The Journal's take of the Clinton/Obama tiff. On this one, I have to say I agree with the Journal and sympathize with Obama...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120104819435508233.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

Liberals have no use for the truth.

Give me a break. This kind of politics is a turn-off for liberals. It only makes Obama look better, although he does the same kind of thing. I'm voting for Kucinich.

If there's one thing that's really been tarnished by this Clinton-Obama fight, it's Bill Clinton's reputation to both conservatives and liberals.

You mean the same slick willy that claimed that there were WMD all over Iraq in 1998, and that we had to get ready for invasion, or at least pour huge amounts of money into terrorist organizations in Iraq?

Did Clinton invade Iraq?

His term ran out before he could do it, but the Iraq Liberation Act and Operation Desert Fox were logical steps towards invasion.

He had a policy of containment, not invasion.

Because the Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi were all about 'containment'...

Obviously not. Where's that savior Chalabi now?

Looks like Clinton's sidekick is on the lamb.

I scored it Obama on points, Hillary on image (she's no JFK, but she doesn't have the melanistic equivalent of Nixon's five o'clock shadow either), Edwards on issues as always.

And Huckabee overall. Possibly McCain, if SC voters can remember from 12 to noon.

Somebody give Edwards lessons in looking Presidential, set him up with a couple of sessions with a camera and Fred Thompson's delivery coach, and hire PJ O'Rourke to feed him a few lines, and he takes this thing. Never happen, though.

Looks like Clinton's sidekick is on the lamb.

Looks like he had more influence on the shrub.

that article is obviously written against Clinton

Funny that the Iraq Liberation Act funnled him, as the head of the Iraqi National Congress, huge amounts of money, and air support, in 1998, but I guess that was Bush's fault too?

Funny that the Iraq Liberation Act funnled him, as the head of the Iraqi National Congress, huge amounts of money, and air support, in 1998, but I guess that was Bush's fault too?

we focus on results of the campaign...results from Clinton upon our nation and results from Bush upon our nation.

Who did what to whom and why and were...that is irrelevant.

Clinton's endorsement of the Iraqi National Congress was a direct step towards war with Iraq, and eventually Clinton got his desired result.

Clinton's endorsement of the Iraqi National Congress was a direct step towards war with Iraq, and eventually Clinton got his desired result.

Lol, so we are now blaming the Iraq war on Clinton...nice, very nice. :D

Yeah because the Iraq Liberation Act never existed...

Endorsing regime change is an admirable goal, but Clinton felt this should come from within Iraq, so did Bush 41.

Supporting terrorists only was going to last so long, and it wasn't like the attitue hadn't changed to one of 'nation building' by 2000.

Now you lost me.

Just go back to supporting your little cheerleader just like Clinton did. Maybe you can figure out where he is hiding out these days.

Just go back to supporting your little cheerleader just like Clinton did. Maybe you can figure out where he is hiding out these days.

You could stop trolling at anytime you know we will still love you. :p

Lol, so we are now blaming the Iraq war on Clinton...nice, very nice. :D

To be fair, no. The Iraq war is Bush's deformed baby through and through. The factors that led to it however can't be ignored. Our meddling in the foreign affairs of others nations was a factor of 9/11 and the rise of Islamic terrorism, which led to Bush getting enough clout to start his war. The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 is in the same line of meddling.

But no, you can't directly blame the Iraq war on Clinton.

Clinton had 8 years to diffuse the situation.

Clinton had 8 years to diffuse the situation.

When it comes to the Iraq war, there was no situation for him to diffuse. 9/11, maybe, and that's a big maybe (it's asking for a big change in our foreign policy, one that I don't could have ever gotten the potential to occur without the shocking blowback of 9/11). But not the Iraq war. Even if he was against the Iraqi Liberation Act, after 9/11 Bush probably would have still gone for and gotten his war.

Clinton could have not bombed Iraq for 8 years straight, which was one of the reasons for 9/11, and allowed the depleated uranium to affect so many Iraqi civillians.

I highly doubt a change in Clinton's policy towards Iraq would have made a substantial difference in the motivation, planning and execution of 9/11.

The oppression of Iraq by Clinton was one of the major reasons for 9/11. Though our military posts in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc. and our financial support for dicatators in the region were also reasons for the attack, taking away one of the biggest reasons for hatred against the United States away would have diminished the support for actions such as 9/11.

The oppression of Iraq by Clinton was one of the major reasons for 9/11. Though our military posts in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc. and our financial support for dicatators in the region were also reasons for the attack, taking away one of the biggest reasons for hatred against the United States away would have diminished the support for actions such as 9/11.

Again, I don't think it would've made enough of a difference to avoid 9/11. Bin Laden cited a long list of grievances and the Iraq situation just happened to be one of them. Our support of Israel for example played an enormous role that easily dwarfs Iraq.

He cited 3 main reasons.

Clinton had 8 years to get our troops out of the region and to stop the assult on Iraq. Instead he just encouraged hatred from Iraqi civillians, promoted terrorist organizations within Iraq and pushed oil prices up by keeping the bogus embargo in place, especially after the UN said that well over 90% of Iraq's WMD programs had been verfied for destruction.

How does any of this justify George Bush going to war under false pretenses?

He cited 3 main reasons.

Clinton had 8 years to get our troops out of the region and to stop the assult on Iraq. Instead he just encouraged hatred from Iraqi civillians, promoted terrorist organizations within Iraq and pushed oil prices up by keeping the bogus embargo in place, especially after the UN said that well over 90% of Iraq's WMD programs had been verfied for destruction.

I'm already aware of our Iraq policy's effects. I just don't think the change would've been enough.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, it's not something we can somehow test to see who was right or wrong and we're obviously not gaining any ground in convincing each other. Let's end on something we can agree on:

Ron Paul '08. :p

How does any of this justify George Bush going to war under false pretenses?

I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed anything justifies Bush going to war.

While there is no way to be 100% sure of my statement, there is no doubt that it wouldn't have made things any worse than they are today. Well maybe with the exception that if Clinton would have taken our troops out of the region, then we wouldn't have been able to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan so easily, if you want to consider that as a bad thing...

I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed anything justifies Bush going to war.


Yeah, it just makes me mad when liberals try to pretend that Bush's going to war came out of nowhere instead of an obvious esclation that came out of the Clinton administration.

Yeah, it just makes me mad when liberals try to pretend that Bush's going to war came out of nowhere instead of an obvious esclation that came out of the Clinton administration.

No I dont think it came from nowhere, but you seem to give Clinton too much credit for his role in the events that led up to the war.

Yeah, it just makes me mad when liberals try to pretend that Bush's going to war came out of nowhere instead of an obvious esclation that came out of the Clinton administration.

It came out of the Project for a New American Century and the Neo-Cons.

Give me a break. This kind of politics is a turn-off for liberals. It only makes Obama look better, although he does the same kind of thing. I'm voting for Kucinich.

