Hillary for President thread.

MonsterMark said:
See, for a liberal it always comes down to greed. What can they get for themselves. How much higher up the ant pile can they climb. There it is folks. Plain to see. Clinton gave you everything and big bad Bush took it away. You poor libbies.

You've got that majorly twisted, pal. I didn't expect anything in the '90s, Clinton didn't GIVE me SQUAT. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton was an enabler, BuSh is a dis-abler.

If BuSh is supposed to be so good for this country's health, why is it still so down? Its been 3-1/2 yrs since 9/11, I'm still waiting for a rebound.
 
Wasn't GWB supposed to be the Great Uniter? Wasn't he supposed to be the Education President. No Child Left Behind, how's that working out?

"Worst President Ever"
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Dude, you are talking out your a s s.



What do you call GWB's attempts at raping the SSI system? Personal bankruptcies peaked during GWB's watch, not Clinton's.

I don't know about everyone else, but the ONLY time I ever had to take out a 2nd mortage was under Reagan & Bush Sr. During the 8 yrs Clinton was in the White House, I have gained a significant amout of REAL OWNERSHIP (house, cars, etc.) while since GWB took office that growth in my ownership has stagnated. I even went through a divorce in the '90s which set me back a chunk in terms of "ownership" and I still came out WAY ahead by 2000. And before you start harping about my gains being a result of the "dot-com" boom, NONE of my personal gains can be atributed to that.

The only buisness dealing GWB succeeded at was the Texas Rangers stadium. He was (an is) an utter and complete failure at everything else.


Well if you havent heard SS is in big trouble and is doomed. Birth rates are down and fewer workers will be contributing to the SS funds. I use workers because there are a lot of able bodied dead beats out there making a living off the working class. Everyone up to this preseident has been asleep at the helm of the SS issue and now there is a solution that gives folks a stake in it, it is called ownership, and the able bodied dead beats are scared.

The gig is up.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You've got that majorly twisted, pal. I didn't expect anything in the '90s, Clinton didn't GIVE me SQUAT. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton was an enabler, BuSh is a dis-abler.

If BuSh is supposed to be so good for this country's health, why is it still so down? Its been 3-1/2 yrs since 9/11, I'm still waiting for a rebound.

great so he enabled folks to more welfare, thanks.
 
barry2952 said:
Wasn't GWB supposed to be the Great Uniter? Wasn't he supposed to be the Education President. No Child Left Behind, how's that working out?

"Worst President Ever"


Yeah how did everyone else do? The fact is is that he is holding folks accountable. Further, education starts at home unless you are a liberal then you have to wait for some bloated government institution to educate, raise and medicate you and your child.

Face it liberals are anti-personal responsibilty. It is the party of why don't you let uncle sam take care of that for you. It is horrible and anti-american.
 
barry2952 said:
Wasn't GWB supposed to be the Great Uniter? Wasn't he supposed to be the Education President. No Child Left Behind, how's that working out?
Pretty damn good actually. Now if only we can get rid of the teachers unions and start privatizing the broken public education system in this country, things would be going great.

As you read this, I can see how these steps are bad for parents wanting a better future for their kids and thus why the left opposes it. "Keep 'em dumb and needy" is definitely the Democratic Party mantra.

http://www.collegeboard.com/parents/article/0,3708,703-704-0-28284,00.html

No Child Left Behind

What It Means for Parents
null_1x1.gif

Many parents have probably heard of the No Child Left Behind Act. This law grabbed headlines when Congress passed it in 2002 because it requires major changes in public education. Yet despite all this publicity, parents may still have questions. What exactly does the law do? How will it affect my child and my child's school? How will I notice the changes?

Basically, the law sets new standards for students, teachers, and schools and boosts funding to help meet the new requirements. The most obvious change for parents is that your child will now be given standardized tests nearly every year. The previous law required far less frequent testing. The law also gives parents more information and, in some cases, more choice about which school your child attends. Here's a summary of what to expect.

