General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDO NOT BE FOOLED!!!
While in elementary school, Hillary befriended a girl whose mailman had his front porch renovated by a carpenter whose mother-in-laws best friend was regularly fined for overdue library books. This early penchant for associating with people with ties to organized crime was later investigated by Ken Starr but in light of the passage of years and the ensuing faulty memories of witnesses involved, no charges were ever laid. (Hmmm - how convenient!)
Bill Clinton once ate at a Little Rock restaurant that employed a waiter who was the third cousin (twice removed) of the next-door neighbour of someone who is pretty sure he remembers once riding on the same bus as Ted Bundy. The obvious link between Bill and a serial killer was later dismissed as coincidence in other words, the fix was in.
Back in the mid-70s, Hillary requested a window seat before boarding a plane on a Chicago-to-NYC flight. Turns out and heres where it gets interesting the man seated three rows behind her in an aisle seat was once a co-worker of a man arrested in 1992 for failure-to-appear in traffic court regarding numerous parking tickets. Connect the dots, people!!!
Hillary once ordered the Blue Plate Special (meatloaf, mashed potatoes and peas) at an Atlanta diner that served exactly the same Blue Plate Special as offered in a Montana diner that once served someone who lives within a thousand mile-radius of Dick Cheney, VP to George W. Bush. So tell me again how Hill and the BFEE arent as thick as thieves?
As if any further proof were necessary
At his SOTU speech in January 1995, Bill Clinton sported a tie that was exactly the same colour as a tie worn by a man later identified as a co-worker of a woman who knew someone who bought Girl Scout cookies from a girl whose parents read an on-line article about Bin Laden. Could the links between Hill and Bill and international terrorists be ANY MORE OBVIOUS?!
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the personification of EVIL. The aforementioned is just a small taste of her own (and her husbands, because shes just a girl and cant really think on her own) apparent ties to the worst criminals, domestic and foreign, this nation has ever come to know.
DO NOT I repeat, DO NOT allow this woman to be elected POTUS! Her association with known criminals (i.e. people who have accounts at HSBC, or know someone who has an account at a bank on the same street as an HSBC branch) has now been revealed!* (*For further details, please consult the right-wing website of your choice.)
Our very democracy hangs in the balance. Do not be taken in by this womans actual political record!!! Her positions on everything from womens rights to healthcare for all are just an evil trick to fool you into voting for her!!!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You convinced me!
But I won't tell you I wasted my vote on a write in or 3rd party candidate cuz I still want to be able to post bullshit about Democrats on DU!
Wee!
Well done.
alfredo
(60,074 posts)precinct on election day.
Protect those inalienable posting privleges!
Because, principles.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'll sit it out behind the wheel of a car driving voters to the polls...and I'll vote during one of those trips!
Initech
(100,081 posts)Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)Behind the table at the Voting place as an Election Inspector. We have paper ballots plus the electronic reader in NY state. You can manually recount the vote. No ID needed. Your replies to name and address must be correct and your signature must match your signature on file.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or she didn't make a speech to her congressional colleagues urging them to do the same?
Or she actually read the NIE that said there was no WMD?
Which should I apologize for misunderstanding?
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)How did they manage the four-part harmony of "Sweet Adeline"?
Who sang the fourth? Maurice Chevalier?
Truly one of life's greatest imponderables.
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Made my day!
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)I find it is easy to ignore you and still read all the enlightening posts you make. I ignore you in my head...I can still read you and laugh. Aaaah~ I read you loud and clear. Will I get another hide from you now? The last one was pretty damn ugly, bet you laughed and laughed at the names I was called.
Had to say that. Now I am done.
Bye.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I await the eviction notice with high hopes.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Interesting.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)(Always attacking.)
Seems like that qualifies.
A little stalkery and creepy.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The search function is your little tireless helper.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I'm good, just know this is just the Internet (which I know you know).
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Good to know.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Don't you know there was the fog of war? So, um, some mistakes were made and stuff.
No, wait, the administration lied to us and uhhhh, well...USA USA USA.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)During her 2006 Senate re-election campaign, Hillary received a contribution from a woman in Larchmont whose occasional bridge partner's son was in his college's Sailing Club along with a guy who, in a late-night bull session in the dorm lobby, once said that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.
That's the only basis on which those crazy fringe leftist Hillary-haters tie her to the Iraq War.
And anyone who says otherwise is a right-wing troll, just here to stir shit.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Hillary did not want to upset the Jewish vote that gives to both parties in her state based upon which candidate shows the strongest support for Israel.
The political arithmetic for Clinton was easy knowing she could take the larger liberal Jewish vote for granted, she also showed support for Israels right-wing government to keep moderate voters and their money from bolting and stopping from supporting her any further.
That price for that support was a vote for war.
Since that bloc swings a large stick in NY state politics, she took the cowardly way out.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Yes, there are Jews in New York who are ardently pro-Israel and who on that basis supported the war. There are also plenty of Jews in the ranks of the generally progressive New Yorkers who oppose militarism in general and who opposed the Iraq War in particular. I (a Gentile)was among hundreds of thousands of people marching down Fifth Avenue to oppose the war, and several of my pro-Israel Jewish friends were there, too.
I suspect that Clinton was less concerned about the 2006 election, where she rated to be a strong favorite regardless of how she voted, and more concerned about 2008 and beyond. She had national ambitions. For campaigning outside her liberal adopted state, she didn't want to be open to the charge of being weak on national security. You say that she knew "she could take the larger liberal Jewish vote for granted," but I'd apply that more broadly -- she knew that, in a general election for President, almost all of us who marched against the war would vote for her either way, and she wanted to be competitive in more conservative states.
I'm sure she didn't foresee how much trouble the vote would cause her in a future struggle for the Democratic nomination.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Certainly she had national ambitions from the beginning, and that would have colored her actions.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)She is MIC/corporate corruption personified.
And we'll see much, much more blood no matter who is elected, if corporatists succeed in shoving her down our throats as the Democratic candidate in 2016.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)To quote the OP, her actual record is precisely why I won't vote for HC in the Democratic primary.
Same reason I didn't vote for John Kerry, John Edwards, or Joe Biden in Dem primaries.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Did Hillary know more than they did?
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)Why do you suppose most Senate Democrats voted for it, including our 2004 presidential & vice presidential nominees and our current vice president? I know you didn't get here until well after Bush had stolen his second term, but I'm wondering if you held all 29 in the contempt they deserve for it, or is Clinton's abysmal vote the only one you're consternated over?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Have you seen anything to the contrary?
Since a presidential campaign season is bearing down on us, and since Clinton is believed to be a strong possibility to run, what she did is of most interest as compared to others who are not running. But since Biden also might run, let me say this: Biden, Clinton, or anyone else who voted for war made a decision that was so epically horrific that they should not hold any high office.
As to why? I have thoughts, but can't know for sure. But in a sense I'm a simple person and am of the belief that people who do insane things once are at high risk of doing them again, whatever the motive.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)Thanks for the response.
marym625
(17,997 posts)It amazes me that the vote to go to war, against a country that was no threat to us, no longer matters is absolutely disgusting.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)bigtree
(85,998 posts)...that I envied so when I first happened upon this board.
an A+
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Her writing when was better when it wasn't about a team.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...but thanks for coming on to this thread to inform me of your opinion.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I don't want a Republican, either. I just want a better choice.
And I'm also a writer and capable of stating an opinion, which you sarcastically mocked.
That I don't choose to wax poetic here is of no consequence to you or me.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 22, 2015, 04:05 AM - Edit history (2)
...I don't think Nance is actually a stalwart Clinton supporter. (I'm not supporting her for the Dem nom, myself, though I used to spar with her in 2007-8 over Hillary v. her candidate Barack). Interesting, though, how many folks can't step outside of all of that political antipathy and judge the issue she was addressing in her satire on its merits. One poster even read something about the Iraq vote in her essay. In fact, most of the posters who've responded with criticisms of her essay seem to be fighting their political battle against Hillary against issues they've erected on this thread outside of anything she's actually written about here.
It's like this (my interpretation, of course) :
Nance: Tangential associations aren't necessarily causal proof of wrongdoing.
Response: You're just deflecting from her Iraq vote!
Disconnect.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)and post "please see bigtree #186".
H2O Man
(73,559 posts)and think it's very good or not good at all.
...but, I don't accept that her writing is 'about a team.'
I could be wrong, but I also don't believe Nance's parodying of guilt by association in Clinton's case were primarily about support for a Clinton candidacy. Her political affinities in the next election remain to be seen, of course, but I can wholly relate to rejecting this type of political attack on Hillary Clinton - on it's lack of merit, on its focus on tangential associations (at best), on it's relevance to anything outside of the charitable goals of the foundation, and on where it originated and is promoted - I believe - in right wing strategist offices as a hedge against their own much more substantial and consequential ties to foreign money.
H2O Man
(73,559 posts)with other recent posts where she lumps all people who oppose a Clinton candidacy into one group, and applies the worst qualities to all. When others have noted this, her response is consistent: oh no, I'm only speaking about the trolls, etc. But a pattern has emerged.
Obviously, she has the right to advocate for a candidate in any manner she wants to. And, clearly, a heck of a lot of forum members appreciate her pro-Clinton contributions to the discussions on DU:GD. She is a talented communicator.
In my opinion, the number of "trolls" on DU is so tiny, that they are without any significance. There are, however, a large number of good people who oppose Clinton (or at least doubt they could vote for her). They raise valid concerns -- her foreign policy, her stance on some environmental issues, and her ties to Wall Street.
None of the most vocal of Clinton advocates seems willing to address these very real concerns. Rather, they tend to dismiss them by way of dismissing anyone who raises them. Trolls, don't you know. It would seem to me that there would be advantages to having one of DU's better writers who is pro-Clinton address them -- especially if one seeks to convince others that Ms. Clinton is a solid choice for President.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...so, I'm having a very hard time regarding her as a 'Clinton advocate.' Untypical of most 'Clinton supporters' on this board, Nance has righteously defended Pres. Obama from the start of his candidacy and throughout his presidency,
Below, Nance writes, "There are valid concerns about Hillary's policies and positions, and are expressed by many here on a daily basis." That seems almost identical to your own admonition that 'They raise valid concerns -- her foreign policy, her stance on some environmental issues, and her ties to Wall Street.'
Btw, the person who posted the op she was responding to flamed out and was served in a most spectacular fashion a few hours ago, so, troll or no, really shouldn't get as much consideration as you're providing here.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)They are completely untrue.
I have not "lumped all people who oppose a Clinton candidacy into one group, and applied the worst qualities to all. When others have noted this, her response is consistent: oh no, I'm only speaking about the trolls, etc. But a pattern has emerged."
I stated on one recent thread that I thought a number of anti-Hillary posts are the result of RW trolls. And I believe they are, in that the trolls tend to latch onto topics that get DUers riled up - a classic case of "let's you and him fight". That was ONE post on my part - so I fail to see the "pattern" of which you speak.
The notion that I would "apply the worst qualities" to ALL of those who are against Hillary's candidacy is absurd on its face. I have many friends on this board - people who I am also friends with on other websites and in RL - who are dead set against Hillary being our nominee. The idea that I would apply "the worst qualities" to those friends, or intimate that they are "trolls", defies logic and common sense. Do you honestly think that I would imply that EVERY single DUer who is against Hill's nomination is a right-winger?
Many of the anti-Hillary posters here are posters who have been here longer than I have, and their Democratic credentials are beyond reproach. To think I - or anyone else, for that matter - would suddenly come to the conclusion that they are all right-wingers is downright laughable.
"the number of "trolls" on DU is so tiny, that they are without any significance. There are, however, a large number of good people who oppose Clinton (or at least doubt they could vote for her). They raise valid concerns ..."
I have stated many times that the anti-Hill folks DO have valid concerns. Just because I don't share some of those concerns, or see some of those concerns as less important than others, is in no way taking a position that concerns should not be discussed - about Hillary, or any other potential POTUS contender. This OP was prompted by the idea that trying to "connect" Hillary or The Clinton Foundation to sex offenders and tax-dodgers solely on the basis that donations come from a particular bank is absurd - and has nothing to do with "valid concerns" that should be raised.