Hillary Clinton has started and has fuled this entire thing. Race didn't become a factor until Obama won Iowa. Then the Clinton smear machine went into full attack mode. And turned him into the "angry-black-candidate". The Clintons have forever turned me off to them. I've never seen a campaign ran this dirty. If she wins the nomination, I'm voting for Mccain.

It's not that dirty. Not as bad as insinuating McCain had an interracial love child, or wearing purple band-aids to mock Kerry's military service.

Hillary Clinton has started and has fuled this entire thing. Race didn't become a factor until Obama won Iowa. Then the Clinton smear machine went into full attack mode. And turned him into the "angry-black-candidate". The Clintons have forever turned me off to them. I've never seen a campaign ran this dirty. If she wins the nomination, I'm voting for Mccain.

Really? I thought this whole race thing got started because of Hillary comparing herself and Obama to LBJ and MLK, which is a perfectly appropriate statement and fits with her idealism vs experience platform. Obama himself said he didn't think the comment was racist. It did however get completely thrown out of proportion by a lot of the media as a racially charged statement, and it's what led us to the state of the campaign trail today.

You can blame the Clintons for being dirty, sure, but not for injecting race into this race.

Unless of course, there's been a new development since then that I'm not aware of yet. Has there?

The Clinton campaign is much worst. Covertly planting the false rumor that Obama was schooled in a Madras and incinuating that he's a closet muslim. And their smears have worked. Now everyone in the South thinks that he's a Muslim, and he was schooled in a Madrasa. Some of them even think he's the Iranian Manchurian candidate. I've give the Clintons credit. No one can play the game of politics like them. But if Hillary is nominated she'll loose to Mccain.

Throwing out loaded words like slumlord, inner city, and the constant references to cocaine lend towards negative black sterotypes. The way that she has simply been calling him 'fustrated' seems to also lend towards the 'angry black man' sterotype.

Throwing out loaded words like slumlord, inner city, and the constant references to cocaine lend towards negative black sterotypes. The way that she has simply been calling him 'fustrated' seems to also lend towards the 'angry black man' sterotype.

If you go looking for ways to connect things to racism, you will find them. Words are words and they can be associated with a variety of things its how you choose to interpret them that makes the difference.

The Clinton campaign is much worst. Covertly planting the false rumor that Obama was schooled in a Madras and incinuating that he's a closet muslim. And their smears have worked. Now everyone in the South thinks that he's a Muslim, and he was schooled in a Madrasa. Some of them even think he's the Iranian Manchurian candidate. I've give the Clintons credit. No one can play the game of politics like them. But if Hillary is nominated she'll loose to Mccain.

Any evidence that Clinton was behind this? After all, some Republicans are very afraid of facing an Obama candidacy and would probably stoop to such tactics. Also, many Clinton supporters would do this as well, but that doesn't mean that the Clinton camp itself was actually involved.

Throwing out loaded words like slumlord, inner city, and the constant references to cocaine lend towards negative black sterotypes. The way that she has simply been calling him 'fustrated' seems to also lend towards the 'angry black man' sterotype.

Any links with quotes in context?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+slumlord

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+slumlord+youtube

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+frustrated

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+slumlord

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+slumlord+youtube

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+frustrated

I don't find anything in there to really be racial. Either I give Clinton too much credit, or you're looking for something that's not there (similar to the media's jumping on the MLK/LBJ comparison as racial).

... I guess that was Bush's fault too?

Isn't everything? :rolleyes:

...Our meddling in the foreign affairs of others nations was a factor of 9/11 and the rise of Islamic terrorism...

Bull. Evil muslim terrorists started this cr@p in '79. No one stopped them. They had the 8 years of Clinton to plan/carry out their attacks.:mad:

...Obama...everyone in the South thinks that he's a Muslim, and he was schooled in a Madrasa. Some of them even think he's the Iranian Manchurian candidate.

I believe ALL that. So do millions of other Americans. I doubt Hilary started it. People were talking about him when he ran for Senate.

Stop lying about Clinton.

Bull. Evil muslim terrorists started this cr@p in '79. No one stopped them. They had the 8 years of Clinton to plan/carry out their attacks.:mad:

Completely disagree, but let's not bother getting into it. You and I on this topic will be like Giuliani and a primary win.

I believe ALL that. So do millions of other Americans. I doubt Hilary started it. People were talking about him when he ran for Senate.

Disagree that he's a Muslim. Completely agree that it's very very possible that the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with this particular smear.

MOD HAT: ABS a google search does NOT count as surporting evidence. Please take the time and FIND your evidence then post it like this


In my opinion as proffessor of x at university blah....

Viewed on 24/01/08 (http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=5134)

=ashura;1723604]Really? I thought this whole race thing got started because of Hillary comparing herself and Obama to LBJ and MLK, which is a perfectly appropriate statement and fits with her idealism vs experience platform.

As I've stated. She didn't play the race card until after she lost Iowa. After Obama gave his Victory speech in Iowa, political pundits across the board said it was one of the best, if not the best, campaign speech that they've ever heard. Then they compared him to MLK & JFK for his ability to energize crowds, and capitivate them with his uncanny oratorical skills. As a result, Hillary needed to diffuse the immese momentum that he was generating. That's when Hillary interjected race, by saying that MLK was a talker, and LBJ was a doer. This pattern of language is consistent with far right wing groups, who believe that LBJ deserves the credit for the civil rights act, and not MLK. That's when the firestorm started.

Obama himself said he didn't think the comment was racist. It did however get completely thrown out of proportion by a lot of the media as a racially charged statement, and it's what led us to the state of the campaign trail today.

It's not that it's racist, what Hillary has done with these remarks is turn him into the Black candidate. By incinuating that he's a "civil rights leader", and she's the would be "President". Then another member of her campaign New York attorney General Andrew Cumo said the following.

You can't shuck and jive at a press conference

The phrase "shuck and jive" refers to mischievous blacks behaving innocently in the presence of an authority figure, so as to lie and get out of trouble.


“The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”

—Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen


You can blame the Clintons for being dirty, sure, but not for injecting race into this race.

Unless of course, there's been a new development since then that I'm not aware of yet. Has there?

The moment that race became an issue in this campaign Barak has been loosing Primaries ever since. And once he wins S.C, Hillary is going to use that to re-inforce her strategy of painting him as the black candidate. By incinuating he only won because of the "Black Vote". The facts have cleary indicated that her campaign is interjecting race into this. Divde and conquer is what she's doing. Barak can't win if he's painted as the Black candidate, he knows it and she know's it.

No offense meant Ganymede, but I still think this is a big stretch. The MLK and LBJ comparison is apt because it's matched what she's trying to pitch: Obama may talk change, but she'll deliver.

Talking as if Obama's losses are a direct result of a racial injection is also a stretch. There's no way we can really prove or disprove this.

The Hispanic vote bit is definitely racial in nature though and shouldn't have been said. Obama should flip it on Hillary and use it to his advantage.

I believe ALL that. So do millions of other Americans. I doubt Hilary started it. People were talking about him when he ran for Senate.

