# Has Hillary ever pumped her own gas?



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Can she really embarass herself any further? :eyeroll:

The publicity stunt du jour:

Senator Hillary Clinton, highlighting her enthusiasm for a summer holiday from the gas tax, carpools with an Indiana steelworker to get his tank refueled.

There's really nothing I can add *that the AP report doesn't do justice to already:*



> The Democratic presidential candidate and sheet metal worker Jason Wilfing, 33, pulled into the station in a large white Ford 250 pickup truck, Clinton riding shotgun. Never mind that it wasn't even Wilfing's truck - he had borrowed his boss's larger vehicle to accommodate Clinton's security agent and personal assistant, who rode in the back.
> 
> Trailing Wilfing and Clinton was a Secret Service motorcade consisting of six gas-guzzling Suburbans, two squad cars and a green SUV bearing photographers and TV cameras. Several other reporters and cameramen stood shivering in unseasonably cold temperatures, ready to capture the multi-vehicle arrival.


 :roll:

Then there's this, *from the Washington Post:*



> Asked by one of the reporters when she had last pumped gas herself, Clinton said she did not know. Her staff was not only not sure when the last time the former first lady drove a car (it's not clear she's allowed to as the the Secret Service takes her everywhere for security reasons) but had to check to make sure that she actually has a valid driver's license.
> 
> *Hillary Clinton rides around in a Ford F250 and can't believe the price of gas*, which may or may not be more important to the common man than Barack Obama loving pot roast.
> 
> Has anyone asked how John McCain feels about Larry the Cable Guy?


Umm folks... we have presidential candidates who are so out of touch, that even the most talked about, pain inducing facet of our current economy, they DONT EVEN KNOW what the current cost of gas is...

Anyone else find this disturbing?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

My God.....lets get after her because she didn't pump gas for a pickup that wasn't hers and had 3 other people in it.All she did was ride to work with someone.How stupid is this article?

I'm sick of this garbage.If I was a multi-millionaire I would always go to a full service gas station.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

KEN W said:


> My God.....lets get after her because she didn't pump gas for a pickup that wasn't hers and had 3 other people in it.All she did was ride to work with someone.How stupid is this article?
> 
> I'm sick of this garbage.If I was a multi-millionaire I would always go to a full service gas station.


I think it had more to do with the irony of high gas prices, and driving a borrowed huge 4X4 truck to fill up the gas guzzler on gas that she has no idea how much it costs...

Yet she wants to run for the highest office in the land and is clueless on the effects it has on the general public.

I'll stop beating this dead horse... but man she makes it fun and easy. :wink:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Since when do millionaires pay attention to something that cost $3.50?????


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

KEN W said:


> Since when do millionaires pay attention to something that cost $3.50?????


Totally agree. Normally millionaires don't/shouldn't have to...

But millioinaire Presidential candidates should.

Don't you think?

(edit: it costs 3.75 there)

Which is still cheaper than it is out here by a dime.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I guess what I am saying is this kind of thing is ridiculous to base whether she would be a good candidate for president.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

KEN W said:


> I guess what I am saying is this kind of thing is ridiculous to base whether she would be a good candidate for president.


Gotcha...

I want my president to have an intimate knowledge about the top 3 domestic pain points for Americans. The cost of energy (Heating oil, Gas, Natural Gas) is tops on that list.


----------



## Springer (Dec 21, 2004)

I am not sure if you are playing devils advocate here Ken but she should be a little aware of the biggest expense of the normal everyday life for the majority of the countries population.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

KEN W said:


> Since when do millionaires pay attention to something that cost $3.50?????


Some do, like the ones getting rich off of oil at $120 a barrel!

I agree with you Ken, there's so many criteria that people use to decide who to vote for that matter next to nothing.

I'm really getting sick of people deciding by asking themselves who they like more, or who they'd like to sit down and have a beer with, crap like that...

I want someone running the country who is so far superior to me that I'd be embarassed to be in their presence. Someone with an IQ of 170, who speaks 4 languages, who can sleep with their eyes open and still be reading.

With that being said, they still need to be able to relate to us. I don't want an average joe being President, but they need to know what the concerns are from the average joes.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Springer said:


> I am not sure if you are playing devils advocate here Ken but she should be a little aware of the biggest expense of the normal everyday life for the majority of the countries population.


Another reason to like Obama. He's younger and is more in touch. It wasn't that long ago that he was an average joe. I think he has a better grasp on what is affecting the lives of our contries people more then the other two.

The elitist label they are trying to brand him with is a joke. How is it that the guy raised by a single mother, who is from the south side of Chicago, and made himself who he is through hard work...has become the elitist in this race?

I think what concerns some is that his background is different then ours. He comes from an average american upbringing, it's just different then our average american upbringing. In the end, I'd still contend he is more in touch with the american people then the other two.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Matt Jones said:


> I think what concerns some is that his background is different then ours. He comes from an average american upbringing, it's just different then our average american upbringing. In the end, I'd still contend he is more in touch with the american people then the other two.