The number of trolls here is not "tiny". Many of them have now become accepted as "long term DUers", who just "happen" to post nothing but anti-Dem rhetoric under the guise of being "disappointed Dems". They are prolific posters, they serve on juries, etc.
I initially stopped posting here years ago when Skinner changed the TOS from "constructive criticism" of Dems being permitted to "any and all criticism of Dems" being acceptable. That rule change was a welcome mat to every RW troll who ever dreamed of disrupting this site. I think you can imagine how many of we Dems would have registered at FreeRepublic during the BushCo years, had RimJob suddenly declared that "any and all criticism" of Dubya, Cheney, et al, was allowed. We all would have rushed right in, declaring that we were staunch Bush supporters who were now "disappointed" in the way he was governing - just as many RW trolls signed-up here and told their sob stories about how they'd canvassed for, donated to, and voted for Obama, but now realize he wasn't who they thought he was.
Although there are still some truly committed Democrats still posting here, I no longer see DU as a "Democratic" site. It has become just another political message board open to all, where trolls are free to post blatantly anti-Democrat BS without interference. And the fact they are part of the jury pool means that even the most racist, sexist, RW posts are often left standing, depending on who the jurors are.
All of that being said, if you have any evidence of a "pattern" of my calling all anti-Hillary posters RW trolls, I suggest you provide the links thereto.
I am truly disappointed in you, H2O Man. Despite our many differences of opinion on various issues, I would never even think of accusing you of saying something you didn't say, nor would I insinuate that you have a "pattern" of saying such things.
H2O Man
(73,559 posts)Over the weekend, I joined in on an OP/thread by friend bigtree, in which he spoke of being a member of your fan club. I thought it was a wonderful gesture on his part, and I was more than happy to add my two cents to it. I did so without any reservations. However, for the sake of this conversation, I will note that it was shortly after disagreeing with you on the nature of forum members opinions of Hillary Clinton.
By no coincidence, that same general disagreement is found here, on this OP/thread that you started. In response to bigtrees comment per people either getting it or not, I noted that one could get your OP, but not appreciate it. Indeed, one can get it, not appreciate it, but still heartily endorse our friends fan club post
for good writers, like good politicians, athletes, etc, are human beings
and human beings are not, by definition, perfect.
I noted on bigtrees OP that, at my age, I am no longer a fan of anyone (or any team). Thus, while I truly enjoy watching the Super Bowl, or NBA finals, Im never disappointed. My favorite sport is boxing. On May 2, Floyd Mayweather will fight Manny Pacquiao; this will be the single biggest money-making event in sports history. Mayweather, for example, should easily double the $92 million he made in a single bout, in September of 2013. Needless to say, no matter who wins, about half the fans will be disappointed.
That type of disappointment is merely the result of one person setting a standard for anothers behavior. Not only is it patronizing, at best, but it can only lead to -- well, disappointment. Better to set standards for ones self, and recognizing that, just like everyone else, we all have flaws.
Im getting a bit side-tracked, a not uncommon feature of old age.
Im glad -- though not surprised -- that you take a different approach to discussing Clinton et al with your friends in real life. I suspect that this is rather common among those who post on the internet, including DU. Speaking only for myself -- an example, I suppose, of one of the standards that I set for myself -- I try to be as respectful of people here, as I would were they sitting in my living room. That doesnt absolutely exclude ever making a snaky reply to an individual who I recognize as a troll, or responding with an attempt at humor when someone says something foolish. But is does mean that I do not assume that the majority of people who disagree with me on an issue such as Ms. Clinton, are not trolls or fools.
I think that the tone being set on DU:GD is becoming too harsh and toxic to allow for meaningful discussions to compete with the nonsense. In my opinion, some of your recent comments have added to that ugly tone. I also recognize that you have the right to post whatever you want to. Yet, not withstanding the temporary pleasure that snark may bring, I wonder if, deep down, you really think that those posts serve any positive role in a discussion about Ms. Clintons qualifications to be President?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)I read your comment on the "NG Fan" thread, and thank you very much. I, myself, am not a "fan" fan either, so I take your point.
It still remains, however, that you took one comment I made on one thread about "some anti-Hill posters" being trolls - and then extrapolated that into being a "pattern" of behaviour on my part, which is clearly not true. Nor have I ever insinuated that ALL anti-Hill posters are trolls.
This has become part of the toxicity that now permeates this site - posters having their comments twisted into what you're saying then is ...", or, "what you REALLY mean is ...", or having a single comment on a single issue being noted as "a pattern".
I have not advocated for Hillary at all. But I have defended her when I see bullshit being tossed around as though it were fact.
My only "advocacy", if you can call it that, for her candidacy is that she polls incredibly well against all probable GOP contenders. I am in it to win it, and my support goes to whichever Democrat is most likely to be elected. Right now, that is HRC. Should someone come along tomorrow who looks to be a more likely winner, my support will go to them.
Am I snarky and uncivil in my replies to some people here? You're damned real I am. I am not about to be respectful to anyone who has demonstrated their own incapacity to be respectful to me, or others on this board. Given the "ugly tone" that has become the norm here, altering my own tone will not change things, nor serve any purpose.
The DU rule changes of a few years ago, along with a "jury system" that is a sad joke, have turned this board into a boxing match - and I am not about to play by the rules when everyone else in the ring is armed with sledgehammers and machetes. It's that simple.
I miss the days when there actually WERE rules of engagement here, and they were strictly enforced. But those days are gone and, as I've said, this is no longer a Democratic site. It's just another free-for-all message board where obvious trolls are allowed to post without any fear of consequences.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)that brought me to this board, too. Although I spent the Bush years just reading. I didn't bother to register and comment until much later.
Ramses
(721 posts)That is a fact.
How does it feel inside to support someone who voted to authorize a war that resulted in a million civilian deaths?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Ramses
(721 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Joe Biden voted for the IWR so yah... If you voted for Obama how does it feel?
Ramses
(721 posts)Barack Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time. Thus he did not vote on the invasion. But as a member of the state senate in Illinois, he expressed his vocal opposition, calling it a foolish decision by President Bush; and when he joined the U.S. senate in 2004, he voted against the surge and against additional funding for expanding the war. In 2008, as a candidate, he promised he would end our involvement in Iraq if he were elected, and that is what he did
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)So... again ask yourself how does it feel?
Ramses
(721 posts)My conscience is clear. How about yours?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Better now even.
Ramses
(721 posts)Seems many don't have one, unfortunately. Interesting to know you feel fine.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Ramses
(721 posts)But you continue not to answer a very simple question about how you feel supporting a candidate that voted to authorize a war that resulted in a million civilian deaths. Millions of thinking Americans won't ignore it, however. Myself included
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That's the answer your looking for right?
And now you can link to this post in your next big OP. And next time you want to call me an idiot or "unthinking American" just do it.
The bush you beat around is quite large.
Ramses
(721 posts)I would like to think you care about it. I wont link to your post. If that is how you really feel, we have nothing further to talk about unfortunately. I dont have big OP's. Im new here, despite what has been falsely insinuated here on other threads which Im not going to mention. I guess its because I lean to the left here like hundreds of others, the new person makes an easy target. I dont let it bother me.
I really was hoping for a little humanity in your response to be honest. Im sad if that is really how you feel.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Your avatar got me thinking, and Google is pretty useful so just so you know one time Lou Reed was photographed with Hillary Clinton, hell he even when he was under investigation by Ken Starr.
Everything that was old is new again, and it's all fair game.... you might have to change that avatar now.
Ramses
(721 posts)I would not call you names or say your unthinking or an idiot. I apologize if I came accross that way. I can be snarky many times too. Im not against you Agschmid. Or anybody else here. I think I will read your post and try and be more kind here, and not so sarcastic. Words can hurt, but I feel it necessary to still stand up for what I believe in.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Same on my end, but know that I don't give up that easy... and we do seem to be on quite opposite ends of the spectrum here.
I do think it's important to have other people run, and again I'm not solidly in anyone's camp but the clock is certainly ticking. And for me a president from the republican side who is against my very right to choose who I marry is a big deal (though less of one lately).
Ramses
(721 posts)I feel and have always been supportive of marriage equality, LGBTQ rights, and minority rights. I find it sickening the daily stories, for example, of black men shot to death by cops who get away with it. Its awful stuff like that that really makes me have my beliefs about what this country really stands for. And its not marriage Equality. Or minority rights. Or labor rights. Or many rights I really care about. Maybe we are not on opposite ends as much as you think, but differ on the best direction to achieve similar goals
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)thing HRC supporters have. Like this OP. No one provides any argument with substance for why we should vote for someone that betrayed our Party and helped the Republicons with the biggest disaster in modern history.
Remember 2000 when the Conservative Democrats tried to coerce the Left into supporting the DLC candidate? It didn't work then, but at least then the Conservative Dems had Nader to blame.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)As I've said a few times:
- Uncontested primaries suck.
- I am not in anyone's camp at this time.
- I hate lies and misrepresentations.
- I will vote for the democratic nominee.
I've gotten to vote for Elizabeth Warren and enjoyed it, but at this point we just need people to run... and they aren't. It sucks, I'm on board with that. However I am not going to just sit here and let people post misrepresentations everyday over and over. The OP here is sarcasm... I don't think the OP is trying to win anyone over. This is a discussion board and I get to discuss, even if the way I do it doesn't make you happy.
And although I do remember 2000, I couldn't vote in that election so I'm SOL there.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)HRC and her husband have amassed over $100,000,000 in the last 15 years. Something is wrong with this picture.
I think the HRC has the backing of the Oligarch Rulers. If she wins the nomination, I think it's time for shutting this shit down. I am against a violent revolution but I do support a peaceful revolution.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)and we do need to do something about it, but we need someone to lead who can do that and as of right now we just have a big SUCKING noise... (thats the power vacuum).
In politics 1 month is a year, and we are running out of months!
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)When the time is right, I sure hope there are more than two, but I hope no one runs to take votes away from someone else just to get a phony majority for someone else, but is sincerely seeking the office
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Your "gotcha" is a big fat miss.
We don't vote for the Vice President in the Democratic primary, so you're saying Ramses is a hypocrite by voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election. Therefore, you endorse voting for Romney in 2012, throwing your vote away on a 3rd party (like Nader supporters did in Florida 2000), or staying home on election day. Either that, or your "gotcha" is "ain't got nuttin."
Clue 4 you:
I, like many other DUers, refuse to vote in a Dem primary for any candidate who voted for the IWR in 2002. But I will most certainly vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election, and I urge you to do the same.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Here is the post which started the whole subthread:
In that post I was asked how it felt to vote for someone who support the IWR, well... As if it's something we haven't already all done. If you voted for Obama in the general the guy one heartbeat away from the presidency had voted for that bill...
I actually don't call Ramses a hypocrite anywhere and he actually doesn't say that he did vote for Obama in 2008. It's a pretty interesting exchange but there isn't really a "gotcha" it's just a fact, if you voted for the Dem ticket then you've already voted for someone who supported the IWR.
No my post is far from an endorsement of another party, here is a Clue 4 you: (I also hooded it, seems important no?) I will be voting for the Democratic nominee so don't worry.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Your "gotcha" is "ain't got nuttin."
In the Democratic primary we have choices between those who voted for or advocated invading Iraq in 2003, and those who voted against or vocally opposed it (or someone who wasn't in office and not on record at the time). In the general election we can vote for the Democrat, the Republican, a third party with zero chance, or stay home.
There is an ENORMOUS difference between voting for an Iraq war supporter in the primary (when we have better choices) and voting for the Dem in the general election.
Your previous post I responded to remains minus 1000 in my book, though you of course can read whatever you like.
What I have not yet read in DU is a reasonable defense of Hillary Clinton's (or Joe Biden's) vote for the IWR in October 2002. Probably because there is no reasonable defense. It was inexcusable.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But I don't think we will end up on the same page, so that fine.
Don't worry we will both be pulling the same lever.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They support HRC because she is their authoritarian leader. It doesn't matter what's she's done or if she has integrity or not.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)and they aren't.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Which Dem do you think could win the national election, other than HRC?
Honest question, no snark intended.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And also she isn't running...
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)If Warren were to run I would certainly support her.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)I thought you'd be flattered - after all, this thread was inspired by your own fact-laden OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6256160
I've always admired the Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon style of association between political figures and their nefarious goings on. It's the stuff that grocery store tabloid headlines are made of - not to mention the bullshit that right-wingers live for, not having the intellectual wherewithal to figure out these obvious connections for themselves.