Wrong again, listen how Fox News covers it, and who they connected it to. She leaked this story because she was loosing to much campaign contributions to Barak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk7AfHTtj-c

I don't care what FOX says. I have several properties in IL and am there frequently. I remember the Muslim/madrassa story breaking years ago when Obama ran for Senate.

Are you going to deny the sterotype of blacks and crack, or the sterotype of inner city slumlords?

Taking the term 'fustrated' and turning that into the 'angry black man' is a little more difficult, but I'm sure that the message was getting across.

Though what is really slimy is how the Clintons are playing on the brown / black racism.

Let the goofy-@ss liberals attack each other into oblivion. It just makes more people vote for Romney. :bravo: :yay:

Are you going to deny the sterotype of blacks and crack, or the sterotype of inner city slumlords?

Taking the term 'fustrated' and turning that into the 'angry black man' is a little more difficult, but I'm sure that the message was getting across.

Though what is really slimy is how the Clintons are playing on the brown / black racism.

The Clintons have been huge advocates of african american rights, just becuase they are falling prey to swiftboat politics doesnt mean they are resorting to racism.

Let the goofy-@ss liberals attack each other into oblivion. It just makes more people vote for Romney. :bravo: :yay:

Yes, because we all know that what America wants for the next 4 years is a mormon George Bush :rolleyes:

=ashura;1723654]No offense meant Ganymede, but I still think this is a big stretch.

The attacks worked in the short run. Sen. Clinton won New Hampshire by a few points and saved her campaign. But what a price to pay. While Americans of both or neither party were feeling proud that an African American candidate had scored a victory in white Iowa, the Clintons chose racial imagery to wound their surging rival. The Clintons have had their Willie Horton moment and it will follow them into history.


http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-rennie0113.artjan13,0,5500702.column?coll=hc_sport s_util


RUSH: All right, I said this on Monday, and I've said that even before Monday. You know you have Billy Shaheen is out there (paraphrase), "Yeah, cocaine! He may even be selling drugs." Obama is a black guy. You know, they're playing the race card on this guy. Any time a prominent black rises to a position that threatens the Clintons, pshew! Smackdown, baby. This isn't the party that's supposedly tolerant, affirmative action. If Mrs. Clinton, the Democrats, believed all they really say about this, they'd quit. Pull out of the race; give it to Obama, for the good of America, for the good of race relations in this country.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122107/content/01125112.guest.html

In contrast to Obama, Hillary plays the race card
By Dick Morris
Posted: 01/16/08 06:51 PM [ET]


Not racists themselves, they decided, nonetheless, to play the race card in order to achieve the polarization of the white vote that they needed to offset that among blacks.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/in-contrast-to-obama-hillary-plays-the-race-card-2008-01-16.html


January 14, 2008
Hillary Plays the Race Card - Sort of
Rick Moran
You knew it had to happen sooner or later.

Race is the 800 pound gorilla in the room when it comes to American politics. Few talk about it. And using it as a weapon in a campaign went out with George Wallace.

But you had to know that if there were a way to raise the issue and get people thinking about it, the Clintons would find a way. Hence, the last 48 hours have seen several elliptical references to race by Clinton surrogates as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves which serve the purpose of reminding people just who it is that opposes Hillary - and what color he is.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/hillary_plays_the_race_card_so.html


Still think it's a stretch?

Are you going to deny the sterotype of blacks and crack, or the sterotype of inner city slumlords?

Taking the term 'fustrated' and turning that into the 'angry black man' is a little more difficult, but I'm sure that the message was getting across.

Though what is really slimy is how the Clintons are playing on the brown / black racism.

Oh c'mon, the crack point would've been brought up even if Obama were white. You've seen possible drug use exploited in a candidate whenever possible. The slum lord and frustrated comments I still think are stretches.

I'm definitely not a fan of Hillary, but I think if she's going to be attacked, it should be for things that deserve attacking.

I don't care what FOX says. I have several properties in IL and am there frequently. I remember the Muslim/madrassa story breaking years ago when Obama ran for Senate.

LINK? That's what I thought.

Still think it's a stretch?

Absolutely. Dumping a bunch of press and blog links that say exactly what you said in your previous post doesn't do anything to change my mind. I still think the whole thing is overblown and aside from the comment on the Hispanic vote, I don't think Clinton should be blamed for bringing race to the campaign.

Absolutely. Dumping a bunch of press and blog links that say exactly what you said in your previous post doesn't do anything to change my mind. I still think the whole thing is overblown and aside from the comment on the Hispanic vote, I don't think Clinton should be blamed for bringing race to the campaign.


I wasn't trying to change your mind. I was clearly demonstrating that your opinion is in the minority.

Oh c'mon, the crack point would've been brought up even if Obama were white. You've seen possible drug use exploited in a candidate whenever possible. The slum lord and frustrated comments I still think are stretches.

I'm definitely not a fan of Hillary, but I think if she's going to be attacked, it should be for things that deserve attacking.


I don't think you understand how crack is different for blacks, especially after the whole claim that the CIA created crack to destroy the black community.

Also, slumlords aren't exactly something that is commonly associated with whites, but are seen as evil individuals who prey upon innocent poor inner city blacks.

LINK? That's what I thought.

I have been warned not to say anything bad about Obama and his being muslim. I'm not posting any links here.

I have been warned not to say anything bad about Obama and his being muslim. I'm not posting any links here.

PM me with it.

I don't think you understand how crack is different for blacks, especially after the whole claim that the CIA created crack to destroy the black community.

Also, slumlords aren't exactly something that is commonly associated with whites, but are seen as evil individuals who prey upon innocent poor inner city blacks.

So because someone made a claim any comments that a person who is black used drugs is racist?


Slumlords are not restricted to the black community, not at all. They were statments taken out of context and blown out or proportion to get people to argue over them instead of talking about the real issues, just like we are doing now.

I have been warned not to say anything bad about Obama and his being muslim. I'm not posting any links here.

I think you just dont have anything to back up all your bullshit that you love to spout off so much Sandy. Maybe if you could contribute to a disscussion with a solid statement and supporting evidence instead of whining about immigrants, jesus, and evil muslim terrorists you wouldnt get warned so much :D

I wasn't trying to change your mind. I was clearly demonstrating that your opinion is in the minority.

Well considering that the majority can very easily be wrong on an issue, and considering that I've tried to discuss what Clinton has actually said and done to defend my point instead of using what other people have said she's said and done, I'm happy to take your demonstration and give it the most consideration it deserves, which is somewhere in between none and very little.

I don't think you understand how crack is different for blacks, especially after the whole claim that the CIA created crack to destroy the black community.

Also, slumlords aren't exactly something that is commonly associated with whites, but are seen as evil individuals who prey upon innocent poor inner city blacks.

You're right, I don't understand how crack is different for blacks. What I do understand though is that crack is an illegal drug, and that Obama used it. It's then absolutely no surprise to me that this was utilized as an attack on the campaign trail.

