Clinton, Utah


link to this page from your site or blog!:

  • Clinton News
    Local news for Clinton, UT continually updated from thousands of sources on the web.

  • Clinton Classifieds
    Local classifieds for Clinton, UT

    • Roy Process Servers
      NORTHSHORE PROCESS SERVICE is a complete legal support service. We offer process serving, skip tracing and document filing/retrieval. These services are provided reliably and efficiently 24/7. Call (847) 373-8972 to arrange service or visit us at http://www.northshoreprocessservice.tumblr.com
    • Expert Laptop Repair
      Friendly Computers provides fast, friendly service for any laptop issues in our shop and on-site at your location. 801-446-4252 We can repair broken hinges, LCD screen problems, hard drive failures, keyboard problems, power issues, dc jack replacements, and more. All of our technicians are e...
    • In-House Data Recovery for Failed Hard Drives
      Is your hard drive “clicking” or running slow? Friendly Computers: 801-446-4252 Have you lost access to precious photographs or important documents on your computer? Friendly Computers provides in-house data recovery of hard drive failures. With our advanced diagnostic and recovery tools, we...
    • Professional Business IT Services
      Friendly Computers provides professional IT services for small to medium-sized businesses in Salt Lake, Davis, Utah & Weber Counties and surrounding areas. We offer free site assessments to determine the condition of each system in an office and evaluate the integrity of networks, wired and wireles...
    • Business Computer Services
      We offer free site assessments to determine the condition of each system in an office as well as the integrity of networks, wired and wireless security, and print and file sharing properties. Business services include: POS Implementation CAT5 Cable Installations Custom-Built Business Systems...

    Source: Freebase – The World's Database
    Freely licensed under CC-BY.

    Questions Possibly Related to Clinton, Utah

    Provided By Y! Answers

    where can i find info on a daycare that was shut down in clinton, utah?
    Question:
    a friend of mine is trying to find out a little about a neighbor of hers and she believes this neighbor had a daycare that got shut down because of a child getting hurt really bad. she is wanting me to see what information i can find on a person by the name of Diane Madison Kellerstrass. any information anyone could give that would help. thanks

    Answer:
    Call up your department of social services in your state their the one who maintain records of all day cares throughout the state.

    is Clinton Stewart Massey a sex offender in Provo Utah?
    Question:
    it would of been 4 years ago in Provo utah did 3 months for the crime.

    Answer:
    He is not listed in the database on the Utah State Sex Offender Registry. Here is the link to help you with more information. http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffenderse archform.asp

    is clinton stewart massey a sex affender in privo utah?

    Answer:
    He is not listed in the database on the Utah State Sex Offender Registry. Here is the link to help you with more information. http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffenderse archform.asp

    How can Hillary Clinton lose 21 states and still be in the race?
    Question:
    Is it because of the Clinton's name? If Obama or any other candidate had lost 21 States wouldn’t news stations be reading their obituary? So, far Obama has won, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, N. Dakota, Utah, Washington State, Nebraska, Maine, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina and the Virgin Islands. Hillary has only won 10 States! AT this moment(to night) Obama has WON more delegates and more of the popular vote. Hillary IS BEHIND in delegates and the popular vote.

    Answer:
    amazing isn't it!!!!

    How can Republicans have the nerve to attack Clinton on terrorism?
    Question:
    when just a few years ago, Republicans were attacking him for doing too much? Seriously cons. Try to answer that question. AN EXAMPLE: REPUBLICANS ON THE CLINTON 1996 ANTI-TERRORISM BILL Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get." Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue." - July 30, 1996 http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. "We have a measure that will give us a strong upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish domestic and international terrorism," Senate Majority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole said Wednesday. But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state." - April 18, 1996 http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html M IX, Why didn't Republicans push Clinton to do more against terrorism when he was in power instead of attacking him for doing too much? Why did they accuse him of "wag the dog" when he tried to kill Osama? You guys have such short term memory. Republicans attacked him then for doing too much and now they sit here and attack him for doing too little.

    Answer:
    Why doesn't Bush press the Saudis to turn over the Cole bombers that the Clinton administration identified?