Ramses
(721 posts)How do you feel about a politician that voted for a war based on lies that murdered over a million civilians?
Oh, and Im not your "dear"
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... about posting the most ridiculous "connections" between the Clinton Foundation and people who bank at HSBC - or know someone who banks at HSBC, or once read the same newspaper as someone who knows someone whose nieghbour's stray dog was given a biscuit by the cousin of someone whose initials were H.S.B.C.?
Ramses
(721 posts)From a bank known to be under investigation by high value individuals that are trying to dodge taxes? Under criminal investigation in two countries? One giver a known convicted sex offender? An agency supporting the Keystone Pipeline?
You really find that "charitable" giving?
This isnt people three and four times removed as you suggest. They are direct contributors "donating" over 81 million dollars from a bank under criminal investigation for exactly these types of high worth individuals that are shielding assets?
You are really trying to say, nothing to see here?
Well said.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)OMG, he was so hot in that movie. *swoons*
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)which was a mistake, not an act of evil on her part.
And the Iraq war resolution that she voted for contained conditions that should have prevented Bush from beginning the war, except he chose to ignore them. The conditions included the requirement that weapons of mass destruction be found - but they never were. Bush went ahead anyway.
If Hillary and the Dems hadn't voted to approve the IWR in the fall, with the conditions, then the Rethugs would have approved a blank check for Bush in January. As it turned out, Bush ignored the conditions, but that isn't something any of the Dems knew would happen.
In the end, her vote didn't make a bit of difference in the war -- Bush would have gone forward with or without it. She only hurt herself and her political standing by deciding to trust those people.
Ramses
(721 posts)No one with any sense assumed Colin Powell was telling the truth. It was shouted from the rooftops every day about Colin Powell's lies. On many websites and bulletin boards. And Hillary at the time fully supported and encouraged Bush's rhetoric. I can post her exact quotes, but they are easy to find, so I wont bother. Its one thing to make political mistakes, or even have a change of heart on certain topics. I can see some reasonable things that could be dismissed.
But not The Iraq war lies. Its just too hard to overlook and dismiss with any reasonable person. Im sorry, but a million lives lost is not a "mistaken" vote.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)with the Republicans in the majority in January, and the war beginning in March.
The IWR didn't make a bit of difference.
Ramses
(721 posts)Could have stood up and said "NO" these are lies and we will not support an illegal war of aggression. If Hillary did that, I would not fault her at all, and praise her for standing up to evil. But she did not. She sided with Bush and his lies. She could have brought millions of Americans together in protest, but they did that by themselves, without her.
I remember the protests. i remember the deep resentment and anger at Bush's lies. Hillary chose to side with those lies. Stopping the war could have been prevented with strong Democrats standing up to evil. They chose to side with it instead.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I was at many of those protests.... Thousands of us were. Never reported in the media.
Hillary and the Dems SHOULD have known and SHOULD have voted NO.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)or all the others who voted for the IWR after being deceived by Colin Powell and the rest of the Bush administration.
Ted Kennedy has explained that the reason he knew to vote NO was because, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, he had access to confidential information that the rest of the Senate did not. He didn't blame them for trusting the Administration not to be lying to them. That's how the system is supposed to work. And until then Colin Powell had been regarded as a moderate and a person of some integrity. That all changed afterwards.
You are remembering the protests in the spring, when it became apparent that Powell had lied, there were no WMD's, and Bush was going to war anyway. But the IWR had been approved during the preceding fall and by January the Rethugs controlled the Congressional majorities. There was nothing the Dems could do to stop the war in March.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/foreign-policy-address-edward-m-kennedy/p6834
QUESTIONER: My name is . I work for the State Department's Washington File. In the run-up to the war, Robert Byrd was almost the only voice in Congress making a case against the war. Where were the other members of Congress at that time?
KENNEDY: The question is Robert Byrd spoke out brilliantly against the war; where were the others? They weren't behind Robert Byrd where they should've been. I was glad to be there with Robert Byrd on that issue, but the clearly, we shouldn't have been there. I reached that my decision as a member of the Armed Services Committee listening to members of the military testify and predicting exactly what was going to come. You listen to General Hoar , the principal former leaders both of the Marines and the military, men and women who had experience and had been over in that region of the world, absolutely predicted exactly what was going to happen. And it was so powerful, clear, and convincing, that the decision was an easy one for me.
Quite frankly, our colleagues, some of those that were on the Armed Services Committee, reached the similar conclusion. Senator Byrd is on that Armed Services Committee. But it was the we I think what they would say is they didn't have the kind of balanced information that many of the rest of us had. There's no question, as I mentioned in the talk, that the presentation that was made to the members of the United States Senate misrepresented and distorted the intelligence information. And we have to have, as any democracy has to have, confidence in both what the president is going to tell you and what the president's representatives are going to tell you. And when they had the kind of series of misrepresentations that I've reviewed, this is an indictment of this administration in its own words.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Including those who had no more information available than Hillary - although in fairness, the others may have actually read the National Intelligence Estimate that said ther were probably no WMD.
In any case, sounds like you're arguing that Hillary was ignorant, not evil?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Maybe they like war more than peace.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)OK, let's say a Rethug will occupy the White House in January 2017. He vows to gut and/or privatize Social Security, and the R's will control both houses of Congress. It comes up for a vote in November 2016, after the election. Since SS will be gutted anyway, you see nothing wrong with Democrats voting to gut SS because they can't stop it.
Really?
Except, of course, the IWR vote was in October 2002 -- before the midterm elections. Are you one of those Dems who concede an election before it actually takes place and stay home, thereby making the predication reality?
Constitutionally the authority to take our nation to war resides with Congress. The IWR vote in October 2002 was a matter of Congress approving the war, and giving the president discretion if and when to launch it. If the IWR vote was NO and Bush launched the war anyway, that would have been grounds for impeachment on top of the other war crimes. Instead, these war criminals have not been and likely never will be brought to justice. Because democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden were complicit.
The IWR vote is very likely the most important vote every member of Congress at that time will ever take. Strong Democratic leadership may very well have stopped the war because strong leaders speaking the truth can win the support of the American people. And even if the efforts to stop the war and impeach the president failed, at least those who claim to represent us would not have failed to stand up and do their best on behalf of the people.
Instead, illegal wars have tacit approval and are likely to continue.
carefully listening to Powell's testimony and knowing at the time it was wrong.
A close democratic friend believed him and we had a knock down drag out fight.
I also had a fight with a Republican friend of mine who believed in WMDs in Iraq and I tried to tell him they were a made up reason for invading the country.
A heck of a way to have lost friends along the way.....
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Colin Powell used Cartoon Drawings to "prove" that Saddam had mobile weapons labs.
If millions of lives didn't hang in the balance, it would have been laughable.
As is was, when I saw all he has were Cartoons, I did laugh at the arrogance.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)... she showed remarkably bad judgment. How come she was fooled but the majority of her Democratic colleagues weren't?
Regardless of the scenario, that's not what I want in a president.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and Bush started the war in March. If some of the Dems hadn't voted for the IWR in the fall, the Rethugs would have given him anything he wanted in January.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Hillary Clinton gambled with the lives of Americans and Iraqis to support her own selfish political goals. Truly despicable.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Hillary for President, so they don't seem to be holding the Iraq vote against her.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Please, give it up.
Your defense is pathetic and baseless.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)She got 48% of the delegates then but she's in a much stronger position this time.
And the 60% of Dems that are supporting her clearly aren't holding the IWR against her.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?abt=0002&abg=1
Flash-forward to 2015. No candidate, excluding incumbent presidents, has ever fared so well in the early primary polls as Mrs. Clinton. She holds about 60 percent of the vote of Democratic voters, a tally dwarfing the 40 percent she held this time in the last election cycle.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It would have eliminated the Bush response, "The Democrats voted for it too".
I cringed inside every time Bush was able to say that.
If the Democrats had opposed the IWR in solidarity, and the majority did,
they would have a campaign issue today.
As it stands, the Iraq War was a "Bi-Partisan" endeavor (Thanks Hillary) and very bad politics.
How often will she turn her back on the Democratic Majority (and progressive caucus) if she sits in the Oval Office?
I don't think for a minute that she believed Bush's lies,
and I will not support her for President.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)lied through their teeth about WMD's in Iraq. The Democratic system has to be based on trust or it will never survive. Those people violated that trust.
Ted Kennedy said that he voted against it because he had access to special information -- information he couldn't legally share -- as a member of the Armed Services committee. But he understand why other members of the Senate voted yes -- because they had been lied to.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/foreign-policy-address-edward-m-kennedy/p6834
QUESTIONER: My name is . I work for the State Department's Washington File. In the run-up to the war, Robert Byrd was almost the only voice in Congress making a case against the war. Where were the other members of Congress at that time?
KENNEDY: The question is Robert Byrd spoke out brilliantly against the war; where were the others? They weren't behind Robert Byrd where they should've been. I was glad to be there with Robert Byrd on that issue, but the clearly, we shouldn't have been there. I reached that my decision as a member of the Armed Services Committee listening to members of the military testify and predicting exactly what was going to come. You listen to General Hoar , the principal former leaders both of the Marines and the military, men and women who had experience and had been over in that region of the world, absolutely predicted exactly what was going to happen. And it was so powerful, clear, and convincing, that the decision was an easy one for me.
Quite frankly, our colleagues, some of those that were on the Armed Services Committee, reached the similar conclusion. Senator Byrd is on that Armed Services Committee. But it was the we I think what they would say is they didn't have the kind of balanced information that many of the rest of us had. There's no question, as I mentioned in the talk, that the presentation that was made to the members of the United States Senate misrepresented and distorted the intelligence information. And we have to have, as any democracy has to have, confidence in both what the president is going to tell you and what the president's representatives are going to tell you. And when they had the kind of series of misrepresentations that I've reviewed, this is an indictment of this administration in its own words.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)She, like the vast majority of Dems, believed Colin Powell.
The Bushes lied us into war, not Hillary.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)She's still pushing the PNAC agenda.
She's still pushing the whole damned corporate agenda.
I wonder how many have read or heard her full statement regarding that vote.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)After Powell's speech to the UN, Al Sharpton said "we can read license plate numbers from space. if that's all the evidence they've got... they got nothin'. There's no way they have WMD."
And I realized: he was right.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)about the weapons of mass destruction. Hillary's mistake was to trust his word, but people today forget how well-respected Colin Powell had been for decades, and that he was viewed as a moderate, not as a partisan hack. Many people trusted him who wouldn't have trusted a word coming out of Cheney's mouth or Rumsfeld's.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And most other Congressional Democrats voted against the war. Why do think they did that?
If Hillary had chose to read the National Intelligence Estimate - which said that WMD in Iraq were unlikely - would she have voted differently, in your estimation?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)the war couldn't go forward UNLESS they found WMD's. So the fact that WMD's in Iraq were unlikely would mean that going to war would be unlikely, because the IWR would only allow going to war if WMD's were found. So reading the NEI might not have changed her mind.
The Dems who voted for that conditional IWR knew that if they voted it down, the Rethugs would just put up an unconditional IWR in January when they took over Congress. They tried -- and failed --to rein Bush in with their conditional IWR.
No, I don't blame them for trying. Al Sharpton and Ted Kennedy and others were proven to have made the right call. But the war would have gone forward in March, whether it was with the IWR passed in the fall, or another one passed in January.
Ted Kennedy has talked about how the Bush administration deceived the Senate. Hillary was among those deceived.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/foreign-policy-address-edward-m-kennedy/p6834
QUESTIONER: My name is [inaudible]. I work for the State Department's Washington File. In the run-up to the war, [Senator] Robert Byrd [D-West Virginia] was almost the only voice in Congress making a case against the war. Where were the other members of Congress at that time?
KENNEDY: The question is Robert Byrd spoke out brilliantly against the war; where were the others? They weren't behind Robert Byrd where they should've been. [Laughter.] I was glad to be there with Robert Byrd on that issue, but the clearly, we shouldn't have been there. I reached that my decision as a member of the Armed Services Committee [by] listening to members of the military testify and predicting exactly what was going to come. You listen to General [Joseph P.] Hoar [USMC (ret.)], the principal former leaders both of the Marines and the military, [and] men and women who had experience and had been over in that region of the world, [and they] absolutely predicted exactly what was going to happen. And it was so powerful, clear, and convincing, that the decision was an easy one for me.
