Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register. REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info
To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Yep. All this just happened in the state of New Hampshire (of all places), at Hillary's Campaign Headquarters (of all places), taking only Hillary's volunteer workers as hostages, contacted CNN several times throughout the day, said to the media that he wanted to physically speak with Hillary Clinton, the guy was unarmed, no hostages we're harmed, and they were released very quickly.
Given all the other crap your candidate has been involved with, and the fact that she was starting to lose her edge in the polls ... I'm sorry for being so skeptical.
You still need to explain what happened with the 2 different names of Troy Stanley and Leeland Eisenberg released to the Media and explain that clip I posted above. You can clearly see that he did not want to be speaking to Carl Cameron, so it can't be like he was looking for his 15 minutes of fame. I heard there are other clips from other family members saying the hostage taker was "Troy Stanley", besides the clip above ... and that they physically spoke to him.
As far as those clips, I have the CNN clip with Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer saved on DVR. As far as the Hardball clip where Matthews was saying that it "seemed pretty interesting that all the townspeople, the police, etc. all knew Leeland, that got erased by the next airing of Hardball later, so I unfortunately don't have it. We'll see if it pops up online.
As I said, I'm glad the hostages were okay, but the timing of all this is very interesting and very suspicious.
There is something seriously wrong with your ability to process and analyze information.
This is the kind of nonsense that put Bush & Co in the White House and supported its destructive agenda. If you don't get your shit together you'll help put Giuliani there next.
1) She sounded fine. She was obviously focused and in control of what she needed to be part of. But that's not being presidential...that's called doing your job. It's not the medias job to label her as presidential anything.
2) No, I'm accusing you of going easy on them and the double talk. Your dislike of Hillary should pale in comparison to the hatred any American should have for the Bush White House. I still don't understand, based on your desire to get us out of Iraq, how you're gonna vote Republican if Ron Paul fails. Any democrat position on Iraq would be closer to your desire vs all the other Republicans.
Did you see me say anywhere on here that I was definitely voting Republican if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination?
I honestly think Ron is going to go 3rd Party though if the nomination goes to Huckabee. I think the rest of the GOP Front Runners are toast.
Today, Paul just surpassed both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney in their 3rd Quarter Fundraising Totals.
Giuliani- $10.26 Million
Romney- $9.90 Million
Ron Paul has $10.37 Million raised as of right now. We have the Boston Tea Party on the 16th which we're expecting $8 Million for. He may come in at $20 Million this Quarter. Impressive as none of this comes from lobbyists, as you can imagine with his positions.
Financially, Ron Paul is the Front Runner at the moment. But Huckabee has the poll numbers, which shot up out of nowhere for him. In all likelihood, Huckabee will take Iowa, but we're expecting Paul to take New Hampshire and maybe Nevada at this point. The press will come in for the Tea Party which will get him even more exposure. We're shooting for $10 Million on the 16th, but I don't see us getting it right now. But at least we will set a Fundraising Single Day total for that day.
Like I said, Paul will probably go 3rd Party if Huckabee gets the nod, but if he does not go 3rd Party ... you may see me voting Democrat for the General Election. I want the War over with and I want the troops home to bring that money back here to the States, and I know Huckabee is not going to do it.
I'll have to then put my faith in Hillary or Obama doing it, depending on which one of them gets it.
There is something seriously wrong with your ability to process and analyze information.
This is the kind of nonsense that put Bush & Co in the White House and supported its destructive agenda. If you don't get your shit together you'll help put Giuliani there next.
I can tell you right now that Giuliani WILL NOT get the nod. You have nothing to worry about, there. Bernard Kerik and, as MSNBC put it ... Sex on the City with Giuliani and his mistress ... will cost him the nomination.
I would not vote for America's Corrupt Mayor if I had a gun to my head. I would vote for Hillary before I would ever vote for Giuliani ... and that's saying something.
Like I said, I expect it to come down to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, with Paul going 3rd Party if Huckabee gets the nod. If for some reason Paul does not go 3rd Party, you can probably expect me to go Democrat this election. I'm a Centrist. I've done it before with Bill and I may do it again. We'll see.
And the point is the power of propaganda over people whose thought process is susceptible to it.
Your willingness --even eagerness-- to believe anything damaging about Hillary Clinton, even as outlandish as what you've posted in this thread, is very troubling. Too easily, you believe the wrong people.
