Where in that post did I say "OH GOD FUCK NO SHE'S GONNA BE PRESIDENT NOW!"?

Really. Where is it? WHERE THE FUCK IS IT BILL OH GOD FUCK NO THE SKY IS FALLING!

Honestly. Read your post again. Carefully.

Look at it, understand the fact that you're claiming you're upset that she is going to "kill everyone", and realize how alarmist that is. It's essentially the same as claiming that the sky is falling because you felt a drop of rain. She won a primary, in a single state. Assuredly, we're all doomed.

Then take two or three deep breaths, and attempt another response... Possibly one slightly less retarded than the one directly above this post.

Bill

she is the most hawkish democratic nominee so i like her the most (blegh that was hard to say)

There's no crying in baseball...

What makes her think that she is capable of running an entire country, what happens when she's under the gun and your well-being is at stake ?

Crying in an emotional situation doesn't make someone incapable of making decisions in a stressful situation.

However being over emotional in a stressful situation may affect the ability to be rational.

Are you refering to a specific incident? Or...?

I think Kiwi's trying to say the chemical imbalance that occurs when one feels overwhelmed leads one to misjudge the severity of situations thus making irrational, bad decisions.

Court, crying doesn't make someone incapable of making decisions in a stressful situation? Are you serious? Crying may not make you fully useless, but it in no way helps a situation. Women suffer most from hysteria and all manipulations of said disease. Now it sounds sexist, but science says you’re weak and soft. What can I do?

I want someone to run America like a business -- passionate, unattached and thoroughly unrattled. I don't want some emotional hypocrite who's too worried about what others' think and not worried enough about fulfilling what the founding fathers had in mind for his / her (hopefully not her) position.

Who else is/was a successful businessman besides Romney?

In a what-if situation. Context, Bill. Jesus fuck. My post is only fatalistic because you've interpreted as such all by yourself. In an exaggerated point I say that I'm worried she will doom this country in the event that she is elected, which is a possibility one cannot whimsically disregard.

Talking to you is like talking to a wall that happens to have a penis. Maybe.

The word I used was 'alarmist' not 'fatalistic'. They mean two entirely different things. Alarmist suggesting that you are trumpeting essentially overly dramatic propaganda with very little base, at the first sign of her even possibly being a contender. I didn't think I would have to explain it to you, but apparently I did.

Basically... I'm not going to waste any further time talking to you after this post because you seem to have little ability to be rational, or engage in a discussion without either:
A: Being alarmist,
B: Indulging in personal attacks (Read: Questioning whether I have a dick...),
C: Being poorly spoken in general.

Either way, I invite you to reply to this post, I'm sure it will be amusing. That being said... I'm just going to ignore you from here on out. Have a nice day!


Bill

I can probably think of one hundred reasons I don't want Hillary in office. Strangely enough, her having a vagina is not on that list. Have we really failed to progress far enough that people can accept the simple fact of equality between sexes? You're using the same logic people used to try and keep women from getting the right to vote.

You missed the point entirely. If someone has a tendency to break down in stressful situations, that's one thing. No one would want a president that falls to pieces whenever too much work gets thrown their way or something really stressful happens like an attack on US soil. However, her situation in that coffee shop was entirely different. For one, she barely cried. She held back a few tears; I hardly see how that would affect judgment. Also, it wasn't anything related to stress that got her going. She was emotional in an emotional situation. Other candidates in this election have been seen holding back tears in emotional situations as well. Other presidents in the past have been seen holding back tears in emotional situations.

People say that she is unfit to be in the White House because they're afraid she will break down in important stressful situations, but there simply is no justification for that other than the fact that you don't like her and convince yourself that anything she does out of the ordinary is reason enough to assume she's unfit. That's foolish.

I was responding to everyone's response to Jason's -- I think Hillary is an evil witch who would never cry.

This just paints a bullseye on her back--- she's the perceived frontrunner, so the other candidates are gonna turn up the heat on her.

"I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business." -Edwards

I may not be a fan of this gentlemen, however that's an extremely good point. You're absolutely right other presidents have had choking points in emotional situations, but i'm almost positive that none of them have to do with how hard the grueling campaign is. I review the video time and time again throughout the day, and I see your point is very clear, I was shocked when i first saw this, very very shocked. It's wearing off but i still don't think that is appropriate. It's unprofessional, I want the leader of this country to be just that , A leader in the eye of all of the american public, not a dumbass, or a liar, someone who is known to do his job well and protect the constitution set down by our founding fathers along with all of the other duties they must commit to resolving. How much harder will the campaign get??? How much more will she have to endure??? How much will she have to endure her entire presidential time period if elected??? How Much Can She Endure? That's the question, I agree with mungo "I want someone to run America like a business -- passionate, unattached and thoroughly unrattled."


P.S. The fact that she is a woman means absolutely nothing if Edwards were to have broken down like this emotionally this post would have been about him, but he hasn't.

*snore*


when you guys get a chance, you should look up a system that's commonly known as "checks and balances"

government ftw.


no president has the power to ruin the country. that's the job of congress anyways.

What do you do when the president starts stealing power from congress? Presidents can declare war now. Bush has declared war. I thought that was a congressional thing. It's written in the constitution that only congress can declare war. Congress declaring war would show that the war favors the people and not the interests of one man.

Now, we are digging our own hole by living above our means. If the economy falls, it's going to fall hard. The fault will be mostly on the money spent on the war. The president has the power to destroy this country.

I find your own ignorance on the issue incredibly amusing, in a terribly frustrating kind of way.


Would you really be so ignorant as to rule out the possibility of her being elected?