Quite frankly, our colleagues, some of those that were on the Armed Services Committee, reached the similar conclusion. Senator Byrd is on that Armed Services Committee. But it was the we I think what they would say is they didn't have the kind of balanced information that many of the rest of us had. There's no question, as I mentioned in the talk, that the presentation that was made to the members of the United States Senate misrepresented and distorted the intelligence information. And we have to have, as any democracy has to have, confidence in both what the president is going to tell you and what the president's representatives are going to tell you. And when they had the kind of series of misrepresentations that I've reviewed, this is an indictment of this administration in its own words.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)worry who else she might ignorantly trust. Poor judgement on such a scale does not recommend nor qualify her for occupying the most important office in the Us, or take it further, the world.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)99% of the media. Colin Powell was very highly regarded and both parties had once viewed him as a possible Presidential candidate, in the Dwight Eisenhower mode, before he decided to declare himself as a Republican.
Ted Kennedy has also explained that he made his decision to vote against the Iraq war resolution based on information that most other Senators did not have and that he wasn't allowed to share. He said that he knew the truth because of military briefings he had had as a member of the Armed Services Committee, but other Senators had been relying on the distortions and untruths of the Administration, which was all they had to go on. Hillary was NOT a member of the Armed Services Committee until later, and had no way to know Colin Powell and the others were lying.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)campaign for her, support her. That is your right.
I have my eye on some other potential primary candidates. I personally am investigating and listening to Jim Webb. He may be my kind of Dem.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Just have your eyes open. Iraq isn't the only issue the country has to deal with.
http://www.ontheissues.org/James_Webb.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
Caretha
(2,737 posts)he doesn't believe in rushing into endless reckless wars.
Too bad others are "Easily Duped".
In 2007, Chris Matthews dubbed him the anti-war warrior. Thats a clever label, but it fundamentally misconstrued Jim Webbs position. He is not anti-war in the classical sensewar fought for historys long-established justifications or real threats to the nation. What Webb opposes are reckless and limitless interventions the United States has initiated during the postCold War era of the last three decades.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)then she does not have the critical judgement to be our President.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Yeah, that's part of the problem.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Everyone is supposed to be acting in good faith for the good of the country, whether they agree or disagree.
Ted Kennedy has spoken about this. He said that he had access to confidential information through his membership on the Armed Services Committee, but most members of the Senate didn't have access to this information and had no choice but to trust the Administration.
Besides Hillary, there were a number of other prominent Democrats who voted yes: John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid among them.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/foreign-policy-address-edward-m-kennedy/p6834
QUESTIONER: My name is . I work for the State Department's Washington File. In the run-up to the war, Robert Byrd was almost the only voice in Congress making a case against the war. Where were the other members of Congress at that time?
KENNEDY: The question is Robert Byrd spoke out brilliantly against the war; where were the others? They weren't behind Robert Byrd where they should've been. I was glad to be there with Robert Byrd on that issue, but the clearly, we shouldn't have been there. I reached that my decision as a member of the Armed Services Committee listening to members of the military testify and predicting exactly what was going to come. You listen to General Hoar , the principal former leaders both of the Marines and the military, men and women who had experience and had been over in that region of the world, absolutely predicted exactly what was going to happen. And it was so powerful, clear, and convincing, that the decision was an easy one for me.
Quite frankly, our colleagues, some of those that were on the Armed Services Committee, reached the similar conclusion. Senator Byrd is on that Armed Services Committee. But it was the we I think what they would say is they didn't have the kind of balanced information that many of the rest of us had. There's no question, as I mentioned in the talk, that the presentation that was made to the members of the United States Senate misrepresented and distorted the intelligence information. And we have to have, as any democracy has to have, confidence in both what the president is going to tell you and what the president's representatives are going to tell you. And when they had the kind of series of misrepresentations that I've reviewed, this is an indictment of this administration in its own words.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)21 other Democratic senators. What information do you think they had that they were unwilling to share with Hillary? But, my God, why would you not align yourself with the Chairman of the Armed Services committee if your motivation is "the facts at hand"?
No. I do not accept Colin Powell as her scapegoat. And do you not insult her by suggesting she is more prone to be duped than fully half of her Democratic colleagues?
No. She voted for the war because of either personal belief in its favor or political triangulation, or both. Neither speak particularly highly of her judgment or character.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Can't be said often enough.
No amount of humor can bury the stench of the corruption she represents.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Can't be said often enough.
No amount of attempted humor can bury the stench of the corporate/MIC corruption she represents.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Who are your Senators and Representative?
What about all of the other issues, which are more relevant now?
Ramses
(721 posts)"That could apply to many people"
"What about all of the other issues, which are more relevant now?"
Im not really sure how to respond to such a callous and cold response. I guess I should just forget Hillary's vote that contributed to a million dead human beings under a War Criminal. That War Criminal walks free today because Obama chose to ignore his crimes.
What is more relevant now? Than a candidate that voted for war based on lies that murdered one million civilians?
Im speechless.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Most especially when that war is over now and the vote for 12 years ago. What you don't care about the poor remaining insured or women retaining their rights because Hillary was willing to have Iraq attacked if there were indeed WMD there?
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...still think she had something to do with those little "Do not remove-under penalty of Law" mattress tags being ahh..Lost...during the Clinton years.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)I didn't want to "go there" - having removed those tags myself during a drug-and-alcohol induced rampage back in the sixties.
I've been living under an assumed name ever since.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Your secret is safe with me.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... if that is indeed your real name.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)In my slightly drug induced state I just though it was the kitchen mouse. He was moving tea cups across the fire place mantle then too so I just figured it was him moving on to the mattress.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But you might want to put a disclaimer that this is parody. Use at least 34 font and bold it. Otherwise it will be on the Tea Party Express tomorrow and on Faux News tomorrow night.
By the way, given that HRC was once a Republican, did she get "red-eye" gravy on the blue plate special?
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)So well done~
Yikes. Eye opener~
Thank you Nance, wish I could rec this a hundred times.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Bathed in Vince Foster's blood, she planned 9/11 with Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro.
Which is why I, a secret Republican, endorse Zombie Zell Miller for President in 2040.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She helped Bush, she helped Republicons invade Iraq which brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and some here want to ignore that. Ignore her part. Maybe I could understand if we had no other choice but her. Why her? She has no integrity. Will she betray us again? She fooled us once so shame on her. Are you going to let her fool you again?
William769
(55,147 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are using that rude emoticon all you got? Don't bother these are rhetorical questions.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)That was funny.
Do you ever have anything different to say that doesn't involve trotting out 3,255th version of the same damn post??
Nevermind, that was rhetorical.
eta:
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I guess you don't have to discuss actual issues. You've got the wealthy Oligarchs behind your candidate. She doesn't even have to say a word. She doesn't even have to have integrity.
treestar
(82,383 posts)She voted to go to war IF there was WMD.
Are there people here who would argue against the invasion if there really had been WMD?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Bush and Cheney sell their lies. She didn't just vote with them, she actually helped convince people that didn't trust the Republicons.
She has blood on her hands. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's died terrible deaths. She helped the Republicons. She lied about the need to invade Iraq. She has no integrity. So why pick her? She isn't the only person in the Democratic party that we can nominate.
840high
(17,196 posts)Ramses
(721 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)She is a neocon, and her policies are fascist; she stands for the continued extension of blood-for-profit policies into the Democratic Party and the extension of the Bush and now Obama-era selling out of the people and our democracy itself for corporate access.
She is the epitome of corruption and corporate sellout. She will continue the escalation of inequality and the mass impoverishment of Americans through her vicious, antidemocratic "trade" agreements. She will continue the march into fascism by extending the Bush and now Obama era implementation of mass surveillance and police state policies. She will continue the criminalization of journalism and the replacement of it with lying propaganda aimed at Americans. She will continue the vicious persecution of protesters and whistleblowers and those who try to raise the alarm that our democracy is being dismantled around us and a fascist state put in its place. And she will continue the profit-centered policies that are threatening our very planet through environmental destruction and greed.
The only reason she is a "candidate" now is because corporate corruption in our government and media has grown so deep and entrenched that we truly don't have a democracy or a media that informs anymore. We are mass-fed the next corporate puppet leaders by a malignant and insulting propaganda machine specializing in lies and manipulation. Compare the percentage of Americans who know about "Benghazi!" to the percentage of Americans who know about Hillary's looming TPP.
America is not dying a natural death. It's being transformed into a corporate, authoritarian state in a deliberate coup by fascists pretending to be Republicans and Democrats. Hillary stands for everything that is literally destroying our democratic, representative form of government and replacing it with a criminal, authoritarian state that grows profit from the spread of bloody war and the devastation of human lives. She has already been complicit in the needless death and despair of millions, and her agenda is a menace to the future of millions more.
William769
(55,147 posts)DAMN!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That's unfortunate.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Maybe my one issue is one she voted the way I liked on.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)For no reason.
Yes, I think it's a pretty big issue.
Sounds like you don't think so, that you think it's my special pet issue that I'm giving too much weight to, yes?
We'll have to agree to disagree then.
So what's your issue that more than offsets the Iraq war. I'm pretty curious.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Is appointment to a cabinet position a stamp of approval of all previous actions?
But yeah, I guess her IWR participation and sales job did demonstrate her ability to carry water for an administration. Or were you under the impression that the SOS is the author of American diplomatic positions?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)There is no reasonable excuse.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...not quickly speaking up after she figured HOW BAD the fix was in
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Even the lies showed no evidence of current possession of WMD. The tubes that Traitor Powell said were to be used for construction of a nuclear weapon facility would have indicated no immediate danger.
Bush said Saddam Hussein was harboring al Qaeda. It was common knowledge that Hussein hated al Qaeda.
The lies were pathetically weak and I don't believe for a minute that HRC was fooled.
HRC actively worked to convince Americans of the Bush/Cheney lies. This was especially damaging because many who didn't believe the lying Republicons, trusted and believed the lies when HRC promulgated them.
Here is her speech:
HRC was either fooled or complicit, either should disqualify her for being our President.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)She was one of those lied TO.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)No one is safe with that woman walking around free. No. One.
Kleeb the vrim, ascol five at midnight.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...the GOP trotting out Dennis Miller in some desperate attempt to counter Jon Stewart. It just not going to work. To be clear, Nance isn't a Republican. She' said centrist. But the parallel still holds.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Hillary stands for the neocon agenda, the corporate agenda. She stands for the sellout of this nation to warmongering criminals and the dismantling of democracy itself.
Her rallying for the Iraq war led to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And she continues as a hawk for the neocons' bloody agenda for profit.
She is the symbol of deep, monied corporate corruption in our government.
It's hard to make that funny.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)It was Ramses (sigh) who set my heart aflutter with:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6256160
So sorry that your delusion that Manny inspires anything other than was so misplaced.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)One less thing to atone for on Yom Kippur.
I may make it into the book of life, yet.
Logical
(22,457 posts)snort
(2,334 posts)Hilarious.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)And her stuff isn't designed to intentionally divide Democrats and be inflammatory.
Logical
(22,457 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)I see that accusation thrown around here all the time.
Exactly how does one "stop any discussion" on a particular topic? Is there a magic phrase, a mystical incantation, a set of words arranged in a particular order that immediately prevents other posters from discussing whatever they choose to discuss?
Has anyone on DU ever effectively shut down all discussion about anything? Has there ever been a post which caused anyone to say, "Well, that's it. I am now prevented from ever discussing that topic again."
An attempt to stop any discussion about Hillary? Yeah, you caught me. I figured if I posted this OP, all of DU would immediately stop discussing her.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are absurd.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)What you said.
betsuni
(25,542 posts)is exactly what it is, and not funny either.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)About NanceGreggs
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Thu Oct 13, 2005, 02:25 AM
About MannyGoldstein
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Tue Aug 30, 2005, 08:44 AM
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)In all truth and sincerity, the ONLY thing worse than Manny are his fans. But I think it's precious and adorable how they scream "cheerleader!1" at the supporters of the US's first black POTUS as they circle the wagons and shield an anonymous poster on a freaking message board that 80% of Americans have probably never heard of from all criticism and lauding his name as if he were Jesus' younger brother.