Like I said, I expect it to come down to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, with Paul going 3rd Party if Huckabee gets the nod. If for some reason Paul does not go 3rd Party, you can probably expect me to go Democrat this election. I'm a Centrist. I've done it before with Bill and I may do it again. We'll see.
You're not a stupid man; focus, direct, reign in your thinking. This scatteredness leaves you vulnerable to those who want to manipulate. Put stock in autheticity, truth and information, not believing something because you want to, and not in people saying what you want to hear.
All I can say is ... we'll see and time will tell.
You are all over the map.
You're not a stupid man; focus, direct, reign in your thinking. This scatteredness leaves you vulnerable to those who want to manipulate. Put stock in autheticity, truth and information, not believing something because you want to, and not in people saying what you want to hear.
Well, with all due respect, there is manipulation coming from all sides. Everyone has an agenda. I have to take a look at character, record, integrity, experience, etc. and determine which way to go.
We both agree that Bush has destroyed the Republican Party and has made this nation far more dangerous. But Paul's approach at a Non Interventionist Foreign Policy I feel is the way to go and would improve our relations in the Muslim World tremendously. I don't think they want to come here to attack us because of our freedoms, as is backed up by the 9/11 Commission Report. It's our desire to nation build and invade countries illegally, such as we did with Iraq, that causes the hatred. And as we know, both you and I differ on how to address that situation and correct it.
Has Osama Bin Laden ever said in any video that he attacked America because of our freedoms?
Also a factor is our military support of Israel and putting Israel-first philosophy of the Neo-Cons. And that needs to stop, as far as I'm concerned. We've allowed them to have the weapons. They can take care of themselves.
And I don't think Hillary is willing to change Foreign Policy, judging from her record and her speech at AIPAC. Don't get me wrong. I respect your opinions, but we simply disagree on Foreign Policy. That's all.
With that being said, I'll apologize for the Hillary rant from earlier. It was an interesting set of circumstances revolving around the whole thing given it's timing, the location, who was involved, etc. but as I said, the most important thing is that the hostages were safe and nobody was hurt.
I didn't say there isn't. I said, "Put stock in autheticity, truth and information, not believing something because you want to, and not in people saying what you want to hear." No "side" mentioned.
Everyone has an agenda. I have to take a look at character, record, integrity, experience, etc. and determine which way to go.
Bush by no means did it singlehandedly, and in fact he's been much more a puppet than a leader.
The elements that infiltrated the GOP and caused so much damage are not going away, as George Bush is.
And the traits within some Americans that supported the Bush regime still exist -- fear and bitter disappointment, envy and deformed anger -- these disturbed-thinking people feel empowered by the GOP. It's evident on this very forum. And Giuliani has, and will, appeal to them. Hillary Clinton enrages them because despite her flaws and stumbles, she is authentic, she's strong and competent and confident -- and there are frightened wannabes who feel threatened and diminished by that.
But Paul's approach at a Non Interventionist Foreign Policy I feel is the way to go and would improve our relations in the Muslim World tremendously. I don't think they want to come here to attack us because of our freedoms, as is backed up by the 9/11 Commission Report. It's our desire to nation build and invade countries illegally, such as we did with Iraq, that causes the hatred. And as we know, both you and I differ on how to address that situation and correct it.
Really? What do you think is my position about US relations with the Muslim world and how to address it?
Also a factor is our military support of Israel and putting Israel-first philosophy of the Neo-Cons. And that needs to stop, as far as I'm concerned. We've allowed them to have the weapons. They can take care of themselves.
Although Israel is an ally and we should support our allies, I believe our support of Israel is way out of proportion and has contributed to divisions rather than conciliation in the region.
It is, however, a complicated situation with a long backstory, and making the U.S. a helpful participant rather than instigating more trouble needs a Hillary Clinton and the best possible advisors.
And I don't think Hillary is willing to change Foreign Policy, judging from her record and her speech at AIPAC. Don't get me wrong. I respect your opinions, but we simply disagree on Foreign Policy. That's all.
I don't think you even know my opinions. You more readily believe what others say Hillary Clinton believes than you believe what she says herself. And you do that with some posters on this forum as well.
With that being said, I'll apologize for the Hillary rant from earlier. It was an interesting set of circumstances revolving around the whole thing given it's timing, the location, who was involved, etc. but as I said, the most important thing is that the hostages were safe and nobody was hurt.
