When asked why she doesn't drop out of the race, Hillary Clinton said, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it."

Previously she has said, "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual."

She apologized for these comments. Here is the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

Do we agree that she shouldn't have said those things? Maybe she's just waiting for Obama to be shot. If he does, then we know where to look

Callous and in poor taste, but everything she said is true. It reminds me of one of those things you think is a good idea to say right up until the point it leaves your mouth. Then again, she apparently has referenced the assassination twice, so maybe she thinks it's a valid point. Watch your back, Obama.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on her part.

I say stay in there and fight Hillary all the way to the convention if you have to.

It would be interesting to see either Clinton or Obama, whichever one does NOT get nominated, run as an independant. I would be interested to see the number of votes he or she manages to hijack.

I am not a Clinton fan by any stretch and her words were not well chosen but pulleeeeaasse. Can the press stop making issues out of everything? I think the apology was the right thing to do only because of his family's feelings. We as Americans do need to stop being so thin skinned however where every word uttered is an issue.

Keith Olberman had a sh*t fit about it last night.

Transcript and video

Keith Olberman

He should have stayed with sports.

Coming up: yet another "Arkancide", made to order by the Clinton Crime Family. You heard it here, but I am not the first person to dare suggest it. The Clintons don't just defeat their opponents, sometimes they just plain have them eliminated.

I hope Obama's security detail is on high alert after this latest statement from Hitlery. He needs to win the nomination, for I fear McCain may have an awful time beating the even more currupt Clinton duo.

Keith Olberman... Odrama Queen.

Not at all, at least in this case. There are far more than enough very troubling reports of suspicious activities surrounding the Clintons and what happens to those who cross them to justify such a reaction when Hillary makes reference to JFK. It is a pretty direct threat, when viewed in that context. Truly shocking.

Oh....come on. If there was really an assasination in anyone's future, do you think it would be discussed so openly?

If you want to discuss AR, didn't Huckabee make a few lefthanded comments as well about assasination and one of the Democratic hopefuls? Something about the NRA and aiming a rifle at the person? Should I attribute that to his party affiliations or to his religion? Or could he have just been having a bad day? The real reason Hilliary bothers so many right wing xians is because she is a woman with a higher IQ than a lot of right wing xian men, isn't it?

That's probably why, I doubt it would have anything to do with her stance on abortion.

And yes I do realize that statement was for B.

You hit the nail on the head!!!!

It is so wonderful when the liberals have no idea what actually was said and therefore make it up..
What happened was that Huckabee was speaking AT an NRA event when there was the sound of something falling or dropping in the background..
He then made a tasteless joke about it being Obama hitting the ground because he THOUGHT someone pointed a gun at him....
I would attribute it to him thinking he was being funny and failing completely...
Even, I, a life NRA member and staunch Conservative thought it was one of the stupidest remarks he could make... and it was only one bad statement, NOT a few lefthanded statements....

Clinton's letter today to the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...nue_to_run.html

As per instruction, I kept a diary of elections for my class. I said early on, (and I took "diary" seriously), "my god, he'll be assassinated!"

My democratic teacher wrote notes in my margins and said, "that's not a reason to not vote for him!!!"

It was then that I realized how you guys fight amongst each other. In my diary, I NEVER swayed to one or the other side. I flat out, from day one, said I was registered independent and always asked questions about independent. I never biased toward anyone, yet she interjected that. In her defense, I guess she skimmed my stuff just like everyone else.

No, I didn't correct her.

Sounded pretty lefthanded to me. Hey........does anyone ever "make up" anything or blow anything out of proportion concerning liberal candidates?

Always and forever.

Only the ones with missing teeth and lots of children with two first names (like Terry Sue, Jimmy Joe, etc). You don't even want to get me going on Hillary. Though if she really is so stupid as to have issued a death threat in the national media, she has sunk to a new low. I agree with others, she most likely just misspoke in a very unfortunate manner given her and her husband's past assocaition with questionable events.

Every single person who's held public office has had questionable events in his/her past. To a degree, we all just have to get over it. As for two first names, I have two. My Dad was from the South (his family was from Arkansas, as a matter of fact) and was constutionally not capable of addressing yours truly by just one first name. My children all have two first names, as well. And I generally use both names when I talk to them. My oldest (a girl, btw) happens to have THE HIGHEST IQ of anyone who has ever attended her school. This school is over 75 years old, so that's a lot of people. And to think.......Southern, two first names, and FEMALE, of all things! She's got all her teeth, though........

And as for teeth......are you saying that a person who is missing a few teeth is less likely to have a high IQ? Because there are people all over the world who either cannot get dental care or cannot afford it. In fact, in the area where I live, I had probs finding a dentist just to do a root canal. If I had decided to get rid of the tooth instead of working a bit harder to find a dentist, would that have destroyed my educational level and reduced my IQ potential? Not everyone lives in areas where there is medical care, BMIC. If I decide to have another baby, finding an OB and a decent hospital will involve 2 or 3 hours of travel, EACH WAY, just to see the doctor. And yes.......Arkansas DOES have those issues. So do lots of other places, even here in America. Think before you insult!