And funnily enough, some of the most notorious slum lords in New York City were white fellas praying on the poor, most of whom were people of color. That's the stereotype I immediately think of.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/july-dec96/cia_11-18.html
When you grow up getting to hear about stuff like this all the time you start to understand how the claim of being a crackhead is different when the target is black.

Which was what I was saying, that the slumlord is who oppresses poor blacks, and to link Obama to that was obviously racist.

These sterotypes need to be exposed and fought against, but that doesn't mean that they don't currently exist.

Personally I refuse to vote for either of them because their policies are offensive to me, but at least I can respect the fact that Obama's use of race has been minimal.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/july-dec96/cia_11-18.html
When you grow up getting to hear about stuff like this all the time you start to understand how the claim of being a crackhead is different when the target is black.

Considering that if Obama were white the same claims would come up, I don't think how I grew up makes a difference. For someone who's recently made many threads about equality amongst gender and race, I'm honestly surprised that you're the one trying to argue this point.

Which was what I was saying, that the slumlord is who oppresses poor blacks, and to link Obama to that was obviously racist.

What you said, and what I responded to, was "slumlords aren't exactly something associated with whites." I pointed out that I (and lots of other New Yorkers I'm sure) do associate slumlords with whites. And the fact is that Obama is associated with someone who definitely qualifies as a slumlord. If the shoe fits for this Rezko guy, he's gotta wear it.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

Considering that if Obama were white the same claims would come up, I don't think how I grew up makes a difference. For someone who's recently made many threads about equality amongst gender and race, I'm honestly surprised that you're the one trying to argue this point.


These sterotypes need to be exposed and fought against, but that doesn't mean that they don't currently exist.


You kinda left out that part.

These sterotypes need to be exposed and fought against, but that doesn't mean that they don't currently exist.

You kinda left out that part.

On purpose, obviously, because that's not what I'm addressing. You gave two examples as to how you think Clinton is injecting race into the campaign and I made sure to argue against those two specific examples in my post.

You tried to pretend that I was being hipcritical by pointing out where the Clintons were using racial sterotypes to their benefit when I specifically made a point that we need to work on getting rid of these sterotypes, but that doesn't mean that they don't currently exist.

You tried to pretend that I was being hipcritical by pointing out where the Clintons were using racial sterotypes to their benefit when I specifically made a point that we need to work on getting rid of these sterotypes, but that doesn't mean that they don't currently exist.

I think you're being inconsistent because I expect Clinton would use the same talking points on Obama even if he were white, so I think you, along with many media outlets and bloggers, are the ones wrongly bringing race into it. But we can discuss whether or not I think you're being inconsistent some other time. I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place in this thread and I apologize.

Feel free to go back to the actual topic and discuss the rebuttals I made concerning the legitimacy of Clinton's Obama remarks.

You tried to pretend that I was being hipcritical by pointing out where the Clintons were using racial sterotypes to their benefit when I specifically made a point that we need to work on getting rid of these sterotypes, but that doesn't mean that they don't currently exist.

Anyone with an open mind can clearly see that it's a fact that Hillary injected race as a desperate attempt to even the odds. The political pundits cover this subject every night. The more they cover the race issue, the more Hillary's plan will come into fruition. Race wasn't a factor until she started to loose, and her plan is going to backfire if she gets the nomination.

On the occasion of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday and amid attempts by the Hillary Clinton campaign to "revise" the history of the civil rights leader in a blatant attempt to tarnish the candidacy of her rival, Senator Barack Obama, it is noteworthy to point out that Dr. King was assassinated as part of a U.S. government plan, documented in a CIA memo, to replace the Nobel Peace Prize winner as the leader of the "Negro movement."

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/cia_doc_talks_of_need_to_remove_mlk_from_leadershi p.htm

Anyone with an open mind can clearly see that it's a fact that Hillary injected race as a desperate attempt to even the odds. The political pundits cover this subject every night. The more they cover the race issue, the more Hillary's plan will come into fruition. Race wasn't a factor until she started to loose, and her plan is going to backfire if she gets the nomination.

Actually, anyone with an open mind can see that while the possibility exists for this accusation to be true, there isn't really a good case for it. Why are you basing your opinion on what the political pundits are saying? These are the same guys that told you over and over again that Thompson was going to be a huge factor in this race. Looking at what Hillary has actually said thus far, it's not so hard to come to the conclusion that this racial injection accusation is either exaggerated or false for the most part.

Liberals have no use for the truth.

Yes... and the conservative politicians in our government a just so veracious!

~String

Yes... and the conservative politicians in our government a just so veracious!

~String

Hmmmmm...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23097132-38198,00.html

:D

Exactly what does that have to do with conservatives?

Though it is cute how they don't want to talk about all the times that the Clintons lied about Iraq.

Exactly what does that have to do with conservatives?

Though it is cute how they don't want to talk about all the times that the Clintons lied about Iraq.

To some people, neoconservatives are conservatives too. But even excusing Bush and his merry bunch, there are plenty of paleocon liars too. The point is that the majority of prominent liberals and conservatives both equally suck. :p

Exactly what does that have to do with conservatives?

Though it is cute how they don't want to talk about all the times that the Clinton's lied about Iraq.

So, you're in a race to the bottom then? Quick, let's forgo comparing him to Clinton and go back to Nixon... this will REALLY highlight how good Bush is!

Sorry... that just doesn't work.

Look, angry, as one of my early mentors taught me, "You can always find someone to compare yourself to, who makes you look good. The question you need to ask is: who are you competing against?"

Your remark reminds me of my father who, whenever confronted with his unbending support of our current administration, always falls back on, "Well, son, look at what Clinton did." Which is patently ridiculous. One doesn't gain insight or moral-high-ground by comparing one person's misdeeds with another's.

Yes, yes, Clinton lied. Great. He had the title "President" before his name: they all lie. The current one doesn't get a pass because the last one got away with it.

~String

Exactly what does that have to do with conservatives?

Though it is cute how they don't want to talk about all the times that the Clintons lied about Iraq.

What does what have to do with conservatives? Oh you mean this?

According to the study, 935 false statements were issued by the White House in the two years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In speeches, briefings and interviews, President Bush and other officials stated “unequivocally” on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had links to al-Qaeda, or had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to get them.

------------------------------------------------------

The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.

The other officials named in the study are vice president Dick Cheney, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, then-defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House spokesmen Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23097132-38198,00.html


No sweets. What's "cute" is that those lies led to war and a war that continues as I type.

I don't believe Clinton's lies about Iraq led to a war, do you? Maybe you could Google it to find out.

Again, what does that have to do with conservatives?

Again, what does that have to do with conservatives?

You're parsing definitions of the word "conservative" to suit your own judgment.

For discussion's sake: Republicans = Conservative and Democrats = Liberal.

Sure, you think that they are all liberal and Iceaura caterwauls that they are all conservative (which is all a matter of perspective), but in the American political gestalt, Republicans are the conservatives and Democrats are the liberals (with notable exceptions).

~String

You are pretending that people who oppose conservative values are in some way conservative.