The "interesting set of circumstances" did not point to anything sinister about Hillary Clinton. You made that up because of garbage you read and believed in cyberspace. My earlier point stands. This is not an isolated event. There is something wrong with your ability to process and analyze information; since you recognize it in this instance I hope you'll be able to see it the next time it happens.
Matt, like I said, when you have Chris Matthews even smirking on Hardball when everyone in town and the police just happened to know this guy Leeland and Anderson Cooper on CNN saying that there was a lot of talk circulating around the Media that they don't want to report because of speculation with regard to this situation, I'm sorry, but that sounds very suspicious.
I don't hate Hillary Clinton. But I hate corruption in our Government.
Like I said, I'm glad the hostages were okay and unharmed, like I've said all along. That's the important thing.
I watched MSNBC throughout it all and did not see all you seemed to have seen. Maybe Matthews' smirking was his weird sense of humor. He said they were on a one minute delay in case something happened. The women earlier seemed upset that they were on delay also. They were assuming all over the place. It seemed to keep any speculation down. I saw the "Troy" name mentioned by a Faux snooze clip on CNN. Like said above the guy is the town nut, everybody knows him. Even in this town of about 600m I know who the town nut is.
Altho I don't particularly like CNN their not wanting to report because of speculation is responsible reporting. Anything different is Faux Snooze. Maybe that's your problem, watching Faux too much.
You, Midnight, are looking for just anything to pin on Hillary. You are the problem in elections.
I watched MSNBC throughout it all and did not see all you seemed to have seen. Maybe Matthews' smirking was his weird sense of humor. He said they were on a one minute delay in case something happened. The women earlier seemed upset that they were on delay also. They were assuming all over the place. It seemed to keep any speculation down. I saw the "Troy" name mentioned by a Faux snooze clip on CNN. Like said above the guy is the town nut, everybody knows him. Even in this town of about 600m I know who the town nut is.
Altho I don't particularly like CNN their not wanting to report because of speculation is responsible reporting. Anything different is Faux Snooze. Maybe that's your problem, watching Faux too much.
You, Midnight, are looking for just anything to pin on Hillary. You are the problem in elections.
Well, if you want to call me the Problem in elections, I would think it would be remiss to mention the larger problem in elections in that we have people on here who like to play Partisan Politics. Not mentioning names, but we have people who seem to label all Republican candidates as Anti-Gay, Satan worshipers while we obviously have a considerably smaller number of people on here that label Democrats as Socialists who's stand for Big Government and who's solution to every problem is to raise taxes.
Now, let's all drop the fun and games for just a moment. We have a ton of Hillary supporters on here who get an absolute kick out of virtually doing professional spin jobs for her. You make her out to be the absolute perfect candidate, and she is far from it. Tell the truth just once. She double talks on issues. She tries to be everything to everyone as part of her political ideology to get herself elected. Just be honest, for once because nobody is fooled on here. I almost think it's a battle of wits, more than anything, at times.
Now, I am not fond of Hillary. I don't think she's right on the issues, especially Foreign Policy, as I've stated several times. But I will admit to sometimes having a little fun with the Hillary worshipers, and will admit to occasionally doing some things to get under your skin a little. Perfect example was in this thread. Do I really think Hillary staged the publicity stunt in New Hampshire ... not really. Anything's possible I suppose, but still nonetheless unlikely. So I pushed some buttons and ... as expected ... people were absolutely horrified at the allegation. So I went with it.
Little advice ... lighten up.
I only get a kick out of seeing half of you react the way you do.
In essence, we actually do share one goal and that is that we want the Neo Cons out of power. And that's why Paul is important. Because he will change the Republican Party. If he gets the nomination ... great. Mission accomplished. He is now the Front Runner in terms of Fundraising and will receive the most funds this Quarter, like I said some time ago. But if he does not secure the nomination ... as I said, I highly expect him to go 3rd Party, which will cause the Republicans to lose the election for sure ... and essentially still force them to re-align the Party's stance on the issues. I don't see the Neo Cons ever coming back into power after Bush.
We also seem to share our absolute disdain of Faux News. And this little Troy Stanley story needs to be played up on MSNBC, who attacks FOX all the time (and vice versa) to expose them for the sham yellow journalism outlet that they are. It's possible that maybe the family members they interviewed really did think it was Troy Stanley, but they went with it without confirming it, and now they look foolish trying to say that Leeland Eisenberg had "several aliases". Doesn't explain why they hand Stanley's relatives and friends being interviewed saying it was him, but that's not important for Faux News. Just another knock at their credibility.