And yes that is a valid response. It indicates that the previous reply was so outrageous as to be unworthy of any other response.

I think her comments are a problem, especially now when Ted Kennedy has brain cancer.

Remember when Obama said something about people being bitter and clinging to their guns? Should we not make an issue out of that??

This is an election, anything the candidate did wrong or said wrong or slept with will be brought up. Where have you been for the past...well...hundreds of years?

Also: SS: I don't think that IQ has much to do with what I call intelligence. I call intelligence the ability and capacity to learn and remember new things. If you can memorize things easily you are intelligent. If you have a high IQ then you know what hand a glove fits if you turn it inside out and other logical thinking questions. No, I don't want you to quote what the dictionary calls intelligence, that's just my opinion. BMIC really annoys you doesn't he? lol

BMIC is ok, Ith. He just seems to be a bit threatened by both intelligent women, and women with high IQ's!

I have a clear record of being a staunch conservative member of the so-called religious right, who regularly and vehemently oppposes Democrats of all shapes sizes and sexes, and yet you dare say my issue with Hillary Clinton is because I am threatened by intelligent women? That's clearly a sexist personal insult and an unfounded personal attack, not based on logic of any kind.

Staunch? RELIGIOUS right? Huckabee made comments about aiming a gun at someone and even used a song by a band whose lead singer (also the person who wrote the song) supports someone else .........I thought that was tacky of him.........and McCain has been married more than once. Who, so far, who has actually been in the race, has even SUPPORTED the values you claim???? Obama actually seems to show more interest in religion than anyone who has run for president in years, but all you do is make any unsupported accusation about him you can think of! And Hilliary has NOT earned your hatred. You cannot actually prove the claims you make about her.....yet you seem very much against her. You DO appear to dislike women or any legal right a woman could have to protect or promote herself. You even, in another thread, advised another poster to violate his court orders concerning child support in order to play one up with a woman. Yes; play one up with a woman. You didn't even consider, in your post, that the child would suffer the most! What you seem to staunchly support is keeping the odds In YOUR favor, using any means you can, godly or evil, and then calling it "staunch support for the religious right".

No; I do not think you are an evil man. I don't even think you are aware of how you come across, most of the time. Yes.......I DO think you have problems with women in positions of power. No, I do not think a strong love of Judeo-Christian culture is responsible for your insecurities. I just think you feel threatened and insecure, because you know there are women on this planet who are better qualified for important jobs and important positions than you are. Unfortunately for us girls, guys like you are a dime a dozen.

My take on this media Gossip (some of it is true) is for them to simply just SHUT UP!!!!!!!! My Star's you can't even watch any type of a clip from the new's and it's about those two. For the love of God just give it up. I'm not for either one of them.

Which two? BMIC and siriunsun?

JK

Does anyone know what it means to be a staunch conservative or religious right (evangelical) as it pertains to politics? I've had a few debates with different (christians/evangelicals) over the years about their views on controversial issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage/civil unions as it relates to government and what I find interesting the majority of the time is that the person is usually so closed-minded that they tend to disregard biblical prophecies about last day events. In fact, the vast majority can't even begin to speak intelligently about the books of Daniel and Revelation.

This is not intended to be a shot at anyone, I'm just attempting to understand where so-called conservatives and evangelicals form these ideas about government and policy that challenge a woman's right to choose or homosexual couples right to form a civil contract particularly when their views are inconsistent with the very same Bible (and the very same Jesus Christ) they claim is the basis for such "staunchly conservative" views? (...not intended to get into a bible debate either).

As for Hillary's comments, they could be taken one or several ways especially considering the track record the clintons have with people dying or being killed under questionable circumstances. The bottom line is that her most recent comments as well as the outrageous and dangerous comments she made about Iran as well as many others comments she has made; demonstrates why she is far too "stupid" to be the top diplomat and statesperson for the country.

It's called the Bible. Abortion and homosexuality are not controversial at all. Both are wrong.

Daniel and Revelation are both apocalyptic books and very difficult for the average person to understand in depth. If you're not a believer you aren't even equipped to understand the scriptures so I would not even bother trying to debate anything as complex as the deeper meanings of either of them with you. It's called casting your pearls before swine, and while I have been guilty of doing it in the past, your obvious hatred of Christians makes it easy for me to turn you away.

In any event this thread is about what seems to be Hillary Clinton's thinly-vieled death threat against Obama. She can issue all of the denials she wants but the damage has been done.

What's called the bible? A collection of tales written in obscure languages and constantly misinterpreted that does not mention abortion (abortion did not exist back then, remember?) and does not really discuss gay issues at all? Since the average person does not speak the Hebrew of 2000 years ago and does not speak Greek at all, I would say that you, also do not understand Daniel and Revelations.

I have not encountered anyone on this board who hates Christians. I would not be surprised if a few of us hated people who try to cloak their silly-a**ed insecurities behind the veil of false, xian, "spirituality",though.

