The Red and Black

Originally posted by

Greg

I love how all we have been hearing about over the last couple of weeks is the democrat/liberal president candidates. So no one has written about the republican side, or is the Red and Black just like every other newspaper out there, Liberal bias?

Originally posted by

Greg

I love how all we have been hearing about over the last couple of weeks is the democrat/liberal president candidates. So no one has written about the republican side, or is the Red and Black just like every other newspaper out there, Liberal bias?

Originally posted by

hey

These columns are dreadful. The first one is illogical, the second a-logical. Let's go through the first...

"Sen. Hillary Clinton has written bipartisan legislature to prevent child pregnancy, made adoption easier and aided numerous countries in improving women's rights. She sits in the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she has written legislation to track the health status of our troops so conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed."

How does this bipartisan legislation prevent child pregnancy? Did she make it illegal to have child pregnancies?
Made adoption easier, so what? How does that have any bearing on her qualifications for presidency?
Improved women's rights in other countries. Why is she doing this? She's a senator from New York. As a US government official, it is not her responsibility to tend to other countries' human rights. I doubt she even did anything like the writer claims, but even so, it's no reason to vote for her.

"She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves and has been a strong critic of the Administration's handling of Iraq."

Qualify that: SOMETIMES she has been a strong critic of Iraq. She has never said that her voting for the war was a mistake. She has either voted yes or failed to vote on subsequent funding bills, but never had the courage to vote no. And she was not able to pledge in a debate that she would be out of Iraq by the end of her first terms. Four more years there, for a total of TEN YEARS IN IRAQ! How did this even happen?

"Record is key to understanding a candidate's integrity and work ethic, and Clinton has been an agent of change during her whole career."

Doubtful.

"Currently, there are more than 47 million Americans without health care and more than 100,000 troops serving in Iraq. Clinton has the solutions and experience to solve these problems."

Check out this column: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?ex=1351828800&en=7ebf86b6773f35bd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.
It doesn't directly address whether or not we should have universal healthcare, but every time I see that 47 million statistic, I cringe a little.

"Clinton has a plan to provide health care to all Americans, and this plan is not governmentally-owned. Her plan will provide government subsidies to people who cannot afford health care while not damaging the quality of health care for people who can pay for it."

So the doctors and hospitals are still in private practice. They get paid by the government, the government tells people where to go, the government tells the doctors what they can and cannot do to the last detail. But we still have choice, because it's called the American Health Choices Plan. Still privately owned, I see.

"In Iraq, she will start withdrawing our friends, brothers and sisters. However, she knows we must continue to reconstruct Iraq and stabilize it during this time."

see above.

She will provide jobs for millions of Americans in "green collar jobs," which will help combat global warming, make us independent from foreign oil and create more diversity in energy. She also will provide tax breaks to the low and middle classes.

I have never heard her say she would give tax breaks to the low and middle classes. Never, and I follow the news very closely. If you've got a citation, I'd like to see it; otherwise, watch what you say. All she has said is that she'd like to raise taxes on the rich.
Of course, it's a myth that these "green collar jobs" would actually be new. These jobs would be paid by tax dollars, coming from companies and citizens, which would then have to cut back. Layoffs would result from that. Then, all these new people's jobs would basically be enforcing regulations on businesses, which is to say restricting them more, which is to say cutting their profits again. So you claim that these new green collar workers, whose job is to limit what legitimate companies can do, and who are paid for by tax dollars stolen out of the real economy, equal a net job creation? I think not.

"My brother was just accepted into the Navy, and I don't want to see him hurt overseas, especially when we all have the opportunity to vote for someone who could ensure his safety. On Feb. 5, please vote for a person who has the record, knowledge and experience to manage our problems: Hillary Clinton."

I hope your brother is alright, but realize there's no more reason to believe Hillary will ensure his safety than Barack, or even Mitt Romney or John McCain.

The second one just doesn't even merit my time.

Originally posted by

hey

These columns are dreadful. The first one is illogical, the second a-logical. Let's go through the first...

"Sen. Hillary Clinton has written bipartisan legislature to prevent child pregnancy, made adoption easier and aided numerous countries in improving women's rights. She sits in the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she has written legislation to track the health status of our troops so conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed."

How does this bipartisan legislation prevent child pregnancy? Did she make it illegal to have child pregnancies?
Made adoption easier, so what? How does that have any bearing on her qualifications for presidency?
Improved women's rights in other countries. Why is she doing this? She's a senator from New York. As a US government official, it is not her responsibility to tend to other countries' human rights. I doubt she even did anything like the writer claims, but even so, it's no reason to vote for her.

"She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves and has been a strong critic of the Administration's handling of Iraq."

Qualify that: SOMETIMES she has been a strong critic of Iraq. She has never said that her voting for the war was a mistake. She has either voted yes or failed to vote on subsequent funding bills, but never had the courage to vote no. And she was not able to pledge in a debate that she would be out of Iraq by the end of her first terms. Four more years there, for a total of TEN YEARS IN IRAQ! How did this even happen?