    Should Clinton say I told you so to the BUSH REGIME ?
    Question:
    7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. "We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference. But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough. One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get." Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists. The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities. Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number." The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. AP Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader. ______________________________... Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent' 9/11 panel hears from Berger, Tenet Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 1:16 AM EDT (0516 GMT) CNN A day of drama at the 9/11 Commission Clarke: 'No sense of urgency' Tenet admits 9/11 intelligence failings WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network. "I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.". ______________________________... Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks. … “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added. The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report: The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30] On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report: [President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260] We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262

    Answer:
    No, he should keep his mouth shut and tell his wife to do the same.

    Why did Republicans water down Clinton's anti-terrorism bills?
    Question:
    For example, his 1996 anti-terrorism bill? A bigger question is why do cons attack Clinton on not doing enough about terrorism when just a few years ago they were attacking him for doing too much? Have people already forgotten about their "wag the dog" accusations? REPUBLICANS ON THE CLINTON 1996 ANTI-TERRORISM BILL Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get." Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue." - July 30, 1996 http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. "We have a measure that will give us a strong upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish domestic and international terrorism," Senate Majority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole said Wednesday. But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state." - April 18, 1996 http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

    Answer:
    Because they're Rebulicans. It didn't serve their interests at the time. Now it does.

    Do Republicans have a right to criticize Clinton on terrorism when they were the ones holding him back?
    Question:
    REPUBLICANS ON THE CLINTON 1996 ANTI-TERRORISM BILL Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get." Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue." - July 30, 1996 http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill. "We have a measure that will give us a strong upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish domestic and international terrorism," Senate Majority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole said Wednesday. But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state." - April 18, 1996 http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html A ctually eros, Republicans were too busy snooping into his private life to care about terrorism. When he tried to kill Osama in Afghanistan, Republicans instead of standing behind him, accused him of "wag the dog".

    Answer:
    The Republican majority failed the people it represented. They didn't want to give any funding and were more concerned with bringing down Clinton. Also, the media in '98 was too busy reporting his blowjob with Lewinsky that they didn't report Bin Laden had declared a Jihad on us that same time. Clinton also failed by rejecting Sudan's offer of giving us Bin Laden. Bush 43 spent too much time in his ranch to hear the reports of the CIA about Bin Laden. All in all, it was a collaboration of these parties that were responsible for 9/11.

    Why did Clinton pardon these people.?

    Answer:
    All presidents pardon people including Bush who has pardoned rapist. Most presidents, including Clinton, never gave a pardon or anything else, to a person from his staff that was convicted of making false statements and Obstruction of justice! Clinton didn't even know the people, much less have him be a member of the white house staff! We know who leaked the name anyway. It was George Bush! The only one I can recall is when Ford pardoned Nixon, and that cost him a presidency! Lets see how many people Bush pardons his last day's in office!

    Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton Dream ticket unbeatable?
    Question:
    Except for places like Utah and few other states, the turnout for Hillary and Barrack far exceeded the Republican turnout. It would stand to reason that Superticket would be successful in the Presidential Election. No matter what, there is one thing for certain, a Superticket with a White woman and a Black man or Vice Versa is REAL CHANGE. Considering 150 years ago, neither one could vote.

    Answer:
    Obama/Edwards or Obama/Richardson would more likely be unbeatable.

    I have a question. The Clinton workers BUSED in HISPANICS from California?
    Question:
    The Campaign workers help registered people that didn't live in Nevada. The Workers spoke Spanish. The bodies lived a hop and a skip away in California. Shouldn't the addresses be verified to see how many people from each address actually live in that place? Apartments that have, 15 to 100 people stuff in a 2 bedroom ? Likewise. California, Arizona, Texas and Utah ought to be verified prior to election. What's stopping Legal aliens from registering for the promise of getting their family here legally? Like off shore corporations in the Cayman Island. A little building has over 12,000 business's registered there. We had this happen in our area, when not enough legal aliens were available, to get a Hispanic elected to the city council. This is how Clinton receive 64% of the Hispanic votes. What do you think should be done? Drivers Licenses in the (others) illegal hands, will be worst?

    Answer:
    And Mrs. Clinton will grant them amnesty, give them free health care, housing and college if she's president. You think you pay a lot of taxes NOW....