New Standards

For Students

Beginning in 2005, students in grades three through eight must be tested every year in math and English to ensure they're meeting state standards. Students in grades ten through twelve will be tested at least once. By 2007, states will begin testing students in science as well.

For Teachers



Your child's teachers must be "highly qualified" in the subjects they teach.

By the end of the 2005-2006 school year, your child's teachers must be "highly qualified" in the subjects they teach. States will determine what skills teachers must have to be considered "highly qualified," but the requirements could include a degree in the subject they teach or extra training.


For Schools

Each year, schools must increase the number of students who achieve state standards. At the end of 12 years, all students should be able to pass the tests. Schools that fail to achieve this progress will be targeted for improvements that could include increased funding or staff and curriculum changes.

More Information for Parents

About Students

Yearly tests will let parents know on a more frequent basis whether your child is meeting state standards. The new law also requires school districts to provide parents with an annual "report card" that shows how well students in each school performed. The information is broken out by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, and other categories so you can tell how well each school is doing in educating minority students or those with disabilities.

About Teachers

States must provide annual report cards about teacher qualifications, including the percentage of classrooms in the state not taught by highly qualified teachers. Principals must also maintain information about whether or not a school's teachers meet the requirements. Parents can request this information from the school or the district office. Parents at schools that receive poverty funding may request specific information about the credentials of their child's classroom teachers.

About Schools

The law requires school districts to notify parents if your child's school has been identified as needing improvement because it failed to increase the number of students meeting state standards.

More Choice for Low-Income Parents

About half of all public schools receive poverty funding to help students from low-income families. If such a school is targeted for improvement and fails after two years, parents can choose to transfer their child to another school or enroll in free tutoring. Parents have this choice for as long as the school fails to adequately perform.

Low-income parents may also transfer their child if their school has been identified as "persistently dangerous." Schools may be considered dangerous if programs have failed to prevent violence or the illegal use of drugs or alcohol. Parents also are eligible for a transfer if their child has been a victim of a violent crime at school.

Requirements for Parent Involvement



You can work with the school to design the best education program for your child.

The new education law requires schools to create opportunities for parents to get involved. Low-income schools must have written policies on how they will involve parents, and they must seek input from you on how to improve poor-performing schools.


The law also gives school officials flexibility. This means you can work with school boards, principals, and others to help design the best education program for your child.
 
Oppressed and ignorant and if you make a mistake we have a program that will almost help solve the problem and it defintely will not teach you a lesson.
 
eL eS said:
great so he enabled folks to more welfare, thanks.

" 'Tis better to keep one's mouth shut and be assumed an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt."

Dude, Clinton actually reversed the tides and got people OFF of the welfare rolls. Where you been?

*owned*

Welfare.jpg
 
Dude, where have you been. It was the Republican controlled Congress that started to ween people off of welfare by telling them they actually had to work for some of the 'free' money. But I give Clinton credit for signing the legislation. If it had been a bi-partisan bill, fine, but the Democrats fought this one tooth and nail all the way.

See, Clinton was good for something. He signed Republican legislation.
icon10.gif


Johnny, you my friend need to read back in history a little to see where the legislation for Welfare Reform came from. Don't worry. The Republican party is the big tent party and there is room for all sorts of malcontents.
icon12.gif
We'll welcome any and all with open arms.
 
MonsterMark said:
Dude, where have you been. It was the Republican controlled Congress that started to ween people off of welfare by telling them they actually had to work for some of the 'free' money. But I give Clinton credit for signing the legislation. If it had been a bi-partisan bill, fine, but the Democrats fought this one tooth and nail all the way.

See, Clinton was good for something. He signed Republican legislation.
icon10.gif


Johnny, you my friend need to read back in history a little to see where the legislation for Welfare Reform came from. Don't worry. The Republican party is the big tent party and there is room for all sorts of malcontents.
icon12.gif
We'll welcome any and all with open arms.