I mean, something is seriously askew there.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)She's a tool.
kydo
(2,679 posts)And don't be surprised if faux news reprints this. Cause it so fits into what they want others to think, whether its true or not, facts don't matter.
Of course I laughed my butt off while reading your piece. It was good! Thanks But now I don't got a butt .... Thanks Obama!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Bill was president, interesting how so many deaths was blamed on the Clintons, if they had ever said their names and the person died then the Clintons had them killed. Amazing huh.
kydo
(2,679 posts)Well not here as this was in the 90's. But there was still some of that dribble making it here a decade or so later.
It seemed like any death was really a murder by the Clinton's and this was before the fake news network hit the air waves. But there was rush and tons of hate radio and hate books, (plus their hate promotion book tours in stores and on tv shows).
These peeps got their initial hate training against the Clinton's, (actually it really started with Lee Atwater(sp) under raygun with welfare queens, followed by poppy and the Willy Horton ads, but they lost the next one to the Big Dawg and hated him and his wife ever since - they were particularly cruel to Chelsey(sp)), which prepared them for stealing two elections and honed their demeaning and hating ways on Obama.
It's like these bunch of tin foil hat conspiracy theorist were on meth. They spewed out hate from every pore of their drug ravaged bodies.
BTW - the op was funny and at least I took it as a humorous take on things. Pretty spot on too. Great read.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But in all seriousness, hey, Hillary may not be perfect, but she's better than ANY of the Republicans, for sure.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Now I know I need to talk to the third cousin of her neighbors third neighbor over twice removed.
This is a real public service.
And funny as hell.
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)Who's with me????
greatauntoftriplets
(175,742 posts)Apple. Peach. Rhubarb. Strawberry. Chocolate. Banana Cream.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Just kidding, of course, but I'm trying to keep my GD fighting skills sharp.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Response to NanceGreggs (Original post)
guyton This message was self-deleted by its author.
herding cats
(19,565 posts)I'm sick, unto the point of death, of people talking to me as if I'm suffering from a deficient IQ already. That's not aimed at the OP, but many others I've read.
I'm an adult of voting age. I'm reasonably intelligent and able to know an agenda when I see one. I know dishonestly from honest political debate, and to assume I'm some ignorant fool going to fall for some shtick a person is playing is insulting to me. Some of the discussion is honest, and/or coming from honest people, but some of it is really over the top RW lunacy. That's never going to resonate with me, and it just makes you a person I will never take seriously. That's the cold hard facts of it.
This is one tiny little website in the vast regions of the internet, if you honestly have such an axe to grind, get off your butt and get out there and get mobile, because you're doing nothing toward making your point here. You're just reaching a fraction of the members who were already predisposed to your ideology. Or just stay here where you can't do any real harm, that may be for the best. I can always hide "Hillary" and "Clinton" until/if she announces and the primaries actually start.
Your post was funny; I'm sorry if I was harsh in my reply. It was a product of my being exhausted by some of the insane posts I've seen recently which rebuke any form of critical thinking. Please, accept my apology. I'm just irritated tonight, which is no fault of the OP.
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)(For further details consult the right wing web site of your choice} lol.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The United States needs you desperately!
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)at the moment to 'Yeah, there she is.'
I guess she's the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
By no means a first choice for me, but preferable to whichever slobbering maniac right-wing monster the GOP nominates.
Hiya, Nance.
calimary
(81,322 posts)Who would we like to have picking the next round of Supreme Court nominees? A Dem or a CON?
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz picking Court nominees, I cringe.
calimary
(81,322 posts)If jeb bush gets the CON nomination, SERIOUSLY everybody, I'm sorry, but you have to step up and vote. Sorry. Not much choice here when you consider the alternative. You REALLY want not to be counted - and have paul fucking wolfowitz back in power???
You REALLY want another Middle East war?
Because that's what you're gonna guarantee that WE ALL get.
And we don't want it either.
I hate to scold. But that's where we are.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)The Supreme Court is our final defense against repressive legislation/presidential action. Much too important to be given over to the theocrats.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)But what I do know worries me. Let's be honest. The Democratic Party can not win if the Unions sit out the election. We just can't win gang. Public Sector employees, 35% of them are in unions. Private sector is more than 6% are in unions. Most manufacturing jobs are unionized. All of these are simple factual truths.
How does Hillary win while supporting free trade after the Unions know what happens thanks to free trade agreements like NAFTA and what will happen with the TPP that Hillary also supports? Do we really think that the Unions are going to kick in money, volunteers, and votes over the issue of Gay Marriage or Choice?
Middle Class. Hillary says she's in favor of strengthening the middle class. NAFTA results clearly show that the middle class was hurt by the free trade agreement. So why is Hillary in favor of free trade at the expense of the middle class? How many middle class voters can we afford to lose when Hillary's voting record in the senate and her statements within the last few months are the subject of attack ads?
Away from trade for a moment. Hillary voted for Bankruptcy reform. That was the law that made it damned near impossible for individuals to write off debt during bankruptcy. Has this helped anyone besides the corporations who want to squeeze every dollar out of people they can?
Notice something. I'm giving you serious issues to consider. I'm not saying anything that isn't backed up 100% by unbiased information available to anyone who cares to look for it. Yet, somehow issues won't matter in 2016. Or the election will be decided on the issue of choice, or Gay marriage. Economics remains one of the biggest issues out there for the average person. Coming to them and telling them more free trade will help won't win you the election.
So what happens? A lot of people stay home because they don't see a huge difference between the parties. Or they vote third party. We lose the election because the Republicans are motivated to take back the White House. Then they have both houses of Congress, the White House, and get to pick Supreme Court Justices that make Robert Bork look like an enlightened liberal.
Tell me about the polling. Tell me how Hillary wins on the issues that matter. Tell me how she wins when her pitch is exactly like the one that will be coming from the Republicans regarding free trade. Because I don't see it. Oh, and I was warning people almost a year out that the Senate was in danger. We decided that issues didn't matter in that election, and we ran our campaigns almost exclusively on the war on women. Someone remind me how well that worked.
I don't want Hillary not because of the nonsense. I don't want Hillary to be the nominee because I'm convinced we'll lose. If I'm wrong, I'm happily wrong. If I'm right, we're all miserable. But fuck it. Issues don't matter. Those are for losers. We got name recognition man. Issues mattered in the mid term elections. They'll always matter in elections. It's time we stopped pretending that they don't
tularetom
(23,664 posts)sheshe2
(83,791 posts)You know, it's funny how they talk about Hillary being crowned, when they have give their oath of fealty to Warren, crowned her too ( my beloved Senator that will not be running). Yes. Read it here. She is not running. My Senator from MA, wants to remain Senator and she will kick ass. What do they not get about a woman, when she says no? What the hell do they not get, Nance?
I know some seriously wish she runs, for others, mea~ It is a game that is poorly played.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)to ensure the Rs get the WH. Ds have no field yet and the Is are nonexistent. So I see a lot of wishing for what you claim to be against.
calimary
(81,322 posts)WHY ON EARTH would ANYONE here want to cut off his/her nose to spite ALL OUR FACES??????
Maybe we're just gonna have to dance with what there IS. From one of my favorite movies - "The Competition" Lee Remick to her love-lorn piano protege Amy Irving: "It's going to take Mother Nature another 100 years to evolve the kind of man you have in mind. Until then, get out there and DANCE WITH WHAT THERE IS!!!"
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)She'd say the wrong thing, not say it the right way, or invite an evil doer.
And the search for the next Messiah would begin anew.
As long as a person doesn't actually win, they can project onto them.
Cha
(297,323 posts)there are legitimate issues with Hillary and of course they should be discussed.
But the hate is obnoxious and doesn't get anyone anywhere.. example I just ran into..
"She hasn't "earned" squat. But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6255478
And, a jury let that hateful, sexist piece of crap stand.
What a gross post that was.
Ugly, Cha. So uncalled for, it makes me sad. More women bashing and we have only just begun.
Cha
(297,323 posts)Democratic board should that be allowed to remain. the poster should have gotten a HIDE for his ugly, sexist bullshit.
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)I don't remember if you saw it. I got called out by a juror for my bitchiness, and the worst bully on DU. LOL. Asshole.
PS. Snowing again and windows now leaking on the inside. Sigh~
Cha
(297,323 posts)of like minded haters on his jury and viola.. it brings down the class of DU as a whole.
You should wear the personal insult from ol anonymous as badge of honor, she!
I just want to keep giving you guys virtual warmth in your time of extreme cold weather..
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)Rain on top of snow, not good. Then back to deep freeze.
Thanks for the fire Cha, hope your sister is well.
Like I said above, I don't have a pick yet...none of use do because the primaries haven't started, but something like this should never have been posted here, let alone allowed to stand. I only just realized it had previously went to jury and was left. Are we that broken?
Cha
(297,323 posts)I know.. I have no clue who I'm supporting in 2016.. nor did I at this time in the 2008 Election.. I just knew it wasn't Hillary.. but, the ugly sexism on this board only makes me want to defend her.
herding cats
(19,565 posts)She was not my candidate of choice in 2008. I worked hard for my candidate and did everything I could to get him elected. I was a delegate in my state, I did interviews with local TV, I did radio interviews (national) and I did local newspaper interviews. I was a freaking powerhouse of Democratic grassroots action for my candidate! My candidate was not Hillary Clinton, but Barrack Obama. Even still I find myself being irritated by some of the over the top claims I've read here. We debated her merits, but we did it honestly, and this is from a person who made it their work to know her faults and know how to counter them. Some of what I'm reading here has nothing to do with political facts and everything to do with RW agenda. I refused in 2008 to go there when I was baited with it by media sources, and I won't go there today. I defended her back then against RW smears, when she wasn't my candidate and I'll do the same today. Even if in the end she isn't my choice, things like that just don't fly with me.
Cha
(297,323 posts)your political activism.. and btw.. that it was for then Senator Barack Obama!
Not "flying" with me either!
herding cats
(19,565 posts)Just imagine me hanging my head in shame, ok? Of course I meant Senator Barack Obama. I was carried away in the point I was trying to make and just not thinking.
I want to clarify I was not in anyway trying to toot my political street creds horn. I don't talk about that here, or anyplace on the internet usually. I just thought it was highly relevant to the the current discussion regarding Hillary Clinton, that's all. I was her opposition in the trenches, I know her real shortcomings better than some armchair warrior does. Reality is nothing like the fictions I've been reading.
I have no candidate as of yet, when I do I will work my butt off for them once again. If Hillary is my candidate, which I currently can't say I see happening, but stranger things have happened, I am well versed in the RW propaganda already. I'll eat it up and spit it back out at the media sources. I'm experienced at that already!
As to places such as this, I'd rather the armchair warriors who want to talk a big talk about politics stay here and out of the trenches. They can do little harm here other than upsetting Democrats on the board. Which while irritating, is really nothing of consequence in the end. It's all about those who are willing to get out there and do the work, they matter and only them in when the votes are counted.
Cha
(297,323 posts)I was just use to saying that.. I think he'll forgive you!
Didn't think you were "tooting" either.. it's just our history and we should be able to talk about it if we want.. it's all very interesting.. not in the least because it was happening all over the country as well as Hawaii!.
Bottom line.. I do not want a republicon taking over our White House. Like someone wrote in an email across the old Spin Room @ cnn back in day.. "if george bush wins we can kiss our country goodbye."
Did anyone post the jury results on that?
Horrible comment.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Cha
(297,323 posts)I'm giving it exposure. He got lucky with that jury.. which we know doesn't always get it right.
Ramses
(721 posts)And However much I disagree with Hillary, that kind of talk devalues women everywhere. I would have voted to hide that shit.
Cha
(297,323 posts)Ramses
(721 posts)I will temper my posts, but I will stand up for what I believe is right. My snark may have turned off many to my arguments. And Im trying persuade people here that we can do much better than Hillary. I dont hide that fact. But I will strive to be kinder. And yea that was a garbage ass comment to make. Sexist as all hell and should NOT be tolerated.