    Why does the media continue to buy into the myth of ignorant conservatives and enlightened liberals?
    Question:
    In 2001, the Lovenstein Institute released a report claiming scientific proof that liberal presidents were more intelligent than their Republican counterparts. In a press release, the institute claimed that Bill Clinton had an Einstein-like IQ of 182, followed closely by Jimmy Carter and JFK. The Republicans? George H. W. Bush might have been Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, but his IQ was a below-average 98. Lower still were those dunces, Eisenhower and Reagan. George W. Bush (with degrees from Yale and Harvard) was borderline retarded. His IQ was said to be 91--literally half that of Clinton's. A few months later, another study emerged demonstrating that the average IQ of states that had voted for Gore was much higher than those that went for Bush. Connecticut was given an average IQ of 113, while conservative Utah scored an 87. (Again, barely above retarded.) According to these numbers, the 16 smartest states all went for Kerry, while the 26 dumbest went for Bush. These sensational findings seemingly confirmed what many in the media already believed. Trudeau ran a Doonesbury strip about it. The Economist magazine, the St. Petersburg Times, London's Daily Mirror, radio talk show hosts and liberal bloggers eagerly ran with the story. Urbandude.comtypified the liberal attitude when he smugly noted, "I've got a Mensa certified IQ of 132." But apparently he wasn't smart enough: Both studies were complete fictions. ("Alas, we were victims of a hoax," admitted The Economist. "No such data exists.") The curious thing is how easily these findings were accepted by some in the media. Imagine if someone had published a report claiming that conservatives had much higher IQs than liberals. Would newspapers and commentators run such a story uncritically? To the contrary, they would likely first check on the results and subject the findings to serious scrutiny. In short, the bias in favour of "smart liberals" seems widely accepted in our society. Popular culture has greatly contributed to the myth of ignorant conservatives and enlightened liberals. One study by a group of academics found that by examining 124 characters in 47 popular political films spanning five decades, liberals were routinely depicted as "more intelligent, friendly and good" than conservatives. The arrogance of some liberals in this regard is astonishing. You don't even have to be highly educated yourself to complain about how uneducated conservatives are. Michael Moore, college dropout, travels all over Europe talking about how "idiotic and uneducated" conservatives are. He also said: "Once you settle for a Ronald Reagan, then it's easy to settle for a George Bush, and once you settle for a George Bush, then it's real easy to settle for Bush II. You know, this should be evolution, instead it's devolution. What's next?" Professor Bruce Fleming, a self-professed liberal, explains this liberal attitude perfectly. "All of us are ignorant of many things. It's just that the liberal here thinks he knows what the conservative is ignorant of." This sublime confidence in their own superiority leads to a closed-minded insistence that liberals know what is right. Scholars at Stanford, the University of Illinois and Williams conducted four studies on the subject of "asymmetric insight." Basically, this is the notion that some people claim to know more than others. Surveys were conducted with hundreds of students. Among their findings: Liberals are much more likely to believe that their knowledge of conservatives and their arguments surpasses that of conservatives themselves. The results were similar when it came to the abortion issue. Abortion rights advocates claimed to have greater knowledge and insight than those who are pro-life. http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=69 3436

    Answer:
    Which media? The most popular news outlet in the USA doesn't do that. Ever watched Fox News?