Thanks for taking my lite work for me while I was out. :Beer

Liberals are always too happy to ride the coat tails of republican legislation if it gets good press.
 
MonsterMark said:
Dude, where have you been. It was the Republican controlled Congress that started to ween people off of welfare by telling them they actually had to work for some of the 'free' money. But I give Clinton credit for signing the legislation. If it had been a bi-partisan bill, fine, but the Democrats fought this one tooth and nail all the way.

I know that. I was just pointing out that eL eS's statement "great so he enabled folks to more welfare" was NOT true. And the repuklicans couldn't have done it without Clintons's signature.

Conservatives are always too happy to ride the coat tails of democratic actions if it gets good press, and are too eager to place the blame if not (ex: "The democratic Congress gave GWB permission to wage war in Iraq, waaa waaa waaa."). 'Yall make me sick w/ your double standards.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
I know that. I was just pointing out that eL eS's statement "great so he enabled folks to more welfare" was NOT true. And the repuklicans couldn't have done it without Clintons's signature.

Conservatives are always too happy to ride the coat tails of democratic actions if it gets good press, and are too eager to place the blame if not (ex: "The democratic Congress gave GWB permission to wage war in Iraq, waaa waaa waaa."). 'Yall make me sick w/ your double standards.


Well at least you know who truly waged the war then. So lay off of Bush; after all he could not have done it without the democratic congress. :)
 
eL eS said:
Well at least you know who truly waged the war then. So lay off of Bush; after all he could not have done it without the democratic congress. :)

If the democratic congress knew the ACTUAL TRUTH about WMDs instead of the smoke blown up their asses by the BuSh administration, I'm confident things would've turned out differently.

:F
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
If the democratic congress knew the ACTUAL TRUTH about WMDs instead of the smoke blown up their asses by the BuSh administration, I'm confident things would've turned out differently.

:F


Listen don't give us the same ol' hood winked crap. The Senate and Conrgress have their Intel Commitee so do not give me that BS. Hey how about the intel that other non coalition countries had that pointed to the fact; they had the same intel and were too limp to act.

Your savior slick willie even bombed the place, the UN admited they had them and failed to stop him. Just admit you are on an ineffective team it is the first step to rehabilitation.
 
eL eS said:
Your savior slick willie even bombed the place, the UN admited they had them and failed to stop him. Just admit you are on an ineffective team it is the first step to rehabilitation.
Noah, quit making sense.How do you expect them to respond.
 
I WANT her to be the nominee sooo bad. Fundraising will attain new stratospheric levels. With the money raised against her, we could probably pay off the national debt.
icon10.gif
 
Ok. I know most of the left is lining up to cast their fateful ballot for ol' Hil but I am sure you are all concerned voters and want to make sure you field the 'best' candidate. Ie: the most electable. I think you should take the time to read a book before you cut your heads off like you did with the traitor Kerry.

A new book by Edward Klein called 'The Truth About Hillary' is out and is a must read for all lefties.

This has been a public-service announcement brought to by the radical right-wingers of the LVC. Why? So we can say:'See We Told You So' in 3 years. You have been warned about Hil. If you decide to put her up for scrutiny, expect me and my millions of cohorts on the right to reveal the truth about Bill's better half.
icon11.gif
 
Must reading

Like I said, blockbuster book...

Just one day after its official release, Edward Klein’s new "The Truth About Hillary" has soared to the No.2 spot on Amazon.com’s list of best sellers. More: the Washington Times editorial page editor says the book is "required reading" for both conservatives and liberals.

Get informed before it is too late.
 
barry you will love this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so Hillary F$#K able or not ????
 
The left coast has a new show coming out on ABC called, of all things, Commander-In-Chief, and features Gina Davis (as Hillary obviously). I guess Hollywood feels fiction precedes real life and if they show what a woman supposedly would be able to do as the Chief, well then we'll all warm to the idea of Hillary in '08. I just love liberals. They are so clever.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top