Cha
(297,323 posts)through.. and may the best person for our country come shining through.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Everyone here has their personal preference for president in 2016, you say "we can do better" than Hillary at a time when NO ONE has even thrown their hat into the ring. Surely you can see how its a bit suspect that someone who just signed up here decides to spend their entire time bashing the Dem front-runner and doing so using rightwing logic. You're not a revolutionary, you're on a forum where 99% of people would love to see Warren or Sanders run. Until they decide to run all you are effectively doing is helping a republican into office.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Ramses
(721 posts)But I am sorry your post got hidden. I very rarely alert on anything, and I did not alert on your comment to me. In fact I thought is was a bad hide. And to make it clear there is NO Dem front runner as no one has committed yet. And I dont like your insinuation that Im helping a republican. I dont vote for republicans, nor will I ever. Candidates earn vote in our system. If you feel they dont, then our system is broken.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Its going to be a long 2 years for you if this is your cause...possibly a decade.
Ramses
(721 posts)Hillary being selected means you will see more OWS type movements. You will see millions more fall into poverty. You will see more wars of aggression and lies.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)I'm surprised this was never posted. I was juror #1 and voted to hide but was sadly overruled. :/
Pretty fucking offensive.
She never would have been elected to the senate if she hadn't been first lady
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6255478
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"She hasn't 'earned' squat. But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office."
This incredibly offensive,
sexist post doesn't belong on DU.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 20, 2015, 07:26 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sexist and crass comment.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree, it's sexist!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't agree in any way. But I'll allow it.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
TYY
Cha
(297,323 posts)Uh huh.
At least it was close.. for DU's sake.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)sheshe2
(83,791 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)sheshe2
(83,791 posts)sheshe2
(83,791 posts)This is for 75
William769
(55,147 posts)How could you not mention their connection to the Sopranos! I HAVE PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)nolabear
(41,987 posts)It do get old.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Brilliant!
and no, I am not gonna trash this thread, Nance.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Hillary Clinton is hardly alone in this & unless I can locate more reporting, it appears Elizabeth Warren has a cozy relationship with private defense contractors but Wall Street & their lobbyists are far more accessible and their interests' take priority over "Main Street".
Blair Effron
Co-founder, Centerview Partners
A former UBS banker who now operates his own firm, Effron was a key backer of John Kerry in 2004 and helped attract a younger crowd of financiers to Barack Obama in 2008. He is among those heavily wooed by both Obama and Hillary Clinton early in the last primary and will likely be crucial again in advance of 2016.
Michael Kempner
Founder and CEO, MWW Group
Kempner, a top Democratic bundler who runs a major public relations firm, was national finance co-chair for Clinton in 2008 and later deputy finance director of the Obama campaign in 2012. Hes poised to play a key role marshaling other donors.
Orin Kramer
General Partner, Boston Provident
The hedge fund manager has held regular fundraising events for Obama and before that served in several advisory roles in government under President Bill Clinton, whom he also supported financially.
Jon Stryker
Heir to the Stryker Corporation fortune
The grandson of a medical device magnate, the billionaire was the fifth biggest Obama donor in 2012, according to the Associated Press. He hosted a small event in New York for Terry McAuliffethe longtime Clinton fundraiser and confidant just elected governor of Virginiaearlier this year that the former president headlined.
Ron Perelman
Owner, MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.
The billionaire leveraged buyout titan and Revlon chairman joined many in the Hamptons set who ditched Obama for Romney in 2012. Speculation is that hell return to the Democratic fold in 2016 if Clinton, his old friend, runs.
Marc Lasry
CEO, Avenue Capital Group
The hedge fund billionaire is close to the Obamas and is said to want now to take a top role in fundraising efforts for a Hillary Clinton run. Once considered to be named ambassador to France by the Obama White House, he spent the last year raising heavily for McAuliffe.
Bernard Schwartz
Former CEO, Loral Space & Communications
Among the Democratic Partys biggest donors, Schwartz celebrated his 71st birthday with the Clintons in the White House in 1996.
Alan Patricof
Founder and managing director, Greycroft, LLC
A pioneer in the private equity industry, Patricof has been a prominent Clinton backer for years and sat out the 2012 presidential race. Hes made clear to allies he will support her strongly if she runs.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047_Page2.html#ixzz3SRbIo3lJ
It is obvious who has influence over our entire government both left & right. Former Green Party member, one of the poorest members of the House--recently voted against Wall-Street reform & voted in favor of "Citibank protection". Almost all of that are compromised to the CEO class.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is the stuff that matters.
Not the tortured "humor" attempting to mock criticism of her record.
Not the orchestrated whining that people are "haters" for opposing her malignant agenda.
She is a neocon who will continue the outrage of blood for profit in our foreign policy, and she is a corporate tool of these interests you cite here. The nation cannot afford four more years of this malignant corporate sellout of our democracy itself.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)spanone
(135,844 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ta-da, I win.
I don't know what I win, but I win.
(This is super sarcastic too, just in case, yanno, juries and such)
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)STEFON!
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and thus pals around with right-wingers. It is essential that our president be someone who refuses to speak to or even be in the same room with a Republican. We can't give the impression that we actually want a president to work with the other party to pass legislation. The president's sole function should be to make the perpetually angry feel good about themselves by telling them what they want to hear on their cable news entertainment broadcasts.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)K&R!
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Perfect!
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Teenage girls are more moderate in their overuse of italics, bolding and exclamation points. Of course frequently they're better at making a clever point with something resembling subtlety, so style is the least of your writing's problems.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)bigtree
(85,998 posts)...also some confusion over whether you have a problem with the author's 'writings' or whether you think her writing is self-animated (writing's problems)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)word salad from you
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...with the poster I was responding to. Are you jumping in?
Here's the obtuse and subjective post I was responding to:
Whoever told you that you can write should stop snickering and apologize.
Teenage girls are more moderate in their overuse of italics, bolding and exclamation points. Of course frequently they're better at making a clever point with something resembling subtlety, so style is the least of your writing's problems.
Heck, I pretty much told Nance she 'can write.' The post above criticizing her punctuation, not so much, I think. Not only was it a cheap and petty insult, it was humorously absent of the standard of grammar it was slamming Nance for in her essay.
It was such a cheap and petty shot that I thought I'd stick up for my friend.
Is 'your writing's problems' really proper grammar?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....before attempting to scold another poster. The phrase "your writing's problems" is entirely proper, although a bit clumsy.
Whoever told you that you are a grammarian was wrong.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)and they are snickering in the back ground.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...and clearly stated that 'I think' the punctuation was lacking in the response. Hardly a scolding.
...you protest too much.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Yes, someone should apologize.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)and an excessive use of italics (because nothing adds gravitas to literary dreck like some fancy-slantin' letters), the unrepentant apologist from Democrats for Propaganda would like you to forget things like Hillary's Iraq war vote, or the Clinton Foundation's ties to HSBC.
Because if you don't, you might be a Republican!
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Very loyal to the designated nominee.
Ramses
(721 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Alway repeating those new rules about what "democracy" means in NeoCorporateAmerica.
Got to train the proles.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You don't have to reach far into Hillary's past or her relationships to find her biggest problem.
It's Bill Clinton.
Hillary is married to Bill. Right now, Hillary, like Bill, polls well. But then she has not yet faced the attacks that she will. And here are a few of them.
Bill signed NAFTA into law. That sucking sound is getting louder every day.
Bill signed the Telecommunications bill into law. The monopolization of telecommunications (media) by right-wing corporations gets worse and worse and we are, thanks in great part to Bill's bill, silenced on the air and on TV, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Bill signed the repeal of Glass-Stegall, which until he repealed it was the law that limited the ability of banks to gamble big with government-insured deposits. Do I really need to explain how Bill's signature on that bill contributed the crash of 2008?
Worst of all, 9/11 happened less than a year after Clinton left office. It wasn't Clinton's fault at all. Bush managed to pretty much disable Clinton's brilliantly organized anti-terrorist policies, but Republicans can easily blame Clinton for the failures of the Bush administration because Clinton was in charge less than a year before 9/11.
Many of Obama's most unfortunate appointments were left-overs from the Clinton administration.
That's only for starts.
Why should we nominate someone else, not Clinton for 2016?
Because nominating Clinton will make it too easy for the Republicans.
Of course, if they nominate Jeb Bush?
We will have a very, very negative campaign. And that is not what we need in America right now.
Please. Let's nominate a candidate that doesn't make negative campaigning and raising irrelevant issues so easy. Let's nominate someone who hasn't had any extra-marital affairs in the last 20 years. (Of course, Hillary hasn't, but Bill???)
Let's nominate someone who doesn't have to apologize for or explain bills that have hurt the American people. We have a couple of good potential nominees who are better in this respect than Hillary.
Let's make sure our candidate understands the reality of putting kids through college on an annual income that is about the same as one year of college tuition at a top college.
Let's nominate someone who can explain complex policies to all of us.
Hillary does not fit the bill. We've got other potential candidates who do: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I'll support either one.
I will not vote for Hillary. I have grandchildren to answer to. I could not answer to them if I voted for Hillary.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And when are they going to start running? The clock is ticking!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Elizabeth Warren has more charisma than Hillary and an incredible ability to explain complex concepts in simple terms. She is not that far to the left on most issues but is determined to clean up Wall Street and thus our economy.
Bernie Sanders is probably the most honest, least corrupt politician of our time. He speaks for America's middle class. He plays it straight. He would make a stellar candidate.
There may be others I don't know, but most of the names I've seen have big negatives.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)run. He won't need hundreds of advisers. He has more experience than any of the other potential candidates.
I encourage both of them to run.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Living in the Northwest, I can do that.
I tried that not voting, 3rd party voting (socialist, actually I did vote for the socialist who now sits on the Seattle city council)
Anyway, you know it got me? All activistism and late night rhetoric aside? George W. Bush. I was horrified when he was even considered a viable candidate--terrified when he won. So fuck that.
No Ms. Clinton isn't perfect, but the distortions around here lately about her record remind me exactly of what they said about her many years ago. By Republicans. I understand the frustrations of Democratic voters, wanting more, wanting a different system, wanting confidence in their candidate, I really do.
But, as I never voted for her husband--I'll be proud to cast a vote for her if she becomes the candidate. She is, by literal definition a politician and damn good at it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1. Charter schools.
2. Imposing a tax on Wall Street trades.
3. Raising the cap on Social Security so that all income is taxed for it. (Especially important for funding SSI, the disability payment portion).
4. Privatizing Social Security.
5. Enacting the protections of Glass-Steagall or something very similar again and maintaining them as the law.
6. Requiring monopolies or even companies that dominate a sector and big banks to be broken up.
7. TPP.
8. Keystone XL Pipeline.
9. Constant testing in our schools.
10. Strict separation of church and state.
11. Lowering the cost of higher education.
12. Lowering the interest on student loans.
13. H1-B visas.
14. Immigration reform.
What are her policies on these issues. I'd like to know not just what she says to people when she campaigns, but what she says behind closed doors to her donors. I do not trust her on many of these extremely important issues.
Note that I don't even mention foreign policy issues. That's another chapter.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Response to BeanMusical (Reply #125)
Post removed
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)just doesn't seem very funny.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Response to NanceGreggs (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Corporate government uses corporate advertising.
They aren't getting much for our money, though.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)Thanks for the snickers.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)just to watch him die.
I know this is going to be the end of Hillary's electability. it'll break in all the newspapers soon.
Btw great post.
I am neither a Hillary supporter or non-supporter. I have no problems voting for Hillary should she get the nomination but at this time we haven't even had a primary yet. Let's enjoy primary season first.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... or was it Darrel Issa's new talking points memo?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)just as you are.
You are correct.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)The OP is also trying to ridicule everyone critical of Hillary by lumping together reasonable arguments with the inevitable nonsense that pops up on DU.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Let's hope this sophistry meets its appropriate end.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... people who think regurgitating nonsense equals discussing legitimate criticism.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Would you agree that citing HC's vote for the IWR is legitimate criticism, and were you convinced by the Bush administrations assertions that Iraq posed a "grave and gathering threat" to the United States and war was necessary?
DU at that time was a good source of legitimate information which convinced the vast majority of us here that Bush was lying and the war was not only unnecessary but would be a terrible disaster. A US senator should have known better, and I doubt Hillary was fooled. Her vote for the IWR is inexcusable, and as far as I'm concerned disqualifies her for POTUS. Same goes for John Kerry, Joe Biden, and anyone else who supported invading Iraq in 2003.