Then again you also don't seem to want to hold an equal standard for responsability on pushing lies about Iraq on both Bush and Clinton. You remind me of these moronic kids that I had to deal with in university that tried to pretend that Bush was the first president in the history of the USA to ever wage a war of choice based upon lies.

It just reminds me of this...

Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html

You are pretending that people who oppose conservative values are in some way conservative.

Then again you also don't seem to want to hold an equal standard for responsibility on pushing lies about Iraq on both Bush and Clinton. You remind me of these moronic kids that I had to deal with in university that tried to pretend that Bush was the first president in the history of the USA to ever wage a war of choice based upon lies.

For the record, angry, I am quite well versed as to who's "at fault" for the issues in Iraq. There are plenty of things I blame Clinton for concerning our current national security issues, but "blaming Clinton" won't fix the issues with our current president (who I voted for the first time).

Furthermore, if you had ever read any of my posts, you would understand that I've always said (and, didn't I just say this earlier?) that all presidents lie, start wars and create trouble. I don't think that people should be all that surprised to see Bush doing it, it's just that the miasmas we've entered on his behalf have been a bit more extreme than most. This is something that we have to deal with here and now and should be addressed without exception or excuse making visa vis "Oh, everybody else has done it." No, I don't think that Bush is the worst president in history, but he certainly ain't all that good.

You're a typical extremist: all you care about is laying as much blame on politicians who are ideologically opposed to you in order to assuage the blame on what has been one of the most obdurate political mechanisms in American history.

Like "those moronic kids" I remind you of: you are making illogical jumps without firm knowledge of what you speak. Which, up until now, has been pretty par for the course with you.

string why the hell would you vote for someone who would disown his own DAUGHTER for kissing another girl?

let alone everything else he has done

I was only 17 in 2000 so I didn't get to vote, but I would have voted Buchanan. Al Gore was an openly imperialist moron, and I started to like what Bush had to say in 2000, until he betrayed Texas. Then my opinion simply was, screw that carpetbagging traitor.

string why the hell would you vote for someone who would disown his own DAUGHTER for kissing another girl?

let alone everything else he has done

Did he disown his daughter?

You have to remember 2000 to understand. There wasn't the 9/11 mess or Iraq then. There was Al Gore running against a guy who was for comparatively smaller government. His "other" political stances were ancillary. At that time I couldn't bear the thought of another for years (or eight) of the Clinton legacy.

Woops!

That Bush didn't live up to some of his promises shouldn't be surprising, but that he didn't live up to one of them certainly was.

I didn't vote in 2004. Kerry? Bush? Egad.

~String

let alone everything else he has done


What all had Bush done by 2000, or do you not understand the concept of a timeline?

how about the record numbers of excutions in texis for starters
how about his platform on "family values" always right wing christan for ANTI GAY
shall i go on?

how about the record numbers of executions in Texas for starters

Which interests me now, but in no way bothered me then. I was staunchly pro-capital punishment then. Now, I'm only nominally so. I'm not a static being and my views were very different then.

how about his platform on "family values" always right wing Christian for ANTI GAY

Unlike most gays and political extremists: I'm not now, nor was I then, a single-issue voter. Sure, the gay issue mattered to me greatly, but what mattered more was other issues at the time. I'll be damned if I can remember any of those issues, but they seemed important at the time!

shall i go on?

Sure, you mention two things which are certainly important, but weren't enough to tip my hand.

Again, Bush wasn't out parading in the streets for a gay Holocaust (Pat Buchanan came pretty close!) and what mattered to me then was cutting government spending as much as possible, maintaining a strong military and ensuring state's rights.

Remember: I did say that looking back, I just shouldn't have voted (or, barring that, voted for Gore and not made any difference anyway).

~String

Texas has the death penalty, and good for Texas.

Why shouldn't he run on a platform of family values, if that is what he believes in, when those values are supported by a majority of Americans?


Really just sounds like typical liberal baaawwwwing.

Again, Bush wasn't out parading in the streets for a gay Holocaust (Pat Buchanan came pretty close!) and what mattered to me then was cutting government spending as much as possible, maintaining a strong military and ensuring state's rights.

It's disturbing how often people forget that Bush used to stand for a much more traditional conservative platform. Voting for him in 2000 and voting for him in 2004 are two completely different beasts.

It's disturbing how often people forget that Bush used to stand for a much more traditional conservative platform. Voting for him in 2000 and voting for him in 2004 are two completely different beasts.

Yes... but unfortunately the net result was the same: we got a big spender and corporate game-player. Again.

~String

i will ask you a question then

what was bush's economic policy?
health policy?
education policy?
state relation policy?
Enviromental policy?
ect

Maybe its because im Australian but when i vote i can give you the answers to at least MOST of these questions if not all of them

Its always been policy not people with the exception of the fact that i would NEVER vote for a party led by Tony Abott

See it seems to me that even in this election its all about personalities not policy which is a BAD way to go

But as i said thats an Australian view point

Oh and BTW i would definitly vote for a party led by Al-gore at least with his policys the way they are now,

Love his enviromental policy
Love his gay rights policy
would love to see a health policy from him but the way he is going im sure it would be good

It's disturbing how often people forget that Bush used to stand for a much more traditional conservative platform. Voting for him in 2000 and voting for him in 2004 are two completely different beasts.

?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVoFkL20HGU

What does what have to do with conservatives? Oh you mean this?No sweets. What's "cute" is that those lies led to war and a war that continues as I type. I don't believe Clinton's lies about Iraq led to a war, do you? Maybe you could Google it to find out.

Your stupid pathetic quote was from a study funded by POS, anti-war, anti-America liberal George Soros. We've already refuted it. W has never lied about anything. He is the BEST POTUS we have EVER had. :yay:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/23/ap-runs-soros-funded-anti-war-study-as-hard-news/

God bless George Bush. God bless America. :yay:

Oh, and Clinton and Obama are NOT qualified to run a kindergarten much less a country. Neither has any experience doing anything except running for POTUS. :(

?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVoFkL20HGU

I'm at work and can't view the youtube. Do you have any text sources to support whatever point you're trying to make?

Dr. Paul at the debate mentioning the fact that he supported the 2000 Bush platform of non-intervention, then Bush in 2000 talking about his opposition to nation building, and finally Cheney talking about how invading Iraq would have been a mess.

Dr. Paul at the debate mentioning the fact that he supported the 2000 Bush platform of non-intervention, then Bush in 2000 talking about his opposition to nation building, and finally Cheney talking about how invading Iraq would have been a mess.

Er... then why the question mark response to my comment? I obviously agree.

Conservatives remember the non-interventionist part of the Republican platform, especially in the 2000 platform.

what was bush's economic policy?
I can't quote the details (and can anybody really?), but for the most part it consisted of: deregulating, keeping government hands off of as much as possible, keeping taxes low, and strong-arming darker skinned people to ensure that the USA stayed as big and powerful as possible.

(the last part, I say tongue-in-cheek, but also knowing that most people know the truth in this, but won't discuss it for political reasons).

Again-- I was okay with all this back then.

health policy?