"Record is key to understanding a candidate's integrity and work ethic, and Clinton has been an agent of change during her whole career."

Doubtful.

"Currently, there are more than 47 million Americans without health care and more than 100,000 troops serving in Iraq. Clinton has the solutions and experience to solve these problems."

Check out this column: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?ex=1351828800&en=7ebf86b6773f35bd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.
It doesn't directly address whether or not we should have universal healthcare, but every time I see that 47 million statistic, I cringe a little.

"Clinton has a plan to provide health care to all Americans, and this plan is not governmentally-owned. Her plan will provide government subsidies to people who cannot afford health care while not damaging the quality of health care for people who can pay for it."

So the doctors and hospitals are still in private practice. They get paid by the government, the government tells people where to go, the government tells the doctors what they can and cannot do to the last detail. But we still have choice, because it's called the American Health Choices Plan. Still privately owned, I see.

"In Iraq, she will start withdrawing our friends, brothers and sisters. However, she knows we must continue to reconstruct Iraq and stabilize it during this time."

see above.

She will provide jobs for millions of Americans in "green collar jobs," which will help combat global warming, make us independent from foreign oil and create more diversity in energy. She also will provide tax breaks to the low and middle classes.

I have never heard her say she would give tax breaks to the low and middle classes. Never, and I follow the news very closely. If you've got a citation, I'd like to see it; otherwise, watch what you say. All she has said is that she'd like to raise taxes on the rich.
Of course, it's a myth that these "green collar jobs" would actually be new. These jobs would be paid by tax dollars, coming from companies and citizens, which would then have to cut back. Layoffs would result from that. Then, all these new people's jobs would basically be enforcing regulations on businesses, which is to say restricting them more, which is to say cutting their profits again. So you claim that these new green collar workers, whose job is to limit what legitimate companies can do, and who are paid for by tax dollars stolen out of the real economy, equal a net job creation? I think not.

"My brother was just accepted into the Navy, and I don't want to see him hurt overseas, especially when we all have the opportunity to vote for someone who could ensure his safety. On Feb. 5, please vote for a person who has the record, knowledge and experience to manage our problems: Hillary Clinton."

I hope your brother is alright, but realize there's no more reason to believe Hillary will ensure his safety than Barack, or even Mitt Romney or John McCain.

The second one just doesn't even merit my time.

Originally posted by

James

Question: If a white man, junior senator, no position of leadership in a national committee, but who can speak well were running for president, would we even be paying him any attention? The reality of it is we need leadership who can inspire people because they actually ACCOMPLISH something - they do something. Clinton has reached across party lines numerous times, and has almost been successful at getting Universal healtchare. Washington is vicious, and you have to know how to maneuver the system!

In short - Clinton is by far the best democratic candidate.

PS - she wouldn't HAVE to raise taxes - I love a republican who blames everything that we need in society on raising taxes when we are so far in debt because of this da** war we can't even see straight.

Originally posted by

James

Question: If a white man, junior senator, no position of leadership in a national committee, but who can speak well were running for president, would we even be paying him any attention? The reality of it is we need leadership who can inspire people because they actually ACCOMPLISH something - they do something. Clinton has reached across party lines numerous times, and has almost been successful at getting Universal healtchare. Washington is vicious, and you have to know how to maneuver the system!

In short - Clinton is by far the best democratic candidate.

PS - she wouldn't HAVE to raise taxes - I love a republican who blames everything that we need in society on raising taxes when we are so far in debt because of this da** war we can't even see straight.

Originally posted by

James

Question: If a white man, junior senator, no position of leadership in a national committee, but who can speak well were running for president, would we even be paying him any attention? The reality of it is we need leadership who can inspire people because they actually ACCOMPLISH something - they do something. Clinton has reached across party lines numerous times, and has almost been successful at getting Universal healtchare. Washington is vicious, and you have to know how to maneuver the system!

In short - Clinton is by far the best democratic candidate.

PS - she wouldn't HAVE to raise taxes - I love a republican who blames everything that we need in society on raising taxes when we are so far in debt because of this da** war we can't even see straight.

Originally posted by

James

Question: If a white man, junior senator, no position of leadership in a national committee, but who can speak well were running for president, would we even be paying him any attention? The reality of it is we need leadership who can inspire people because they actually ACCOMPLISH something - they do something. Clinton has reached across party lines numerous times, and has almost been successful at getting Universal healtchare. Washington is vicious, and you have to know how to maneuver the system!

In short - Clinton is by far the best democratic candidate.

PS - she wouldn't HAVE to raise taxes - I love a republican who blames everything that we need in society on raising taxes when we are so far in debt because of this da** war we can't even see straight.

Originally posted by

zaid

Both candidates are being financed by enormous corporate interests and wall street insiders and war criminals. That's about it.

Originally posted by

DAVMON

Obama will unite the country as The UNITED STATE OF AMERICA for us all, meaning for Rich and Poor, Men and Woman, Old and Young, Red State and Blue State, so we can all be one again and again.