Plus he is black.It is no different than 48 years ago when the first Catholic was running for president.A lot of stupid people thought the if he won the Pope would be moving to the US.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

KEN W said:


> I guess what I am saying is this kind of thing is ridiculous to base whether she would be a good candidate for president.


I agree 100% this country is so ignorant its pathetic look at the nonsense the candidates have to pander to to get elected.

If I had her money I would hire Ken to run my truck to the gas staion as a retirement gig :beer: (and yes I am kidding)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There are black people I would vote for, but Obama isn't one of them. Not voting for him because he is black would be wrong. Voting for him because he was black would also be wrong. Some people simply have a guilty conscience and think others should to. I don't have a guilty conscience and have no problem saying I don't like socialist Obama.

He is hardly the average Joe. Just because he whines in his publications doesn't mean he wasn't a pampered elitist. Where did he go to college again? Harvard or somewhere like that. Ya, all our kids go there too.



> In the end, I'd still contend he is more in touch with the American people then the other two.


One thing or the other has to be true. When he made the statement about rural America holding on to their guns and religion when they are bitter he was either out of touch or he is stupid. Take your pick, but it was a dumb statement, dumber than I would have expected. He was out of touch, is not smart, or both. No, this man isn't the brain most liberals think he is. Of course that's always the liberal mantra. Remember how absolutely brilliant Kerry's wife was supposed to be? My liberals friends were practically swooning over her. Then we find she is not smart enough to keep her elitist mouth shut. Like Bill hurting Hillary she hurt Kerry a lot in the campaign.

Matt, Obama would perhaps be an interesting person to have lunch with, but I share your sentiment in the person I have lunch with and the person I want for president are not the same. Sorry, I couldn't relate to the beer.  I'm not against this guy because he is black, I am slightly against him because of the people he associates with, but I am mostly against him because he will punish the successful, reward the lazy, ignore what I value, and place value in what I abhor.

On tactic I do not like about liberals. If you disagree with them it has to be because of a character flaw you posses like racist or something. They can not comprehend that your conclusions are based on a long drawn out thought process and personal conviction.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Obama is a border line marxist who would destroy our economy with his policies, if he gets elected the dems will be in the wilderness for many years to come. He makes Carter look smart.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Again, I find myself agreeing with Plainsman. But what I am enjoying most about Hillary and Obama is they are beating each other up. As I've said McCain is not my first choice but he is the lesser of the 3 evils. If there were 1 dem and 1 rep they would be bashing each other right about now, I'm sure that will come. But for now both dems are so locked in on each other McCain has had a pretty easy road. He can look the better man, which only helps him. There are some pretty passionate supporters for both Hil an Obama. The more they beat each other up the more apt the die hard supporters are to vote for another candidate or not vote at all. I saw a few polls on that matter. The numbers were pretty close but it was about 25% of the supporters said that if their candidate looses the nomination they would either vote for McCain or not vote at all. The other thing that will help McCain is the same reason I'm not that enamored with him. He is a liberal republican but that will help the sway vote. Don't get me wrong I do respect him. The other two I do not. I think with Hil or Obama we are doomed. And the last thing, of all the candidates I think McCain is running for the right reasons to help our government. We may all not agree with his policies but his intent, I believe, is towards the betterment of our country. The other two just want to be "The President".


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bgunit68 said:


> And the last thing, of all the candidates I think McCain is running for the right reasons to help our government. We may all not agree with his policies but his intent, I believe, is towards the betterment of our country. The other two just want to be "The President".


Depends on your point of view.....at least half of people in the country feel Hillary and Obama are running for the right reasons to help our people not government.Their intent is towards the betterment of our country.And McCain is just another 4 years of what we have had the past 8. :eyeroll:

Bob.....I'm not moving to Georgia just for a high paying job.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> He is hardly the average Joe. Just because he whines in his publications doesn't mean he wasn't a pampered elitist. Where did he go to college again? Harvard or somewhere like that. Ya, all our kids go there too.


I didn't say he was an average joe; he's not. Like I said, our country shouldn't be electing politicians who are viewed as a guy we would want to hang out with. We want a leader who is so far above average it's silly.

Obama came from an average background, but he exceeded it. Yeah, he went to Harvard...but he got in based on his own merits. When he got out he had school loans to pay just like the rest of us who didn't have it handed to us.

It pizzes me off that a guy like him can even begin to be considered elitist and Bush is seen as an average joe. Bush has had everything handed to him along the way. He got into Yale because of his dad, and it was paid for by his dad. He got out of 'Nam because of his dad. The guy is a 'C' average student of moderate intelligence who had the presidency handed to him from his dad.