Back then, I thought the only thing that mattered was that the federal government didn't get involved in health insurance. Little did I know: It already was, in the worst possible ways. All I knew was this-- I had GREAT health insurance, it paid for EVERYTHING (I worked for Liberty Mutual Insurance (http://www.libertymutual.com/omapps/ContentServer?cid=1003349317186&pagename=CorporateInternet/Page/CorpHome&c=Page) at that time), and as far as I was concerned, people without insurance could suffer.

education policy?

In the USA, Asguard, Education is much more the purview of the states and local government. I grew up in a typical semi-rural, white, significantly above middle class [but not quite rich] city that had good schools. As far as I could care, it was best that way.

I know better now. Though, for the most part, I think that the federal government needs to keep its meddlesome mitts off education. What SHOULD happen is for the states to centralize education, pay for it through sales taxes, and redistribute the funds on a per-pupil basis. Wealthy cities could "contribute" as much as they wanted to their own schools, but for the most part 90% of the money should come from the individual states and the curriculum should be the exact same from what city to the next (within the state).

state relation policy?

Foreign relations? Well, I was all into realpolitik back then, so anything that seemed like it would continue that policy seemed good to me. For the most part, I still believe that the USA shouldn't get involved into nonsensical "ideological" endeavors (i.e. "democracy building"). We currently have two policies: secure the USA and spread good feelings. These two policies are often times in stark contrast to each other.

Now I'm all for some kind of benevolent realpolitik (not sure if that's even ideologically possible), but nation building in Iraq is just nonsense and the USA needs to ONLY get involved when there is some national security issue (and doing so, needs to do so with everything we've got-- none of this half-assed shit), or just not bother getting involved. We'd probably have a lot happier allies and not so many enemies if we did at least this much.

Environmental policy?

Did care back then. Do immensely now.

~String

God bless George Bush. God bless America. :yay:

Oh my... yer on fire today.

Let's keep it to the debate stuff and leave out the propaganda! ;)

Oh, and Clinton and Obama are NOT qualified to run a kindergarten much less a country. Neither has any experience doing anything except running for POTUS. :(

Sorry, they are qualified, though you might not like their stances, they have no more or less experience than Bush did (or Lincoln, and many others). Political difference don't equate political qualifications.

~String

Yeah just what we need, another Lincoln in power...

At least Bush had executive experience, something both Hitlery and Obama are missing.

no i ment state relations, maybe thats a problem here where things are joint funded though

To be honest apart from bringing the troops home from the stupid war and not pissing off china i wasnt really interested in Foreign policy

MUCH more intersted in state relations though

for instance the fed gov here pays for health care but the states run the hospitals
so everytime something goes wrong with the hospital system the states say the fed arnt giving them enough money and the fed says the states are wasting the money

Firstly after actually SEEING the state\fed funding split i have to say i come down on the side of the states

Kevin rud ran on a plateform of "ending the blame game" between the states and fed
which was good:) also he couldnt have gotten away with it since all the states AND now the fed goverment are labor so they cant blame eachother, they HAVE to get along

Yeah just what we need, another Lincoln in power...

Well, while you're at it, why not cavil about George Washington & Thomas Jefferson for their slave ownership, or John Adams for the Sedition Acts and Woodrow Wilson for his opposition to Women's Suffrage. Come to think of it... pretty much all of them were pretty discriminatory towards women. Why isn't discrimination against HALF the population, at least as offensive as discriminating against a mere 10% of the population?

~String

string you just killed the thread
now hes going to spend the next 4 hours going on about male opression

no i ment state relations, maybe thats a problem here where things are joint funded though

"State relations" is, apparently, only a hot-button issue down under. Although, I'm sure there are some "state relations" issues here, there certainly aren't enough of them to register on the Richter scale of importance to anybody in the USA beyond the occasional unfunded mandate from the Federal Government.

~String

Oh my... yer on fire today. Let's keep it to the debate stuff and leave out the propaganda!

What? It's 'propaganda' for me to cheer/defend my prez but it's ok for most everyone else here to slander him? WTF?:confused:

Sorry,they are qualified, though you might not like their stances, they have no more or less experience than Bush did (or Lincoln, and many others).~String

Sorry, they are not. Bush ran a state. Clinton ran her mouth. She did NOTHING so far as Senator. Neither has Obama. They're both bags of hot air and empty promises. All they have done is run for POTUS for the past year.

The only thing Clinton has done is request $1million from Congress for a museum to commemorate Woodstock, propose a failed socialist healthcare sham while Bill was POTUS, make shady business deals, and watch moronically as her slut husband parades his women in front of her.:(

Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in the Senate and has done nothing but run for president since he first arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of Pakistan and fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for criminal aliens, Obama has shown that he is NOT the man to whom the nation ought to hike the nuclear football.:(

just for your infomation these are the bigest issues from the election just gone in no paticular order:
The Enviroment
Health
Education
WATER!!!!!!!!!!! and the drought
The Iraq war
WORK CHOICES!!!!!!!!! (industrial relations for non Australians)
The aborigonal intervention
State relations
Intrest rates (howard ran on a platform of keeping them at record lows and then had 8 straight rises)
Roads (on a local level)
David Hicks was a side issue
Getting back control of the senate to the minor parties
goverment spending and infustructure
Broadband
skills shortage
Housing (another perifary issue)
Food prices, petrol prices (again sort of perifery)

Thats off the top of my head and then there are all the local issues in each seat

oh and Goverment accountability

The top 3 here are the econ, criminal aliens, and evil muslim terrorists. The focus shifts everytime the Repubs do something good/great about any of them. Watch as W's econ plan, rate cuts etc take the focus off the economy. The libs are already trying to put it back on Iraq with their sham-study financed by liberal POS Soros, but no one's buying it. Things are going too well in Iraq for the libs to give it any positive attention.

Your list is more the liberals' issues.

Nevermind. I forgot you're from Australia.:)

actually most of those were on Bushes little brown nose's list as well

More mud-slinging...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080124/D8UC7BEO1.html

What? It's 'propaganda' for me to cheer/defend my prez but it's ok for most everyone else here to slander him? WTF?:confused:

You know that "F" in "WTF" means "fuck" don't you? ;)

I wasn't laying down the law... just pointing out that it really doesn't belong in a debate. But, if it's so important to you; by all means, cheer for your guy.

Sorry, they are not. Bush ran a state. Clinton ran her mouth.

They all run their mouths. Bush ran a state which has the weakest executive in the nation. Besides: plenty of senators have gone on to become president.

Again, I think you're spitting from an ideological perspective.

Here's a question: is there such a thing as a liberal who's qualified in your book?

~String

More mud-slinging...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080124/D8UC7BEO1.html

Now THIS is a prime example of injecting race into the race by the Clintons.

Here's a question: is there such a thing as a liberal who's qualified in your book?~String

Yes. Lieberman.

Not a liberal.

Since when did he give up his belief in the white man's burden?

Yes. Lieberman.