See this is exactly the type of rhetoric that I refer to. First of all since you are not God you are not in a position to say whether I hate Christians or not. Second, since you are not God, you are not in a position to turn anyone away. Third, just for the record I am Christian, I just choose not to judge others or to be quite as opinionated as you since according to you it's so "obvious" that I hate Christians. God's Word is final and He will choose when to exercise His wrath on this earth and nothing us humans do, attempt to do, or even attempt to prevent others from doing (i.e. abortion, gay unions) will change any of God's plan's for this world! The real question here is do you understand your Bible and are you following the example that Christ lead? Ask yourself this question would Christ have responded to the message I put up in the same manner that you did? WWJD or what would Jesus do? It's judgmental Christians that turn people off to the Bible.

However, if I take your message at face value then it would also mean that you can't arbitrarily say that abortion and homosexuality is wrong for the individual that doesn't believe as you do. It's not wrong to them and if you weren't so assuming and judgmental then you would realize that God gives everyone a choice to either accept or reject His Word. You can't be God nor can you enforce what's in His word.

As far as debating the scripture I would venture to say you are seriously unqualified to have such as discussion considering the majority of Christians have a very vague understanding of scripture going back to the simple instructions given at Mt. Sinai so don't make frivilous attempts to turn me away when you don't have a clear understanding of what you practice and/or debate.

Nevertheless, I agree that this thread is about Hillary's comments however, all I wanted to know was additional information about what it means to be a staunch conservative, religious right, or evangelical as it relates to politics.

VERY WELL STATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO

Slinks away

Back from Vacation.

ALERT.

IF OBAMA dies, the race wars begin. Write it down.

Please do elaborate on this gem. I want to make sure I understand you before crafting a reply.

Right on Patton, no elaboration needed.

I believe what the Bible says. If you choose to reject it you are not a Christian by any means. That settles it. Number 3 on my growing ignore list. Welcome to irrelevance.

LOL, your ignore list. I believe what the Bible says as well, that doesn't give me the right to force my beliefs on others or judge others by what I believe. Judge not that ye may also be judged!

Here you go...

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index....ia-barack-obama

B -- Can you tell me exactly where in the bible it refers to homosexuality? Is there only one place?

Yes and no, respectively.

Ooooookay. It was a serious question. Apparently you didn't take it so. How about this: Where in the Bible do you feel it mentions homosexuality and prohibits it?

Multiple locations. but I do not have the time to look them up now.

While we're waiting for me to have a whole lot of extra spare time that I would not rather be spending doing something else, where do you feel that it says it is acceptable?

I mean this is pretty basic stuff, hardly worth arguing over. If nothing else it's as basic as saying look at Genesis: where do they mention Adam and Steve? It's Adam and Eve. But of course there are more direct references that anyone who has cracked a Bible for any serious study can find without me doing their work for them.

I have to admit not doing as much bible study as I probably should. I’m not scholar for sure, okay? And my reading has been much more New Testament. But I have heard many who oppose homosexuality on a Biblical basis build their argument on Leviticus 20:13 as the cornerstone of their position (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

I’ve parroted it myself, having read it in a handout I was given once, among other places. But then I did a bit more digging and realized that, if Leviticus is still as valid today as it was way back when, wouldn’t that mean that charging (or accepting) interest on your money, or wearing clothing made of more than one kind of thread, and many other widely “accepted” practices today are also against God’s will?

I personally can’t imagine being “gay” or attracted to another man. The idea offends me. I don’t think it is “right”. I don’t like to see men “together” as a couple. But defending my position on that isn’t as clear cut for me as it once was.

I think it's funny that people said we were making too big of a deal out of this Clinton comment, and then there is a thread about someone wanting their name on the plaque and losing votes for it.

Stop making BMIC comment off topic! This is not religion thread, but since you started it here is my opinion:

Does something being in the bible make it directly your opinion? If the bible said we should all jump off bridges when we reach the age of 66 would you do it? I think it's perfectly acceptable to be a Christian and not be against homosexuality, whether the bible says it's wrong or not. If the bible says it is wrong then don't do it yourself, but don't condemn people who decide to do it. And you certainly have no right to stop them from being married just because you don't agree with it. People don't go bother Muslims to eat cows because their religion says it's ok to eat cows. I think whoever wants to be married should be able to get married. Last time I checked there wasn't a national religion establishing the laws of the country. None of these comments are in reference to anyone, just my general opinion.

When Leviticus was written, it was FOR a population that was traveling through the desert. Certain fabrics may have been better to wear in hot sun than others. And they were also trying to build their numbers up so that they could populate a certain amount of land. Gay couples probably could not help with that............

If I wanted to put my own spin on it, I would stop to consider that a gay relationship is not EXACTLY like a straight relationship; so how could a gay man "lie with a woman AS he lies with a man", anyway? Nothing about a gay relationship is an exact copy of the mainstream heterosexual parallel with which gay relationships are constantly compared. With that in my, I think killing someone because he/she is gay would take a lot of nerve and not any of "God's" actual attitude at all.

How does this relate to Hilliary's comment? I don't know. Maybe if we have a Democrat in office, gay couples can cover each other with insurance, the way straight couples do; and save medicare some money.