Yet he managed to get elected because a bunch of guys could see themselves clearing brush with him or rounding up his cattle (that are rented for photo ops) and then sitting down next to a campfire while sipping a few cold ones. You know, Bush is probably a pretty cool guy to hang out with but that doesn't mean he isn't a shytty president. And he's probably the biggest 'elitist' in the history of politics in this country.


Plainsman said:


> On tactic I do not like about liberals. If you disagree with them it has to be because of a character flaw you posses like racist or something. They can not comprehend that your conclusions are based on a long drawn out thought process and personal conviction.


You know, there might be a grain of truth to that. Whenever you have two people with conflicting opinions it's going to happen. But on the other hand it works both ways...

...All you have to do is look at what the 'conservative's' have done to the word liberal? Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Colter, and a lot of self-described conservatives now use the word "liberal" like a swear word. They call people liberal's like you'd call someone a ******. If you offer an opinion that doesn't fall in line with the far-right mindset they try to bully you into looking like some limp-wristed queer.

That shyte pizzes me off.

Take Iraq for example. Getting out of Iraq is labeled by people like them as the "liberal agenda." Give me an F-in Break! They make it sound like the ones who want out are a bunch of rainbow flag-waving ****-hippies! When in reality a lot of those people (myself included) view it as common sense...realizing that we can't afford it, we can't win because our hands are tied, and don't give a crap about those people compared to our own countrymen.

Yet everything has to labeled as liberal or conservative. It makes it easy for the idiots to follow their team without having to form an opinion for themselves. I'm really sick of it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> When he got out he had school loans to pay just like the rest of us who didn't have it handed to us.


His wife was presenting that as a sob story. She was saying they could hardly make ends meet. That means things to different people as it was eventually disclosed that at the time she could hardly make ends meet they were paying something like $1000 month for dance lessons for a kid. No, they didn't do it like the rest of us.



> It pizzes me off that a guy like him can even begin to be considered elitist and Bush is seen as an average joe.


I think it is more the attitude they exhibit. It's how they come off in their presentation. The same presentation may come of differently to different people. I look at Bush and I don't see his money, I see a fellow who has made mistakes, had trouble with alcohol, was a wild kid, but has come through it all and now has values in line with mine. I disagree with him on illegal aliens and other things, but I do see him as more of a down to earth family man than Obama.



> He got out of 'Nam because of his dad.


I don't know. Does anyone really? A lot of baseless accusation I think. A lot of people didn't go to Viet Nam, for many different reasons. We didn't learn much from, who was the news guy, that lost his job over a made up story.



> The guy is a 'C' average student of moderate intelligence who had the presidency handed to him from his dad.


Say I remember now there was an article on his grades. I don't remember what they were, I just remember they were slightly better than John Kerry.



> a lot of self-described conservatives now use the word "liberal" like a swear word.


Ya, I know if I am ticked it's the worst thing I can think of to call somebody.



> They call people liberal's like you'd call someone a ******.


Now that's disrespectful of homosexuals insinuating that they are liberal. I'll bet five, maybe even ten percent are conservative. 



> Getting out of Iraq is labeled by people like them as the "liberal agenda


Well it is for crying out loud. Maybe some others want to also, but it is a liberal agenda.



> Give me an F-in Break! They make it sound like the ones who want out are a bunch of rainbow flag-waving ****-hippies! When in reality a lot of those people (myself included) view it as common sense...realizing that we can't afford it


There is more than money at stake in Iraq. If you believe that security is more important than debt then you must decide if we can afford not to win in Iraq.



> we can't win because our hands are tied, and don't give a crap about those people compared to our own countrymen.


Yes, our hands are tied, but why? Because liberals whine about a guy with panties pulled over his head, and Murtha calls out soldiers terrorists who murder in the middle of the night.



> It makes it easy for the idiots to follow their team without having to form an opinion for themselves.


Agree.



> It pizzes me off





> That shyte pizzes me off


I have noticed your pizzed a lot,  but I understand. Me to sometimes. However, I get a kick out of your posts even when I don't agree. I do agree often with the between the lines interpretation I lend to your posts.

I think Obama is an elitist little snob. Not only that, he is a rob the productive reward the lazy, race baiting, socialist. I don't care if he is black, white, green, dots of pink and comes from Mars, I see him for what he is through all his carefully constructed smoke and mirrors. Give me Hillary any day. I would even take back Billy over Obama. I don't look down on others, and I don't need some condescending little snob like Obama looking down his nose at me. Maybe that's why liberal is a swear word to me. The ones I know personally about 80 percent think they are intellectually and morally superior. I'm not putting down anyone on this site, I am talking about those I have met face to face. I guess we are all a product of our life experiences, and mine hasn't been good with liberals.

Oh, ya, I don't care if Hillary pumps here own gas or not.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

plainsman said:


> I have noticed your pizzed a lot,  but I understand. Me to sometimes. However, I get a kick out of your posts even when I don't agree. I do agree often with the between the lines interpretation I lend to your posts.