    Why do liberals still buy the myth that conservatives are intellectually inferior?
    Question:
    In 2001, the Lovenstein Institute released a report claiming scientific proof that liberal presidents were more intelligent than their Republican counterparts. In a press release, the institute claimed that Bill Clinton had an Einstein-like IQ of 182, followed closely by Jimmy Carter and JFK. The Republicans? George H. W. Bush might have been Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, but his IQ was a below-average 98. Lower still were those dunces, Eisenhower and Reagan. George W. Bush (with degrees from Yale and Harvard) was borderline retarded. His IQ was said to be 91--literally half that of Clinton's. A few months later, another study emerged demonstrating that the average IQ of states that had voted for Gore was much higher than those that went for Bush. Connecticut was given an average IQ of 113, while conservative Utah scored an 87. (Again, barely above retarded.) According to these numbers, the 16 smartest states all went for Kerry, while the 26 dumbest went for Bush. These sensational findings seemingly confirmed what many in the media already believed. Trudeau ran a Doonesbury strip about it. The Economist magazine, the St. Petersburg Times, London's Daily Mirror, radio talk show hosts and liberal bloggers eagerly ran with the story. Urbandude.comtypified the liberal attitude when he smugly noted, "I've got a Mensa certified IQ of 132." But apparently he wasn't smart enough: Both studies were complete fictions. ("Alas, we were victims of a hoax," admitted The Economist. "No such data exists.") The curious thing is how easily these findings were accepted by some in the media. Imagine if someone had published a report claiming that conservatives had much higher IQs than liberals. Would newspapers and commentators run such a story uncritically? To the contrary, they would likely first check on the results and subject the findings to serious scrutiny. In short, the bias in favour of "smart liberals" seems widely accepted in our society. Popular culture has greatly contributed to the myth of ignorant conservatives and enlightened liberals. One study by a group of academics found that by examining 124 characters in 47 popular political films spanning five decades, liberals were routinely depicted as "more intelligent, friendly and good" than conservatives. The arrogance of some liberals in this regard is astonishing. You don't even have to be highly educated yourself to complain about how uneducated conservatives are. Michael Moore, college dropout, travels all over Europe talking about how "idiotic and uneducated" conservatives are. He also said: "Once you settle for a Ronald Reagan, then it's easy to settle for a George Bush, and once you settle for a George Bush, then it's real easy to settle for Bush II. You know, this should be evolution, instead it's devolution. What's next?" Professor Bruce Fleming, a self-professed liberal, explains this liberal attitude perfectly. "All of us are ignorant of many things. It's just that the liberal here thinks he knows what the conservative is ignorant of." This sublime confidence in their own superiority leads to a closed-minded insistence that liberals know what is right. Scholars at Stanford, the University of Illinois and Williams conducted four studies on the subject of "asymmetric insight." Basically, this is the notion that some people claim to know more than others. Surveys were conducted with hundreds of students. Among their findings: Liberals are much more likely to believe that their knowledge of conservatives and their arguments surpasses that of conservatives themselves. The results were similar when it came to the abortion issue. Abortion rights advocates claimed to have greater knowledge and insight than those who are pro-life. http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=69 3436 Thanks Slobendz... that is interesting. Here is the figure you were talking about. http://people-press.org/reports/images/282-56.gif Turn s out that those who watch/read conservative sources are generally more knowledgable...

    Answer:
    I think most liberals and conservatives understand that the other side is just as intellectual, but naturally there are the elitists of both groups who look down their noses at not only those on the opposite side, but often time those are on their own side of the aisle. Some people have a need to be better than the guy next to them. Equality is a troubling reality for many people.

    Oil in Colorado & Utah- Do you know these facts???
    Question:
    Their is over 2 trillion barrels of Oil Shale in Colorado. Or enough oil for over 400 years at today's current rate. 2 trillion is more oil than than whole rest of the world has!!! It can be produced at $12.00 a barrel. It sits on 80% government owned land. Why do we screw around with ethanol??? It takes more energy to produce ethanol that it yields. Oh for the liberal people- Hillary Clinton has voted against ethanol 17 times and now she is a supporter because she wants to get out of the Iowa primary with more than 1% of the Vote. Actually their are 3 companies starting to extract the oil now. It is being done.

    Answer:
    This seems more like a rant then a question. Then again, my response is more of a scolding then an answer.

    Who would vote for Mitt Romney on his record?
    Question:
    I have one prescription that costs more than the insurance cost in Mass.

    Answer:
    I would. In terms of economic policies, he is very smart. As a fiscal conservative, he impresses me with his limiting government, pro-individual stances.

    Is Obama Electable Anywhere Besides in Red States?
    Question:
    Seems Obama carried Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas ... etc. But lets get real .... these are RED states that are going to vote McCain in the fall, regardless of which Democrat is on the ticket. Hillary Clinton, on other hand, managed to carry the big blue states such as New York, and California..... she wins where it counts. Is Obama really electable if he only can win primaries in mostly RED STATES?

    Answer:

    Clinton supports, if you want Hillary to win, how do you justify this?
    Question:
    I understand that you support Hillary and I would like to say that I do respect all of your views. I must ask, if you want to "give" the nomination to Hillary right now, how do you feel about justifying the disenfranchisement of all the voters who voted for Obama. After all, Obama won in Red states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. He won in swing states like Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin. Are there not blue collar workers in those states? He won in the Carolinas and the Dakotas, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming. He is winning in the popular vote, delegate count and super delegate count. Do you want to disenfranchise all those voters by just giving Hillary the nomination because you want to? Is that fair when Obama has won those states? If Mi. and Fl. broke the rules and Obama wasn't on the ballot, is it fair to simply count them and give it all to Hillary because you want to? Is that fair to all that followed the rules? Tigerlily: What you are saying is that only Hillary voters count, everyone else should just be thrown away because you feel they are idiots? You would favor the rights of all those millions of people to be thrown away based on your feelings? Is that what you want? pepe: I agree, they just have to be seated fairly and neutrally. that is the price you pay for breaking the rules, I would think. willbmusic: I respect your opinion, but i never said anything was about me. I never mentioned what I want, i simply asked a question. Kevin: I don't know if you are talking to me, but I don't think I am being bitter, I really want the party to unite and we need everyone. But that is off topic. Brandnewday2008: I respect your opinion, but if the chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, goes on national television multiple times and says that Fl. and Mi. broke the rules, then I would have to believe him over you. I am sorry, but it doesn't matter if you say it 10 million billion times. Where did you hear about Hillary votes being suppressed? Furthermore, you never addressed my question. Do you suggest that all of the states that Obama won were somehow fixed and Hillary's states have not? I do not understand your answer. Knochen Schinken: I use disenfranchisement correctly because, If Obama wins the vote, delegates, and super delegates, and the nomination is taken away arbitrarily from him to satisfy Clinton supporters, those people are disenfranchised.

    Answer:
    TigerLil... -excusing me sexist much? All votes couunt stop being a stubborn. This is excatly why i cant stand Some women vote. there just plain hyprocrits. louca- oh so you guys still want the old poltitcs here that get nothing done in wasington dc? Just beacuse you think a candaite better dosent mean is true got it?

    Can Obama voters ever have their arms twisted to vote for Clinton?
    Question:
    They don't NEED to. I am so tired of hearing how Hillary's camp disrespects Obama voters. Childlike, delusional...their votes don't count? When will they stop disrespecting MILLIONS of votes like that? What happened to the impressive white vote for Obama in Iowa, Utah, Colorado etc? Hillary brags she can win swing states...well Obama will also carry Cali, NY, Mass etc...end Virginia and Colorado...and Michigan...and many, many others. MISSOURI. Did you forget about Obama 10 STATE win IN A ROW??? Where was Hillary then?

    Answer:

    Did Hillary really have anything to do with SCHIP?
    Question:
    In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her. But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996. Is Hillary a liar? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clint on_role_in_health_program_disputed/?p1=email_to_a_friend

    Answer:
    Everyone knows Hillary is a liar, so I don't think that's really an issue. I think the actual issue is how both she AND Bill claim credit for things they haven't done. "Bill's" welfare reform was awesome wasn't it? I mean he loves taking credit for it and talking about how successful it was. So...Why did he veto it TWICE before we had a Republican Majority who could override his veto and enact welfare reform? How can anyone really believe that a Democrat would cut welfare and tell people they have to work for a living? Come on.

    Why do some believe that every problem is caused by a wrong action or inaction of the federal Government?
    Question:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57092 Read the transcript of the AFL-CIO debate and you'll find that Democratic leaders squarely place responsibility for almost every calamity in America – whether caused by natural forces, human negligence or imperfection, or even excess government intermeddling in the first place – on the federal government or evil corporations. This is scary stuff. Hillary Clinton exploited the Minneapolis bridge collapse to tell us we need the federal government to invest in infrastructure – "to protect us" and to "create jobs." How would she improve the recovery in New Orleans? Simple, "The first thing I would do is put somebody in charge who actually cared about the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast," as if Republicans don't care and as if caring is all that matters – vintage liberalism. John Edwards agreed on Minneapolis and also seemed to blame the Utah mining accident on the federal government. To Edwards, these disasters are not only the fault of the federal government, but of insider, lobby-driven Beltway politics ignoring the needs of "working men and women." But Edwards outdid himself when he suggested that 51-year-old James Lowe's speech-impairing cleft palate is the fault of the federal government in failing to provide sufficient health care and the evil "drug companies and insurance companies." Barack Obama complained that employers are exploiting "undocumented workers." That's right, he said the illegals aren't being paid enough or receiving enough benefits. Joe Biden said the government ought to give us "100,000 new nurses." Oh, boy. When the candidates were not promoting a paternalistic government or demonizing corporations, they were either telling tall tales about taxes and deficits or waxing recklessly about the Iraq War and the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

    Answer:
    because they have evolved into sheep, mindless sheep And the rant of the guy below me just makes my point!


    Design by: Spohn Systems

    2008 us-city-home.com All Rights Reserved.