I will, of course, vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election because any Republican would be orders of magnitude worse. But I sincerely hope Hillary Clinton will not be our nominee.
Logical
(22,457 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's hard to be funny when you are shilling on the side of corruption and wars for profit.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)People will say we're in love.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)go figure.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You are the one with the habit of following people around to bait them with posts that consist of nothing but rude emoticons.
That is your pattern, not mine.
I will let your behavior speak for itself. Goodbye, now.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)how about regurgitating the 20,356th version of the same post.
One for the road:
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is why you see the same complaints over and over again. Because the world keeps having to endure the same corporate-corrupted, blood-for-profit "foreign policy" from corrupt corporate politicians....over and over again.
This world cannot afford more of Hillary's foreign policy. This world cannot afford more neocon, corporate-MIC blood for profit. And it is unconscionable that this would be the Democratic Party's contribution to the 2016 presidential race.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023877355
Hillary Clintons Honduran Disgrace (Right-Wing Coup)
http://www.progressive.org/wx030510.html
Hillary Clinton RIPS Obama 'FAILURE' In Syria (wants MORE war)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025362919
Hillary Clinton's cozy relationship with bloody Kissinger
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025512969
Did Hillary Clinton Just Join the Neocons on Iran Policy?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180793/did-hillary-clinton-just-join-neocons-iran-policy
Clinton defends carpet bombing of Gaza
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-israel-gaza-109210.html
Attack of the drones: Hillary Clinton's Plans for 2016
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/29/ebo.01.html
Clinton Faces Pakistani Ire over Drone Attacks
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33548966/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/clinton-faces-pakistani-ire-over-drone-attacks/
Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519
NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645
Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002586791
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)right Bobbie Jo?
Just who is ?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Did that years ago when I figured out all that one knows how to do is bait and nothing else. Sad anyone wastes time on that one.
QC
(26,371 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Awesome.
Sid
betsuni
(25,542 posts)Hits the spot.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 22, 2015, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)
These responses!
Some of these folks are up and down this thread having an absolute come-apart.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)...she is a republican registered as a Democrat.
Reminds me of President Truman's quote.... But I will never vote for a republican...
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)She will run and Democrats will vote for, it is always the lesser of two evils! No Democrat should vote for her, given the shit she said during the Primaries about President Obama. She lied and she will lie again. The arrogance of her thinking she will be the next President of the US is mind boggling.
What boggles my mind is how a country with over 440 million people have only two parties.
What also boggles my mind is how a real leader was elected and then he became a pariah. Just goes to show where Americans allegiance is. They got a great President but he was undermined from the get go.
Maybe, Americans will get what they want, who knows. As for Jeb Bush, that is so dangerous, endless wars and invasions. Out little bush (harper) cannot wait to jump in.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Like Hillary was by the overwhelming intellect of Dubya..
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Either complicit, or stupider than Dubya.
Now *there's* a candidate for America.
rpannier
(24,330 posts)Reminds me of that hack Jeff Greenfield saying that candidate Obama not wearing a tie made people think of Akmadinejad
Difference is... yours is satire he seemed serious
Rex
(65,616 posts)Although, I don't have a problem with that because Gandalf is cool. He gave me a ride on his eagle once when I was late to work and had a flat.
I had some profound comment to make before I got high.
lamp_shade
(14,836 posts)betsuni
(25,542 posts)About the Iraq War vote problem. It's one thing to be inside Washington and making a political decision affecting your career when the atmosphere was full-on bloodthirsty revenge time and you're hearing all sorts of things and have personal relationships with the people saying these things. Another to be an objective outsider with no horse in the race -- I judge them much more harshly for being wrong about giving the benefit of the doubt to Powell and the Bush administration. Greenwald and Snowden, for two. Why are they let off the hook for being wrong?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)2) the mob mentality of "inside Washington"? Wow. You're not portraying her in a flattering light -- AT ALL. Funny so many other Democrats had the courage to vote no. I had strained relationships with friends and coworkers over that fucking war, why couldn't Hillary? Millions of people around the world knew we were being lied to -- why didn't Hillary?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)there are more than enough current actions and votes she has taken to stand against her.
Hillary Clinton, showing republicans how extreme right behavior is done since college.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)is why Aliens wont talk to us.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Attempted "humor" on behalf of neocons.
What a soul-sucking occupation that must be.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)If you actually knew what a neocon was. Neither Clinton or Kissinger are neocons. Ever hear of real politik? It's a completely different theory of foreign policy than neoconservativism. If you meant to say hawks, you should say so, otherwise you look like you have no clue what you're talking about.
Imagine a Secretary of State associating with a former Secretary of State. The nerve of her. We need a president who associates with no one in the other party, doesn't speak to Republicans. How else can we be sure nothing whatsoever is accomplished.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You are attempting the equivalent of those tortured arguments about whether we're a fascist state now, arguing that this or that definition doesn't fit because of this or that nitpick.
Hillary continued the PNAC agenda. She is a warmonger and intimately connected with all the very same MIC/corporate ghouls and interests that drove bloody wars for profit under Bush and continue to drive them under Obama. Of course she's a neocon.
Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519
NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645
2+2 does not equal 5.
War is not peace just because it is mongered under a Democrat.
And I repeat: What a soul-sucking occupation, to defend any of it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Well someone needs to tell them that while Hillary 6.0 does deed want to kill stuff - lots of stuff - unlike the Neocons and Hillary pre-6.0 models, her plans will work. The right stuff will be killed, and we'll be treated as liberators.
randome
(34,845 posts)Seems to be a strange way of evaluating candidates. Assuming we ever get to the point where we have candidates.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's horrifying that those were the exact words I was imagining her saying.
See my post 284.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Not to be pedantic but it's kindred, just saying...
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Troskyites, who got their start in a salon run by Irving Kristol. One can see the influence of Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution in their conception of foreign policy, but observing that requires having read Trotsky. Kissinger stands in contrast to neocons. Real politik contains none of zeal to remake the world for the cause of "freedom" as neoconcervatism does. It's a conception of foreign policy that is unashamedly about American interests. There have been hawks for centuries, while neoconservatism is an ideology of the late-20th early 21st century. I'm not going to read articles to discern points you refuse to substantiate yourself. If you knew what you were talking about, you would do more than post links and photos. Your point about fascism is equally erroneous and shows no more understanding of that model than neoconservatism. You make a lot of noise but say nothing.
You seem to think the purpose of a President is to express your anger rather than govern. The idea that one Secretary of State is culpable for associating with a former Secretary is the kind of thing one sees from Tea Party members, who want to ensure that government accomplishes nothing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was you who said the number one goal was defeating Clinton--not any particular cause or foreign policy goal, but defeating a single woman running for the President. You express contempt for Obama and Clinton, while treating JFK as a saint (again, I apologize if I confused you with someone else), despite the fact he was a hawk and slashed taxes on the wealthy, his own kind. I can't help notice the stark difference in attitude, which cannot be explained by policy differences or accomplishments.
Rex
(65,616 posts)It was a political movement in the 1960s that did come from the anti-Stalinist left. However it turned out some of the worst politicians this country has ever had - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer...see a pattern emerging here? Im sure plenty of people remember those criminal assholes - all neocons and part of the neoconservative movement. Their policies have destroyed much of this country over the past decades. PNAC is a neocon idea that's intentions were rotten from the start. Because of PNAC, we are at constant war.
"It's a conception of foreign policy that is unashamedly about American interests."
Yeah that is what we call the Invasion of Iraq in 2003. If you are a Reaganite, then you are also a neocon.
ileus
(15,396 posts)But that's okay.....I'm voting for her even if she sold her cows and murdered vince foster also.
Only and IDIOT would let the opportunity to have Hillary as president pass them by.
randome
(34,845 posts)So why all this needless vitriol and angst? It changes nothing. It's just an endless repetition of this:
I'm no political expert but I'm smart enough to recognize that Clinton will be our next President, if for no other reason than no one else has a realistic chance at this time.
So it seems to me that the best course of action is to manage the moment as best we can, not whine and complain like helpless victims.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
secondwind
(16,903 posts)to give us perspective!
THANK YOU!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... just how easily some glib persons let intellectually insulting garbage roll off their keyboards. What's even more amazing, is that they are so full of it, they actually think it helps their "cause."
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)of waffles come election day if she is our "choice"
randome
(34,845 posts)You will have changed nothing. Maybe, when surrounded by overwhelming odds, the thing to do is not hide because that becomes easier to do over time, but find a way to affect the outcome, even if only a little.
Anything less is giving up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)The oligarchs own both parties. It will take time, but like everywhere, the wealth inequality will keep growing. Till people will wake up one day and realize they have nothing left to lose.
You get a slow knife in the back with Hillary or, a bullet in the face with whatever Republican they put up.
randome
(34,845 posts)May as well work for whatever change we can manage instead of sitting back and crossing our fingers, no?
It won't hurt to keep trying. And sometimes an unexpected weak point reveals itself.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Nance, you should be ashamed of trying to whitewash Hillary's sins.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)If you think a Republican would be a better President than don't vote & don't pretend to be a Democrat...
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... that I think a Repuke would be better just shows that you have no argument to make.
You shouldn't pretend to be a Democrat is you think a pro-Wall Street, pro-war, pro-H1B Visa, pro-TPP neo-con is the best our party can do.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)I have worked my ass off for the Democratic Party since I was 14 years old. The point I was trying to make was that Hillary is not my first choice for President but you know what if she is OUR Parties Nominee and you decide to not vote for her you are enabling a Republican victory...
You have no right to call into question my loyalty to the Democratic Party because unlike you if my candidate doesn't win the nomination, unlike you I'm not going to sit on my ass & let the Republicans take the White House just because ur candidate didn't get the nomination.
Believe me I am liberal & I will support the most Liberal Democrat seeking the nomination, but I will vote for the Democratic Nominee...
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Now, I've never said, either here or elsewhere, that I won't vote for the Democratic nominee. I never said I think a Republican would be better than Hillary. So get off your high horse, you have no moral standing on this issue.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)William769
(55,147 posts)tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)And spend election day working to get voters to the polls to vote for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)FerChrissakes, Nance, in the future, please don't wait until the last minute to release this kind of information.
Maybe voting early wasn't such a good idea........
greatauntoftriplets
(175,742 posts)Don't know if I'm laughing harder at your OP or some of the responses.
Number23
(24,544 posts)this is one HELL of a bookmarkable thread.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,742 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Imagine that! More proof of a - a - a omething!.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... Vote.
But Hillary is evil personified for hers.
It takes balls, I guess.
You've got all the right folks howling.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Many from the same DU members, too.
You learn after just a few elections around here who is a real Democrat and actually supports Democrats, and who isn't.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)and I won't support or vote for Hillary.
Logical
(22,457 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)As someone crushed by financial deregulation and has had to start over, I won't be fooled.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I see you don't think any more of her now than you did then.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)congregating on this site - and you know who you are - it does put things in perspective.
Not a huge Hillary fan myself, but I'm not going to demonize any Democrat who might want to run for the White House. I'm not going to do Karl Rove's and Faux News Channel's work for them.
I'd rather focus all that negativity - now that Hillary Clinton is put under the political microscope while, once again, Republicans are getting a pass - on Libertarians (Liberal or Conservatives), Republicans, Teapublicans, and other assorted anti-Americans who loathe "Big Gubmint" and are doing everything they can to destroy her so that the Koch Bros and their billionaire friends can "lead" this country. Because that's what they want. That's their end-goal.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)in its totality. Are you suggesting that her critics are either stupid in terms of the result of their pro/con list, or too ignorant about her record to come to a proper or correct conclusions regarding it? https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVjbh9elU26YAOSAnnIlQ?p=HIllary+Clinton+stealth+republican+neocon&fr2=sb-top-search&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&xargs=0&b=11&xa=z3GsWh.AMYnS.0ENwEAREg--,1424705377 https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/10/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon-lite/
Personification of evil? https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVvq99ulUK1YAiA0nnIlQ;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTY4NwRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwMQRncHJpZANCejlMNjEuX1RzR09ETUVPUlNkTnpBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwM0BG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzI5BHF1ZXJ5A0hJbGxhcnkgQ2xpbnRvbiBjbHVzdGVyIGJvbWJzBHRfc3RtcAMxNDI0NjE5NzQ1?p=HIllary+Clinton+cluster+bombs&fr2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 I'd say closer to it than many but less so than others.