Hehe, yeah...someone must have pizzed in my cheerios this morning! :lol:

This is the only hunting forum where I'll talk politics. It's guys like yourself and everyone else on here that make it possible to actually discuss the issues. Other sites people stick to uninformed opinions and resort to name-calling. On here, everyone seems informed and present their opinions intellectually and respect the opinions of others. Like yourself, I enjoy reading others posts...even when I don't agree.


> > Getting out of Iraq is labeled by people like them as the "liberal agenda
> 
> 
> Well it is for crying out loud. Maybe some others want to also, but it is a liberal agenda.


Come on now! That is exactly what I'm talking about. :lol:



plainsman said:


> There is more than money at stake in Iraq. If you believe that security is more important than debt then you must decide if we can afford not to win in Iraq.


Debt has a lot to do with security. There's a lot of countries who now have us by the nuts because we owe them. So it's a big factor for both our economy and our security IMO. I've already gone into a lot of the other reasons why we shouldn't be there so I won't lengthen this by reposting them.



plainsman said:


> > we can't win because our hands are tied, and don't give a crap about those people compared to our own countrymen.
> 
> 
> Yes, our hands are tied, but why? Because liberals whine about a guy with panties pulled over his head, and Murtha calls out soldiers terrorists who murder in the middle of the night.


Fair enough point, but it still doesn't really change the big picture...which is that even without them voicing their dissent over small issues taking place; and even if we had the staunchest conservatives running the show...we still wouldn't be able to do what is necessary. We'd have to resort to Saddam tactics to get the country stable. Which we both know will never happen. It's time we realized things have changed instead of sticking our heads in the sand and wishing we could handle things oldschool.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Well it is for crying out loud. Maybe some others want to also, but it is a liberal agenda.
> 
> Come on now! That is exactly what I'm talking about.


I came to that conclusion by looking at the politicians and who wants to pull out and who wants to finish the job. Many people want to pull out as you mentioned, but I have noticed that more liberals than conservatives want to pull out. Ron Paul would be the exception to that. However, it is the important and high officials in the democratic party like Nancy Pelosi that ask for withdrawal.



> Debt has a lot to do with security.


That's true, and it surely is a balancing act. Much like the liberal and conservative parties. It's a balancing act which is more important environmental issues or second amendment. I keep thinking the environment will survive a conservative longer than the second amendment will survive liberals.



> We'd have to resort to Saddam tactics to get the country stable. Which we both know will never happen. It's time we realized things have changed instead of sticking our heads in the sand and wishing we could handle things oldschool.


War has certainly changed from the times we bombed factories and cities in WWII. It may take drastic measures for us to survive the terrorist threats we will face in the future. I am sure it will take another terrorist attack to fire up the American people. I am also sure we will be attacked again. It may be tomorrow, or it may be 50 years, but radical Islam will be knocking on our door with a radioactive present. I think we have become a nation of pansies, and I am afraid if something doesn't happen to strengthen the American resolve that we will loose. We are not the nation we once were.

Since the 1970's the women's movement has been as much about feminizing the American male as it has been about women's rights. I think women should be treated equally, but a bunch of girly men are not going to be the answer to the survival of this nation. I don't know how long we have, but I predict we are doomed. Obama will just lead us to that end faster than McDuffus. That is if we have not already ended. As I mentioned this nation is not what it once was. If your not over 50 you have no idea of the freedom you have already lost.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Colter, and a lot of self-described conservatives now use the word "liberal" like a swear word. They call people liberal's like you'd call someone a ******.


So what's the problem? Some on both sides view the other side on about the same level as a homosexual. Neither side is clean on that issue but in all honesty a lot of liberals themselves run from the word. I agree Hannity, Limbaugh, and Colter do spit the word out with hatred but I don't think O'Reilly does. He does knock the liberals a lot more than conservatives but in context with a story or issue and I've seen him come down on conservatives just as hard. If one group is creating most of the fuss it is natural to go after them the most. He would be better off to not lose his temper so easily.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Diesel for $3.50???? WHERE???

This is sick I can't believe she didn't even know what gas, or diesel costs. Really makes you wonder when something comes across her desk that says raise tax $.50 a gal. She may be like yeah, why not thats nothing. 

Like R Y A N said man they have some eye opening to do!

Fuel is the most expensive thing per month for me, above house, employee's food, payments etc. Something needs to be done.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

KEN W said:


> I guess what I am saying is this kind of thing is ridiculous to base whether she would be a good candidate for president.


so..... you're saying its good to have someone in office that doesn't understand what the everyday struggles are for over half of us "middle class" americans. I mean give her a break she's rich, she shouldn't have to pump gas. so lets put her in office??? catch a clue.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > I think we have become a nation of pansies, and I am afraid if something doesn't happen to strengthen the American resolve that we will loose. We are not the nation we once were.