But back to Hillary supporters ... that's certainly not to say Ron Paul supporters are perfect either. Our online army has been known to spam some boards here and there, but he is by far the most popular online Presidential Candidate on the web. And that is backed up by Google searches and You Tube views.
His supporters are creative, tech savvy, think outside the box, and are very dedicated to their guy.
As a token of peace, and to get a few laughs (thus making a fool of us) .... I will show you this clip which is a spoof on 300. It's extremely cheesy and makes us look like complete fools, but I'm willing to make fun of us for a moment and show you we have a sense of humor. But you'll like it. Bill O Reilly gets his in it.
Barring the theory ... not saying it was the reality ... but barring simply the theory that this was an elaborate stunt to garner publicity, it didn't appear to have worked.
Clinton Booed at Heartland Forum
December 01, 2007 6:04 PM
ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: A day after dealing with a hostage crisis, Sen. Hillary Clinton faced a tough crowd in Iowa. Clinton did not receive the warmest of welcomes at the Heartland Form in Des Moines, IA, and although the hostage scare was mentioned, the announcer brushed it off quickly in order to get to questions. Clinton, who was forced to call in to speak to the crowd of thousands because of weather difficulties, took questions on topics from healthcare to illegal immigration.
The senator was asked if she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, "I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."
Soft booing could be heard from the audience. The man repeated his question about the first 100 days. Clinton replied, "Well you've to get congress to pass the legislation and the president to do as much as possible, which I will do." Louder boos came from the crowd.
Clinton was thanked for her appearance and the moderator expressed sympathies for the ordeal she suffered yesterday. Clinton thanked the moderator. More booing could be heard from the crowd again after she hung up the line.
Barring any travel troubles, Clinton is still planning on attending the Brown and Black Presidential Forum in Des Moines Saturday night.
Reading through this thread, I was very disappointed with the direction which the conversation took about this very serious situation. This was nothing more than a troubling incident that could have ended in tragedy but, thankfully, ended peacefully. And we should be discussing the courage of the volunteers and staff members taken hostage. Everyone at all the field offices are amazing, dedicated workers who believe in our democracy enough to stand up and fight for the values in which they believe. And that's true of the volunteers and workers from all campaigns. Let's not demean thier remarkable work and sacrifice with such outlandish accusations.
And, Midnight, if you want to judge a candidates performance based on audience reaction, why haven't you addressed the negative responses both Obama and Edwards received in the last Democratic debate in Las Vegas. Just one of many examples from the debate:
Reading through this thread, I was very disappointed with the direction which the conversation took about this very serious situation. This was nothing more than a troubling incident that could have ended in tragedy but, thankfully, ended peacefully. And we should be discussing the courage of the volunteers and staff members taken hostage. Everyone at all the field offices are amazing, dedicated workers who believe in our democracy enough to stand up and fight for the values in which they believe. And that's true of the volunteers and workers from all campaigns. Let's not demean thier remarkable work and sacrifice with such outlandish accusations.
I was wondering where you were at. I figured you were working double duty to repair the fallout from this thing. You should do some web browsing because you've got the Net talking and accusing the Clinton Campaign of setting this up as an elaborate publicity stunt in New Hampshire ... of all places ... to save her candidacy, since she's been dropping in the polls.
Now, in all seriousness, I don't doubt any of this (what's in bold). They should be commended. But your candidate is not going to be getting the sympathy vote for this, as a result, if that's what you are looking for. Hillary didn't do anything, and nor was it really her place to. The authorities handled it ... and that was that. Everyone's okay. The guy wasn't armed. He only had flares. Nobody got hurt, thank goodness. Time to move on.
And, Midnight, if you want to judge a candidates performance based on audience reaction, why haven't you addressed the negative responses both Obama and Edwards received in the last Democratic debate in Las Vegas. Just one of many examples from the debate:
Before I address this ... I wasn't born yesterday with how the auditoriums get filled up for these debates. Tell me how many tickets Hillary got. Tell me where they were seated in relation to the stage and the mics.
I know how this works Lance. We've been dealing with this problem in Paul's campaign. He gets the least amount of tickets and his supporters get seated away from the stage ... but they are a vociferous group and they still get themselves heard. It's all about perception on TV.