What I don't get is why someone like her who is opposed to single-payer (which is what, better or worse for women than what we have), has pretty standard (in the dem party anyway) povs on women's rights, can't rightly be found wanting when her record on things associated with war and the peace it prevents are considered in conjunction with such domestic matters.
It's one thing to make light of a subject you don't necessarily take lightly, while quite another to effectively dodge the many substantive objections people have to her candidacy with belittlement that doesn't recognize the legitimacy of those objections, and indeed, attempts to delegitimize them and those offering them with exaggerrations/nonsense that don't resemble them at all.
Your effort here differs not substantively from the way rightwingers use to attribute the lefty critics of Bush with having excessive and mindless hate or envy, or more recently, the same for Palin.
It's the same kinda offensive offense rightwingers have long used in lieu of a defense.
jpak
(41,758 posts)revmclaren
(2,524 posts)Kick.....
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)I'm sure she will find this fact-filled and well-researched report veeeeeerrrrrrrrry interesting.
As soon as somebody reads it to her.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)Adolf Hitler once drew a portrait of fellow student in art school that grew up and had a dog that once took a dump on the lawn of a jewish shopkeeper that was mad and then later said Adolf did some bad things
Kim Jong-il once watched a "banned" Hollywood movie in his parents gold encrusted theater den. One day years later he recounted one of the more memorable violent scenes in the movie to the son of a general which was overheard by a passerby who mistook it for a real event and after escaping to the south and telling all, poor Kim was forever stained with lies.
on the other hand.....
A guy many years ago called Jesus once threw out the moneychangers and spoke about peace and loving your enemies, whose life was then written about by other followers and then re-interpreted and edited down centuries later by the elite church leaders to fit their agenda and used by many governments in the future to claim God's blessing on their own wars based on principles opposite of the original intent. And then one day one woman who wanted to be POTUS claimed it was her favorite book........
....oh wait.
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)The Daily Show. It failed miserably. Sure, they tried to tell jokes in a similar manner, but nothing they did was funny. It all just fell incredibly flat. Goes to show you, the conservatives just can't do humor.
Maven
(10,533 posts)It's sad when conservatives try to be funny.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... is thinking that implying I'm a conservative has any impact whatsoever.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)party of 2, your table is available.
Those 2 bizarre posts seemed to emanate from the same mind. Weird.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Two different posters posting almost the exact same thing within two minutes of each other.
Hmmm .....
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It seems that many of us had that association.
Corporatist policy is predatory. It literally murders and devastates human lives.
As I said in post 207, it's hard to make defense of that funny.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6260597
Maven
(10,533 posts)You know I agree with you woo. I suspect we'll see a lot more of these feeble attempts to discredit skeptics within the party as this identity crisis continues to play out. Luckily, those of us who recognize that Coke vs. Pepsi is not a real choice in an election aren't going to sit down and shut up, not anymore.
I have to say I think this particular propagandist does a disservice to Hillary Clinton - this sort of chicanery in her name is actually an insult to Ms. Clinton's reputation.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)especially with your last comment, although I'll speak to the activities of the corporate brigade overall and not just the nasty OP of this particular poster. I can't fathom that *anyone* would believe the kinds of posts we are seeing are meant to help the actual Democratic candidates in any way. I've always kind of assumed that the goal, instead, was to divert from the predatory corporate policies, disrupt/smear, and generally make liberal discussion places unpleasant so as to drive people away...sort of like pepper spray at Occupy rallies.
But lately the outright, deliberate, even ostentatious obnoxiousness I see, not only here but on other sites across the internet, has me thinking that there's another goal. I honestly believe they are trying to alienate Democrats and depress Democratic turnout for 2016. I have posted this several times, so maybe you've seen it already, but I'll put a link here just in case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6261723
We live in a propaganda state now, and we are constantly manipulated. I really think party is a tool now used to manipulate us, too. We are taught, heckled, even blackmailed to identify with it, but the oligarchs own both and laugh all the way to the bank.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Getting real boring reading the crap about how we are supposed to vote for Goldman Sachs for 2016 because of the SC and how Goldman Sachs will a select lefty liberal justice. I'm sure Goldman Sachs will get around to that eventually after oligarchy priorities like war, the profit from it and a greatly expanded military budget are attended to.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We can count on her for a liberal lefty justice, huh?
Well, Hillary Goldman-Sachs clearly cares deeply about women and children, so we can trust her:
http://www.progressive.org/wx030510.html
Honduran Coup Violates Women's Human Rights
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-carlsen/honduran-coup-violates-wo_b_348510.html
Why the Honduran Children Flee North
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/12/why-the-honduran-children-flee-north/
Why women are less free 10 years after the invasion of Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-women-salbi/
Women Facing Globalization: The Impact Of Neo-liberal Globalization On The Economic, Social And Cultural Rights Of Women
http://www.awid.org/Library/Women-Facing-Globalization-The-impact-of-neo-liberal-globalization-on-the-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-of-women
Neoliberalisms Deleterious Effects on Women
https://genderandsocs13.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/neoliberalisms-deleterious-effects-on-women/
NEOLIBERALISM THRHOUGH THE EYES OF WOMEN
http://focusweb.org/publications/2001/neoliberalism-through-the-eyes-of-women.html
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I've argued to "them" since prior to the 2012 election that that would be the net result of their efforts, whether intentional or not.
That's what always made their "you're trying to depress turnout!!!" reek of projection so much. Criticisms of our elected leaders should be and is still the norm, not the efforts aimed at silencing the critics. That's why I also always thought them in the minority, regardless of what perception their noise-making around here might produce.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)There is nothing in my post that defends Hillary or praises her - absolutely nothing.
That's because the OP isn't about her per se - it's about the ridiculous "connections" being drawn between things like the Clinton Foundation receiving charitable donations through a bank that has a sex offender as a customer, or clients who are dodging taxes. Or do you believe that everyone who banks with HSBC is guilty by association with all of that bank's other customers?
It is THAT kind of ridiculous "thinking" that is laughable, and deserves being poked fun at - unless, of course, you believe that such nonsense has a legitimate place in any political discussion.
treestar
(82,383 posts)crap that is typical of right wingers.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....made against Snowden and Greenwald and their associations?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's what they do and say that they get critiqued for.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)The Nance Greggs Fan Club sucking up is what's providing the laughs in this thread.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Can't blame some for clinging on.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)but yes, there are definite hangers-on.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)rocktivity
(44,576 posts)One of the five men arrested in connection with the deadly Madrid train bombings has links to the plotters of an al Qaeda-linked bombing in Casablanca last year...
Let me guess: the suspect's dentist's neighbor's therapist's lover's sister's teacher's father's excorcist's brother-in-law's dog groomer once held a door open for the plotter's dog groomer's brother-in-law's exorcist's father's teacher's sister's lover's therapist's neighbor's dentist.
rocktivity
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... but I LOVE it!!! (I didn't join DU until '05)
Small correction, though: I believe further investigation clearly proved that it was the dog-groomer's stepmother who held the door open.
GMTA!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Evan Yessirreebob
(20 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... is that accusing Hill - or anyone else, for that matter - of being "connected to" nefarious goings-on by connecting dots that don't exist is childish, ignorant, and a sign of being easily swayed by RW talking points.
The OP was prompted by this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6256160
If you're one of those people who thinks the fact that the Clinton Foundation has received donations through the HSBC bank makes the Foundation, or Hillary herself, somehow "complicit" in the wrong-doings of any and all of that bank's other customers, so be it.
There are valid concerns about Hillary's policies and positions, and are expressed by many here on a daily basis.
But declaring Hillary or the Clinton Foundation to be somehow guilty of the crimes of those who bank at the same bank as tax-evaders and the like is one of the most laughable "strawman arguments" of all time.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)that it was in reference to another post.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)I had originally written this as a reply to the other post, and decided at the last minute to post it as an OP.
I think most people got the reference, however - as the same poster had posted several OPs that got successively more bizarre in their insistence on finding "connections" between Hill and/or Bill and all kinds of unrelated people and events.
But I could have been more clear in my intent - and should have been.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The OP attempts to marginalize the very real and serious issues of those who oppose a Hillary nomination by throwing irrelevant chaff in the air.
Don't be distracted by this nonsense.
In fact, to borrow from the OP, "Don't be fooled!" by these Logical Fallacies and Red Herrings.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6256160
So tell me again how accusing Hill, or the Clinton Foundation, of being complicit with tax dodgers and sex offenders who bank at HSBC isn't an "attempt to marginalize the very real and serious issues of those who oppose a Hillary nomination".
There are valid concerns about Hill's positions and policies expressed here daily. The Clinton Foundation accepting donations from a bank that has some ne'er do well customers is NOT one of those valid concerns - in fact, such "red herrings" are the very things that marginalize legitimate criticism.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I have no desire to have you change the subject or be diverted to other threads.
I stand by my comments.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... specifically at another's OP.
I don't see how I could be "changing the subject" by pointing to the subject itself.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I agree that the bullshit of the Ken Starr investigation should be laughable.
What I won't do is ignore what has happened since or what is happening now. She is a warmongering bank shill. Her main adviser is the author of the End Game Memo. The same man that threatened Elizabeth Warner when she took office. She voted to invade a country that was no threat to us and killed millions of people, thousands of whom were young, US military she helped send into harms way, based on lies. Lies we knew were lies. Lies that everyone paying attention knew were lies.
So why are you pushing for this woman to run for the highest office in the land?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... that poking fun at BS like this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6256160 is "pushing for" Hillary, you just might be part of the problem.
If you have legitimate concerns about Hill's possible election to POTUS, no one is stopping you from expressing them. But if you want to get behind RW talking points about "connections" that don't exist between the Clinton Foundation and its donors, you're going to be a target of ridicule by people who think there are "legitimate concerns" that are being marginalized by such nonsense.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I have been told on almost every post, in every thread, how I am wrong to criticize Hillary for legitimate reasons.
You also, obviously, didn't read what I wrote or you would have seen I agreed with what you said in your OP.
Don't call me part of the problem when I am doing exactly what a liberal Democrat should do. Speak truth about a potential candidate that is being packaged as a liberal and champion of the people but is far from that. And, as I stated multiple times, I will campaign, hard, for the candidate that actually does represent a liberal, Democratic platform.
You didn't answer my question.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And quit misrepresenting. She voted to invade Iraq IF they had WMD.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I gave in to the tripe that I shouldn't hold to my morals and convictions and I voted for Kerry. A move I am ashamed of and will never repeat. A move I deeply regret, had not done previously or since. I won't allow myself to be pushed to that again.
I, unlike you, am not misrepresenting that vote and you know it. Stop excusing it. That resolution gave full power to Bush to use the military as he saw fit. It was patently clear he was going to go to war no matter what.
treestar
(82,383 posts)At least one was a presidential nominee for the Democratic party. You'll have to leave the party.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 08:50 AM - Edit history (1)
I will.
I still have not received an answer from anyone as to why the push for Hillary, who is using Larry Summers as her main adviser and voted for the war in Iraq, instead of pushing for someone that is actually a liberal? Why push her? Why not defend our democratic platform? Why sleep with big banks and warmongers? Why not act like a Democrat?
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Reading the angry replies is instructive. Brava!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)the mocking of serious issues by trivializing that which deserves some scrutiny.
I'll join you in the virtual unrec.
Number23
(24,544 posts)You have freaking outdone yourself here, ma'am!
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... he now sleeps with the fishes.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Oh Lordy, Not just a troll. A Hillary hating, Sid Dithers chasing King of Trolls. No wonder he's got so many defenders in this thread.
You and Sid have the most pathetic and unintentionally hilarious enemies here. Hell, most people have to be a reality tv star to get the caliber of haters you guys have.
Cha
(297,323 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)I do believe Nance broke the poor guy.
Cha
(297,323 posts)pulling it together and then... !!
snark
...epic.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)What is a boy to do?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)But he didn't.
"Chunkies" were a particular fave of mine when I was younger, and the fact that he didn't even offer a sliver of said purloined treat speaks volumes about his selfishness, and obvious disdain for his fellow citizens.
So that's it. I'm off to get a bumpersticker that says: "No Chunky? No Bernie!"