According to Americans for better immigration, Lieberman gets an F, for his deplorable voting record regarding illegal immigration.

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=CT&VIPID=149

Yes. Lieberman.

Sandy, you're being intellectually dishonest and you know it. Lieberman is not a liberal (at least by American standards: he, like Zell Miller, is an exception [and an odd one] to the general Democratic/Republican divide).

I asked you to name a liberal and you resorted to this, which highlights your total lack of credibility when judging the qualifications of a person to hold office.

You're de facto standard therefore is: Think like me [or as close as possible] or your not qualified.

How is that a standard?

Name a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT who is qualified to be president?

Chances are you can't, because you simply don't like them and cannot fathom someone who isn't a little clone of your subjective ideology being qualified for president. This is a dangerous and quite totalitarian precedent to set.

Clinton is qualified. She's an accomplished lawyer, her exposure (no matter how limited) as first lady certainly is worth something (I'm not willing to quantify or qualify that part, however) and she's a second term senator. I'm not saying I want her as president (not even close!), but as qualifications go, she's pretty qualified.

Was Bill Clinton qualified, Sandy? How about Ford? What about Lincoln? I'm just curious about your perception of what "qualified" means, beyond your uncoupleable [is that a word?] political inclinations.

~String

How is Lieberman not a liberal?

Does he not support the expansion of government?

Does he not defend illegal immigration?

Does he not throw his support behind the white man's burden?

Not a liberal.

Last time I heard he was almost 68%. That's liberal to me. He may not be liberal on Iraq (he wants the evil muslim terrorists defeated) but he is on just about everything else. :)

Im interested to see what polices are being proposed by the candidates in this election?
and what polices you will be voting for

or is it congress that comes with policy and presidents come with what? just looks?

How is Lieberman not a liberal?

Last time I heard he was almost 68%. That's liberal to me. He may not be liberal on Iraq (he wants the evil muslim terrorists defeated) but he is on just about everything else. :)

First off: Lieberman himself says he's not a liberal (not rock solid as judgments go, but it's a start). Second off, EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT SINCE ROOSEVELT has expanded the government. Third off, he opposes many/most of your standard "liberal" issues and is for too many "conservative" issues to be considered a liberal. He's not a "conservative" either (by US standards) but a liberal he ain't.

But if it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside: fine, Lieberman's a liberal. You win.

Now, name a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (not a moderate or conservative, but LIBERAL... as in the left-ist of the leftiest of the Dems) who's qualified to be president by HIS or HER various contributions, experiences and accomplishments.

~String

Im interested to see what polices are being proposed by the candidates in this election?
and what polices you will be voting for

or is it congress that comes with policy and presidents come with what? just looks?

The president only has complete control over the military. Everything else has to go through congress. The policies being proposed by the candidates are still important though because if the candidate is elected, he or she has a sort of public mandate for (some of) his/her views that politicians in the Senate and House will want to follow.

Oh, and you avoided answering these questions.

Too tough?

Was Bill Clinton qualified, Sandy? How about Ford? What about Lincoln? I'm just curious about your perception of what "qualified" means, beyond your uncoupleable [is that a word?] political inclinations.

~String

so what policies are being proposed?

What did George HW Bush do to expand government?

Lieberman can say that he isn't white, but does that change the color of his skin.

Liberals aren't qualified to be president.

Now the only Democrat that I can think of that I might consider qualified for president is Chet Edwards.

so what policies are being proposed?

Well there's a total of 8 candidates right now, which one in particular would you like to know about?

The one disappointing policy across the board is the refusal to guarantee withdrawal from Iraq. Only Paul and Kucinich have promised immediate troop withdrawals.

Hitlery keeps switching it up. Some days it is troops will start leaving within 60 days of inaguration, and other days it is troops will stay until I say so.

What did George HW Bush do to expand government?

The fact that you say that and it makes sense to you, is proof that you're clueless. The man has overseen the largest expansion of the federal government since Roosavelt. Some of it (the investigative part, perhaps the military) are justified; the other parts are not.

Now the only Democrat that I can think of that I might consider qualified for president is Chet Edwards.

Wasn't asking you, I was talking to Sandy.

~String

**Note: I was thinking Dubbya. My mistake.

Why don't you list some examples of George HW Bush expanding the federal government?

Then again I'm sure that you consider BRAC to be the largest expansion of the military ever devised. Oh wait...

=angrybellsprout;1724609]What did George HW Bush do to expand government?

By creating Homeland security, another agency we don't need. Expanding the Governments power to wiretap American citizens. The patriot act, just to name a few.

By creating Homeland security, another agency we don't need. Expanding the Governments power to wiretap American citizens. The patriot act, just to name a few.

George H.W. Bush.

George H.W. Bush.

Wow... we read something wrong. Big deal. I was talking about Bush II.

~String

Wow... we read something wrong. Big deal. I was talking about Bush II.

~String

Just making absolutely certain you guys don't end up talking over each other's heads on the topic. :)

Look: this isn't going to be turned into a referendum on people's reading abilities or a debate on who gets treated the least fair. The debate is about political mud-slinging. If you want to debate other issues, start a new thread.

~String

Funny how you have yet to answer my question...

Funny how you have yet to answer my question...

Because I was debating Dubbya (I misread). Not HW. HW was totally ineffective at pretty much everything. So, no, HW didn't expand the gov so much as Dubbya. There is not, however, a president in the last 50 years who ended up with fewer federal employees than he inherited.

~String

Second off, EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT SINCE ROOSEVELT has expanded the government.


How has George HW Bush expanded the government?

I don't consider things such as BRAC an expansion of the government.

While I do fault him for allowing himself to be talked into going to Iraq, Somolia and Panamá, he has been the closest thing to a conservative in office for a good while.

Last time I heard he was almost 68%. That's liberal to me. He may not be liberal on Iraq (he wants the evil muslim terrorists defeated) but he is on just about everything else. :)

What do you propose we do about the FAR more dangerous CCR?

Look: this isn't going to be turned into a referendum on people's reading abilities or a debate on who gets treated the least fair. The debate is about political mud-slinging. If you want to debate other issues, start a new thread.

~String

Precisely,

I came to this thread hoping to hear what everyone thought of the despicable distortions and lies being carried out by the Billary campaign machine, and all I see is discussion on how awful a Pres. Bush II is. Now, I fully agree, but that really ins't the topic here.

What do you propose we do about the FAR more dangerous CCR?

Put them in charge of the world! :D :bravo: :yay:

Precisely,

I came to this thread hoping to hear what everyone thought of the despicable distortions and lies being carried out by the Billary campaign machine, and all I see is discussion on how awful a Pres. Bush II is. Now, I fully agree, but that really ins't the topic here.

Exactly who is talking about him?

Barak is finished

DILLON, S.C. - Bill Clinton said Wednesday he expects blacks to vote for Barack Obama and women to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the dynamic may cause his wife to lose the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary Saturday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Now Barak is officially the Black Candidate. His campaign is over.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. This guy won Iowa for crying out loud, and I'm he'll use squeeze that fact for everything it's worth. I think the race between Hillary and Obama is still very much open.