Bingo! Most Americans don't have the stomach to deal with adversity. They just want the "problem" to go away without them getting their hands dirty.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shu said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > I think we have become a nation of pansies, and I am afraid if something doesn't happen to strengthen the American resolve that we will loose. We are not the nation we once were.
> ...


Not only that they are such bleeding hearts they can't get out of the way of the people who can take care of this nation.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Shu said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...


OK, name them plainsman? Who are these great politicians you see that would be able to make things work if it wasn't for the bleeding hearts?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

> So what's the problem? Some on both sides view the other side on about the same level as a homosexual.


We agree then. Because I've already said it works both ways.


Matt Jones said:


> You know, there might be a grain of truth to that. Whenever you have two people with conflicting opinions it's going to happen. But on the other hand it works both ways...


The problem is that it doesn't help anything, and it only sets us back. If we all started viewing people who have different ideas for how our country can succeed as equal to our own ideas, and look at their ideas as having a different approach for how we can accomplish that same goal but with equal merit...we'd probably be able to work together to actually make that happen by discussing a middle ground while respecting each other. Instead we sit we sit around and call each other ******* if we don't agree on the same exact approach on an issue.

How is that productive?

Liberals and Conservatives are both Patriots. They both want to see America prosper, they just have different plans on how to make it happen.

I think labeling your idealogy is messed up. I might lean conservative on one issue while leaning liberal on another. The notion that you have to brand yourself "liberal" or "conservative" is beyond me. People in this country need to start thinking for themselves and stop listening to "their" party and the talking heads who run them.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I might lean conservative on one issue while leaning liberal on another. The notion that you have to brand yourself "liberal" or "conservative" is beyond me. People in this country need to start thinking for themselves and stop listening to "their" party and the talking heads who run them.


For that very reason I'm registered independent. I don't want to be identified with any one party. I want the freedom to pick and choose as I please. There is a big price to pay for that decision. In the last two states I've lived in, a independent cannot vote in any primary. I have no voice in who ends up at the head of a ticket. There should be a simply way to allow independents to vote in one selected primary each election.

It's no secret I lean more towards the right than the left but I would suspect all independents lean heavier one way or the other. One important thing in the Republican and Libertarian party platforms that attracts me is less government. One would have to wonder about the conservative party now days though. But it is not just less government we need. We also need less people in our lives. Those little groups that want to tell you what you can say, think, or do. The PC crowd wants to tell us how we can talk to one another. The high fence crowd wants to to tell us how we can hunt and what we should consider ethical. The religious groups wants to tell me what my children should learn in school. The homosexual groups wants to tell me what my children should learn in the bedroom. The list goes on and on.

What all these groups have in common along with big brother is they are intrusive into my life. None of what they want has to do with safety, security, prosperity, or health to my being which is all they should be concerned with. Put them all in a pot, stir with a stick and you can't tell one from the other.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Triple B said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > I guess what I am saying is this kind of thing is ridiculous to base whether she would be a good candidate for president.
> ...


Only someone wearing blinders bases their voting preference on something as trivial as.....can they operate a gas pump.

What does everyday struggles have to do with ....."Do you know how to turn on a gas pump."I can still know what the price is and not know how to operate a pump.Like I said above.....if I were a multi-millionaire,I would go to full service stations and let them pump the gas.Or let my chaueffer do it.I guess being nasty in a decent discussion is important to you.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

KEN W said:


> Triple B said:
> 
> 
> > KEN W said:
> ...


everyday struggles????? how about paying 3.50 a gallon for gas? using half a monthly income on the costs of fuel and rising food prices??? it may be trivial to you ken, but to me the fact that one of our nations potential leaders doesn't even know the price of a gallon of gas signifies ignorance and bliss towards the very things in our economy that are causing it to struggle!!! you obviously have your opinion ken and as do I. an old wise man once said, "don't argue politics or religion, unless you're looking for a fight" I'm done, you can push your opinions on everyone else without my rebuttle


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

$4.20 come on!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Triple B.....I know exactly what I consider trivial.....What does $3.50 a gal have to do with knowing how to turn on the pump??????You are talking about 2 entirely different things here.

If you are a millionaire....$3.50 a gal is trivial.But it has nothing to do with knowing how to turn on the pump does it????

This topic is about Clinton knowing how to turn on the pump.It has nothing to do with the price of gas or how it affects anyone.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> OK, name them plainsman? Who are these great politicians you see that would be able to make things work if it wasn't for the bleeding hearts?