Alarmism - a person who tends to raise alarms, esp. without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.

Fatalism - the acceptance of all things and events as inevitable; submission to fate.

My self-admitted exaggerated and over-blown "serious" post is a combination of the two. Exaggerations are meant to catch one's attention and then be assumed down to a reasonable level automatically to be taken seriously. My post did exactly that; hyperbole as a literary technique. The fatalism was that if she is elected, I think bad things will come from her presidency and be largely unavoidable. It is NOT a fatalistic assumption that Hillary WILL be president and we WILL be completely fucked over.

What disappoints me about your retorts is the failing to accept the possibility of such an outcome. You ignore that I never said this is what WILL happen; the focus of my argument is the acceptance of such a worst-case scenario based on inferences I have of her political and social ideology.

You seem to have this maddening inborn concept that ignoring one's comments and arguments is tantamount to overcoming them. Unfortunately, dismissal is an unfailingly bad way to win anything at all.

I didn't think I would have to explain it to you. No one else needed it. Just you. You offend my senses.

Ok, I'll bite... So you're admitting that you were being alarmist. Also that you're treating a "possible" situation, note I never suggested Hillary winning the election as not being possible, in a way that you would consider fatalistic. You then procede to define fatalism as "the acceptance of all things and events as inevitable". So, you're saying that you are accepting Hillary winning, and then killing everyone, as inevitable.

I'm not even going to go into your definationg of alarmism beginning with "a person."

You're also wrong in assuming that I believe I've bested you by ignoring you. Whether I've bested you or not is a matter of opinion, however, the fact that you seem to be unable to make any argument at all without allowing it to at some point devolve into a personal attack as a last word suggests that you are indeed in some way trying to make up for a lack of substance in your posts. Either way, you telling me I offend your senses, given what I've seen of your ability to have a rational discussion in any way in which you are knowingly being an alarmist and are called on it, I will take as a bit of a compliment. I may even consider it a badge of honor to some extent, to be honest.

As far as me being the only one who needed explanation. I did not need it to be explained, nor did anyone else, I am simply the only one who seems to feel like wasting time trying to say "Hey, maybe being an alarmist isn't necessary." After that, I got drawn into a pointless argument with you because you seem to have taken my making note of that as some sort of personal affront. Asside from that, I'm enjoying your disjointed verbal flailing a great deal. Please continue.

It takes a bigger man to pull out /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":blink:" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />

You both look like idiots for arguing about syntax.

I also enjoy the competition of who can use the biggest words and most elaborate sentences in their retort.

Just dumb.

Shut up snow mexican.

Edit: And technically, it's arguing about who can use the biggest words correctly, though I never really thought that a word like "fatalistic" or "alarmist" would be considered very large.

I will make an attempt to reconcile and find common ground because at this point both of us have lost sight of the original point of this argument. The both of us can probably agree, Bill, that Hillary, in any event, is a less-than-ideal candidate. What I get disappointed in these cases of argumentation is the blatant disregard for my intellectual capabilities based on my listed age. Yes I'm 17 and I'm still in high school, but I have never thought of age as a barrier for anything.

Tangentially, it's as if many people believe this asinine notion of a sudden revelation coming upon oneself. Knowledge and wisdom aren't imparted by the happenstance of associating one's name with a high number. Furthermore, being old doesn't necessarily imply experience or wisdom, because common sense tells us that one can go through much of life while being completely oblivious as to the nature of reality or existence from which wisdom would be derived.

Anyway, because I see this entire thread becoming little more than a trolling war between the both of us with no particularly favorable end in sight due to our combined failings as reasonable people, I offer a truce that we both shut the fuck up, to be blunt.

lol

That's better!

There's only one way to solve this: drink-off.

We need a fight to death. My money on Bill.

Or we could not. Maybe. Depends on the nature of the fight. Any rules?

I'm surprised. In the debate I watched she was losing miserably to Edwards and Obama. I didn't think many people were impressed with her policies. I didn't think that many people were impressed with her as a person. Granted I know nothing about what she has already done in Washington, I wouldn't think that could lead to her winning New Hampshire, which as jimmah said, is important. Either what I assumed I knew is wrong, or Hampshire was something of a fluke.

To me this election is much more immediate than what the others have been. With the huge surge of the power of the internet over the last few years, more and more people are getting information online, and I would think that the internet would play a much larger role in peoples deciding who they are going to support. I don't think she has much positive sway with the online community.

A reasonable observation. I haven't seen much that grants direct support to any candidate except Ron Paul, really. For the most part, it branches between supporters of Ron Paul, and the nay-saying ilk.

That works...




That works too.

In a fight to the death I'd actually have to put my money on Balloon. I don't think Bill could catch him. He would probably have a heart attack and die in the process.

<3

That's an interesting outcome I didn't think of.

I think the only way we can know for sure is if we do this. Let's go.

typically when people fight there is no need for one to catch the other, as they have both agreed to fight. so this idea that bill will be doing any chasing does not seem to hold up.

and seriously, what if Bill doesn't chase? It's not like he loses by letting BB get away. On the other hand, if BB wants to win, he needs to attack sometime.

Don't bring your fists to a tazer fight?

anyway.

they're recounting in NH aren't they? either way, obama and clinton actually tied in NH, each receiving 9 delegates votes or whatever they're called. hillary only won the popular vote, and only by 2% or something like that. so w/e.

I dunno. Technically I think it's possible for representatives to vote without necessarily paying heed to the popular vote; it's just that they usually follow it. I know that's the case in the general election (or it has been in the past), but I don't know about the primaries.