Heck, I can't even remember the names of my favorite movie stars or country singers. I would say many of the obscure conservatives in D C could do a better job if Nancy Peloci, Murtha etc just shut their mouth and got out of the way. What's the old cliche again, do, lead, or get out of the way? something like that. 
I don't see liberal and conservative the same as democrat and republican. I have no loyalty to any party, but I am conservative. It describes the political platform I relate to.
Ken, I'm not liberal, but I am with you on this one. Who cares if she can pump gas or not. I care if she taxes the snot out of me and lets a bomb go off in our nation. I care if she thinks of every nut case fringe group before she thinks of plain old Americans. Etc.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I guess I can't believe people actually decide who to vote for based on these kinds of shenaingans.Riding to work in a big truck,pumping gas,putting on a military helmet and driving a tank etc. sure don't tell me what he/she will be like as president.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

KEN W said:


> I guess I can't believe people actually decide who to vote for based on these kinds of shenaingans.Riding to work in a big truck,pumping gas,putting on a military helmet and driving a tank etc. sure don't tell me what he/she will be like as president.


 I didn't say anything about not knowing how to pump gas,hell even I'll admit I've been puzzled by a few pumps before. but when someone doesn't even know the price of a gallon of gas? thats when I start to wonder how well suited they are to run our country.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I don't have time to read everything in this thread, so I may be a little late for this one. First, Plainsman, thank you for interjecting some common sense. I don't agree with you on 100%, but I think you're closer than many. If people want to find a good reason to stay in Iraq until the job is don, I suggest you watch the new movie with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, "Charlie Wilson's War". It's a real eye opener. As I've said before, we may not be able to afford the "war" in Iraq, but we can't afford even more leaving it unfinished. People say we fought there for oil. There's at least a connection to the truth to that, but saying we fought there just for oil is far too simplistic. A good read into that would be Newt Gingrich and William R Forstchen's book, "Pearl Harbor, A Novel of December 8th". If people think having a reliable supply of oil is not in the interest of our national security, they have their heads in the sand.

Back to the original post, I agree. Most millionaire's would not have the foggiest idea of the true cost of living for the average joe. But, someone who is campaigning to fight for the average joe sure does have a responsibility to understand what they are fighting for. Do either Clinton or Obama have the foggiest idea? I don't bleieve so. Does McCain? I don't know. I do know that when he was "in the trenches", whatever money he had didn't mean squat. That puts him far more in touch with the average joe than anyone else who is a valid candidate at this time.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

R y a n said:


> Senator Hillary Clinton, highlighting her enthusiasm for a summer holiday from the gas tax, carpools with an Indiana steelworker to get his tank refueled.


I happened to be driving by that Marathon station when Clinton was speaking and got caught in the traffic jam. Needless to say there weren't many happy drivers in that area.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bob.....I'm not moving to Georgia just for a high paying job.


Theres some perks, all the buttons on my truck radio are tuned to conservative talk radio, it could change your life :lol:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm said:


> > Bob.....I'm not moving to Georgia just for a high paying job.
> 
> 
> Theres some perks, all the buttons on my truck radio are tuned to conservative talk radio, it could change your life :lol:


I listen to XM radio(50's and 60's) or sports talk stations. 8)


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > OK, name them plainsman? Who are these great politicians you see that would be able to make things work if it wasn't for the bleeding hearts?
> 
> 
> Heck, I can't even remember the names of my favorite movie stars or country singers. I would say many of the obscure conservatives in D C could do a better job if Nancy Peloci, Murtha etc just shut their mouth and got out of the way. What's the old cliche again, do, lead, or get out of the way? something like that.


I love it Plainsman! You can't give me the name of a conservative leader who could steer us in the right direction but you can instantly name some liberals who are 'screwing things up!'

Thank you for proving my point.

Have you ever thought that maybe the conservatives that constantly preach how the liberals are ruining things, have no idea what to do or how to lead? It's become their answer for everything. What's wrong with the economy? The liberals! Why isn't Iraq going better? The liberals! Healthcare? Immigration? The liberals! And the list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that we had 6 years of Republican's (self-described conservatives) running the show...and look at where's it got us. Maybe, just maybe, the crap that we're in now might have something to do with the stupid decisions and mistakes they made...instead of being completely the fault of the liberals like they want us to believe.

Now with that being said, it works both ways. There's mud-slinging going on from both sides of the aisle, and there were also a lot of democrats who opted to vote for a lot of the stupid proposals by the republicans. So by no means am I saying it was completely the fault of one party or any one politician. But to constantly blame the liberals for everything is just foolish and an easy way out; and a way to avoid adressing the real problems.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I love it Plainsman! You can't give me the name of a conservative leader who could steer us in the right direction but you can instantly name some liberals who are 'screwing things up!'


It's not a matter of politics Matt, it's old age and bad memory. Didn't you notice I said I can't remember the names of my favorite movie stars or country singers. It ticks me off that I can't remember people names, but I can name little insects like _Colymbetes sculptilis exertus_ in wetlands. I'ts just a quirk of mine, so please don't take advantage of it.

The only reason I remember Pelosi is she ticks me off, and it's easier to remember the politicians at the top of the food chain. I can remember McCain too, Bush, but nobody else stands out much. It's also easier to remember idiots.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I'll give you one. Newt Gingrich.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> I'll give you one. Newt Gingrich.


I could remember that the speaker of the house resigned over and affair he had, but do you think I could think of his name. I like the guy too. Disgusting that I couldn't remember. I suppose I could have put five minutes into finding it, but I had better things to do.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

He may have made some mistakes, and did a lot more than others to own up to it. But an idiot? Ohhhhhh, I don't think so.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

sdeprie said:


> He may have made some mistakes, and did a lot more than others to own up to it. But an idiot? Ohhhhhh, I don't think so.


I was referring to Pelosi. You know the empty head that wants to tax the crap out of "obscene profits". That idea could only come from a mentally challenged conservative or a liberal genius.   

McCain isn't an idiot either, he is a sell out artist, selling out his conservative values for the office of president. I'll take Bush's mistakes and his integrity over brilliance and dishonesty any day. As for Pelosi she has to be stupid to tax something out of existence that is the backbone to our economy. Does that warrant classification as an idiot? She is that or treacherous, spiteful, and does not respect America or democracy. My guess is she will punish the successful to buy votes from the losers, through politically induced class warfare.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Don't you think Pelosi is doing exactly what her constituents want her to do?Is she any different from their point of view when talking about some ultra-conservative southern politician doing what his ******* constituents want?No difference.....So aren't most of those conservative ********
empty-headed also? k:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

If Pelosi's constituents want her to accomplish nothing except embarrass them then yes, she is doing what her constituents wants her to do. That makes them just as empty headed and as much of a idiot as she is. Nice slam with the ******* remark.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

If you live in a glass house.....don't start throwing rocks.Empty headedness isn't just a liberal malady.There are a lot of conservatives who fit that description.

Those liberals out there have just as much spite and slams for you conservatives.They are just as entitled to their opinions as you are.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

KEN W said:


> If you live in a glass house.....don't start throwing rocks.Empty headedness isn't just a liberal malady.There are a lot of conservatives who fit that description.
> 
> Those liberals out there have just as much spite and slams for you conservatives.They are just as entitled to their opinions as you are.


I think Pelosi is one of the worst airheads in DC. Maybe Ken you could enlighten me as to why she is not. Are taxes on "obscene profits", as she puts it (such as the oil industry), a good idea in your view Ken. I just don't see any good in doing so. Her view on gun control is even worse. She may or may not be doing what her constituents want, I really am not sure. She like most politicians seems to only care about re-election and she panders to those looking for a handout. IMO


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> If you live in a glass house.....don't start throwing rocks.Empty headedness isn't just a liberal malady.There are a lot of conservatives who fit that description.
> 
> Those liberals out there have just as much spite and slams for you conservatives.They are just as entitled to their opinions as you are.


I absolutely agree. However, most of those crazy ultra-right conservatives are not speaker of the house, or even in congress. The media happily portrays them as crazy red neck ultra-right, but portrays Pelosi as moderate. They portray moderates as red neck ultra-right. However, portraying ultra-left Pelosi as moderate leaves her wide open for political attack. She isn't moderate, she is far far left. Not as far as Obama, but still far left.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So aren't most of those conservative ********


Ken, I am certain you don't divide people into groups like that, but for those that do don't get to serious I'm going to have a little fun with this.

I don't know, most often conservatives are portrayed as the rich who take advantage of the poor liberals. Even though the most rich in congress are by far the liberals. So one moment we are the rich slobs, the next we are backwoods hick ********. I will gladly accept both if you want to give it to me. Even though I consider myself conservative and not republican I have always seen the republican party as much more inclusive than the democratic party. I'm sort of color blind, but the liberals have America divided into color, sexual preference, etc.

I would think the liberals would not want to constantly contradict themselves. You should decide whether you want to offend the rich or the ********, it doesn't appear to me you can have both. But like I say, as for myself I will gladly accept both as it is to my advantage. Call conservatives ******** and you alienate many you wish to convince. Then draw those with some money as heartless slobs and you alienate another whole group of people. I can see where liberals will loose this fall.

I love the rich, they provide jobs and money so us poor do not remain poor if we work. I love ********, we are God fearing, good, hard working people that pay our taxes and move this nation forward. Without both the liberal, abortion, gun control, welfare society would starve.  

As for abortion there is a bright side. Liberal reproduction will be lower than conservative reproduction and like the dinosaurs they will pass into oblivion. Even as a Christian I realize there is a certain amount of evolution. Evolution does not favor the nonproductive (and I don't mean that in the reproductive sense).


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I love ********, we are God fearing, good, hard working people that pay our taxes and move this nation forward.


Ain't that the truth. Most ******** are proud of being called a ******* even though a lot pf people don't even know what the term really means. But anytime you hear a liberal use the term *******, it is not meant in a complimenting way but instead is being used to try and degrade a class of people. Fortunately Ken I don't live in a glass house. Unfortunately for you I have a very large pile of rocks. Since liberals are so easy to hit and they constantly make themselves targets with nonsense comments it actually becomes boring at times. But I still enjoy it so keep up the good work.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I would guess liberals consider guys like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey to be empty-headed.What I am saying is......if you are on the other side of the equation,the opposite looks out-of-touch and empty-headed.I'm not defending one side over the other.I can and always will tolerate both sides of any issue w/o seeing either as evil or emptyheaded.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> I would guess liberals consider guys like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey to be empty-headed.What I am saying is......if you are on the other side of the equation,the opposite looks out-of-touch and empty-headed.I'm not defending one side over the other.I can and always will tolerate both sides of any issue w/o seeing either as evil or emptyheaded.


I know that Ken, but it was more fun than I could pass up. However, when it comes to screwing with my firearms I really want to pound on those people. That and take my hard earned money to buy votes from some lazy loser. This year it looks like both sides will be pandering to those that want something for nothing.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Don't you think Pelosi is doing exactly what her constituents want her to do?Is she any different from their point of view when talking about some ultra-conservative southern politician doing what his ******* constituents want?No difference.....So aren't most of those conservative ********
> empty-headed also? k:


Hey! I resemble that remark :lol:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > I would guess liberals consider guys like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey to be empty-headed.What I am saying is......if you are on the other side of the equation,the opposite looks out-of-touch and empty-headed.I'm not defending one side over the other.I can and always will tolerate both sides of any issue w/o seeing either as evil or emptyheaded.
> ...


Just have to try and keep things on a leven keel.See both sides of an arguement.Bearing arms is a big thing on sites like this.....but no where near the top when most people decide who to vote for.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I don't want to sound too much like a kook, but the gun rights IS the most important issue on the books. Many times we think of our gun rights as having to do with hunting or other shooting sports, but the whole reason for that right was the right to form a militia to overthrow an oppressive government, if necessary. I have no intention of doing that, and don't know anyone who does, but that is the reason for that Amendment in our bill of rights, and historically, any government that wants to CONTROL its people takes the first step and disarms them. It's something to think about.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I disagree I guess....in this election these are more important,especially to people other than gun enthusiasts,which is almost everyone.

Irag War
Economy....housing,food prices,gas prices etc
Appointing future judges
Abortion rights
Taxes
War on Terror
Immigration


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There is a reason that the right to arms is our second amendment. The formers of this nation felt that without the second amendment there was no teeth in the constitution. They valued the second amendment second only to freedom of speech and religion. It deserves more respect than the vast majority give it. We take to much for granted. I think what you listed Ken pales in comparison.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

Plainsman, I agree with you. The fact of the matter is that if the government takes off without the people's approval (something we don't think would ever happen, but it has happened before), we would have no recourse. Then, all of those other "important issues"? The government will ignore us. That's why they call it a democracy, and why the bill of rights was written, to insure that this government would always be a "Government for the people, by the people." It's real easy to forget the bigger picture when one focuses on their own problems, agenda, etc. That's not to say all of the issues that have been brought up are not important. But our Bill of rights is and always must be the highest priority.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> That's why they call it a democracy, and why the bill of rights was written, to insure that this government would always be a "Government for the people, by the people."


What we were given by the founding fathers was a Republic, not a Democracy. With a true Democracy the majority rule and the minority be dammed. Actually what we have is a Presidential Republic with a democratic system (Democracy) for electing those to to guard, protect, and enforce the rule of the constitution. The power and authority for each of those elected are spelled out with checks and balances. Even though a Republic and a Democracy coexist together there are vast differences between the systems in the higher authority.

We as gun owners are a minority. In a true Democracy that ownership could be taken away by a vote of the majority. In our Republic that minority ownership is protected by the courts who's only job is to uphold the Constitution with over riding authority (checks and balance) against the majority. There are politicians in this country that want a true Democracy. There are politicians that have attempted to remove gun rights with majority votes but have been stopped each and every time by our Republic system.

You don't want a true Democracy in this country. Obama wants one. Hillary wants one. Maybe even McCain wants one. But I don't.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That's a good reminder cwparson. Our media, and even our conservative politicians keep talking about our democracy, yet every time we say the pledge of allegiance we say "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands". We need to never loose sight of that. That alone means our constitution is not a living document, as out liberal friends would like us to believe.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

You are right, of course, but I believe my mistake was more an error in semantic than politics. And, I don't believe Obama or Clinton want a democracy, either, at least until they wrest control of government away from the people. They both want socilism, which is not a democracy. Say what you will, any government that wants to take away from the have, simply because they are the haves, and give to the have nots, simply because they are the have nots, isn't a democracy to me.


----------