Once Obama becomes 'that black guy' he will get all the respect that Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson deserve...

He won Iowa before Race became an Issue. Can you imagine Barak saying I lost New Hampshire because White people wouldn't vote for me. Bill is a proven liar, and worst of all race baiter.

He won Iowa before Race became an Issue. Can you imagine Barak saying I lost New Hampshire because White people wouldn't vote for me. Bill is proven liar, and worst of all race baiter.

Yes but Barack will never say that. If I'm wrong and he does, that's when you can consider his candidacy finished. As long as he clearly articulates that people are voting for him because of his policies and not his race, and he uses Iowa as evidence of that, he's safe.

This topic has been totally derailed by people incable of restricting themselves...

=ashura;1724764]Yes but Barack will never say that. If I'm wrong and he does, that's when you can consider his candidacy finished.

It's already over. The fact that Bill can play the race card (with no repracusions) and Barak can't proves this race is pretty much finished.

It's already over. The fact that Bill can play the race card (with no repracusions) and Barak can't proves this race is pretty much finished.

There have been repercussions though. The Clintons' have been slammed repeatedly for their use of racial subtext, even for some things that I don't feel qualify. Many voters have become disgusted with them and hopped onto the Obama boat. And I don't underestimate Obama to the point where I think he's gonna just sit there like a kicked puppy. He'll address the issue, and he'll address it in a way that'll seem the opposite of Clintonism, and that's what'll get him the votes.

Even the Brits are catching on to the Clintons sleazy campaign.

Bill railed against the Obama "fairy tale" and lamented that "I can't make her younger, taller, male". Hillary, bizarrely, portrayed herself as LBJ, a president who got things done, to Obama's Martin Luther King, who merely had a dream.

The race card was played too late by the Clintons for it to make any difference in New Hampshire. While Hillary's coffee-shop tears were played endlessly on television, the "fairy tale", which many took to mean that it was pie in the sky to think a black man could win the White House, and the LBJ versus MLK analogy, didn't sink in until after the vote.

But it is equally implausible that the remarks were innocent slips. Talking to Clinton aides, one of whom recently mocked Obama as "your imaginary hip black friend", it's plain that all this fits into a broader post-New Hampshire strategy of trying to take Obama down by any means necessary

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/01/16/do1604.xml

Speechless.

There have been repercussions though. The Clintons' have been slammed repeatedly for their use of racial subtext, even for some things that I don't feel qualify. Many voters have become disgusted with them and hopped onto the Obama boat. And I don't underestimate Obama to the point where I think he's gonna just sit there like a kicked puppy. He'll address the issue, and he'll address it in a way that'll seem the opposite of Clintonism, and that's what'll get him the votes.

But there haven't been significant repercussions in the polls. Here again, history is repeating itself. People whine and moan about the Clintons in the Media, but Americans overlook their faults and foibles and vote for them, warts and all...

But there haven't been significant repercussions in the polls. Here again, history is repeating itself. People whine and moan about the Clintons in the Media, but Americans overlook their faults and foibles and vote for them, warts and all...

The polls aren't always correct, as indicated by Clinton's NH win. Besides, there have only been 3 primaries so far for the Democrats, Michigan not included considering the circumstances. I don't understand why people are so sure Obama is going to be hurt by this. Perhaps I'm just too optimistic?

I'd put my faith in the Clinton machine more than anything else. Until voters wake up and reject it, it will roll on...

Your stupid pathetic quote was from a study funded by POS, anti-war, anti-America liberal George Soros. We've already refuted it. W has never lied about anything. He is the BEST POTUS we have EVER had. :yay:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/23/ap-runs-soros-funded-anti-war-study-as-hard-news/


Hmmm.. which would I trust more, a respected news site (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23database.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) or something called "hotair"..:rolleyes:

Anywho.. Tell me Sandy, where are the WMD's? You know? The one's the Bush administration managed to convince the world Saddam had and was on the verge of using? The one's Bush convinced the allies they needed to destroy before he used them? Where is the link between Saddam and Bin Ladin (you remember him don't you?.. he's the one who actually attacked the US and whose hunt Bush let fall to the wayside as he launched his vendetta against Saddam)?

But ya, you've refuted that by actually finding the WMD's and the link to Bin Ladin.. Oh wait.. no you didn't.. hmmmm..


God bless George Bush. God bless America. :yay:
Do you wave pom poms around and clap when you say that?

Oh, and Clinton and Obama are NOT qualified to run a kindergarten much less a country. Neither has any experience doing anything except running for POTUS.
How are they not qualified? They are just as qualified as every single President who ran for office before them. I understand String already answered you on those points.

Tell me Sandy, where are the WMD's?

They're in Syria, apparently, but don't ask how Sandy how she knows that. Because she, uh, won't tell you.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76679

Hijack:

Sure, you think that they are all liberal and Iceaura caterwauls that they are all conservative (which is all a matter of perspective), It is,

first: not just a matter of "perspective". These words have meanings, they are not just relative positions on the current media model of the political landscape.

second: not true that I ever said that. Nor did I "caterwaul" it, in the always wingnut-influenced vocabulary of the American Right. I have said the contrary, specifically, several times. I've made a big hairy deal out of saying the contrary. What in hell is wrong with you people that you can't read English ?

Let's repeat that: I never said that "they" were all conservative. I have specifically observed, more than once and here again, that the takeover of the Republican Party by the current powers involved discard of core US conservative principles. W&Co are not conservative in their ideology. They borrow huge sums of money to finance preemptive land wars in Asia and military occupations of foreign countries, for chrissake. They deregulate banks. The micromanage the local schools from Washington. Hello ?

And topic redux: The Clinton machine is indeed without honor, and nasty in its infighting. But that was not something the Clintons invented, or a manner of national campaigning they improved on their own motives - they fought a monster, and to a degree become one.

Yeah, yeah, yeah: They're fascists, we've heard this tripe from you before...

Hmmm.. which would I trust more, a respected news or something called "hot air"...where are the WMD's?... Where is the link between Saddam and Bin Ladin...How are they not qualified?

The NYSlimes is a trusted news site? You don't live here do you? They were just running the story funded by Soros. They didn't write it or create it. They also publish classified information. They are treasonists. W should have shut them down.
I already answered all the other questions. I'm not doing it again...

Clinton's "emotional moment" wasn't even shown that much on local TV in NH.

The NYSlimes is a trusted news site? You don't live here do you? They were just running the story funded by Soros. They didn't write it or create it. They also publish classified information. They are treasonists. W should have shut them down.


Don't tell me you are advocating shutting down the media Sandy. What of the free speech Americans are so proud of? Or do you want to shut down any media organisation that happens to questions the validity and veracity of the Government's statements? But hey, it's ok if the Democrats are in power.. but Republicans? Nooo.. shut them down.:rolleyes:

If any information they published was indeed classified, the twits who leaked it are the one's at fault.

The reported the story and gave a link to the list of quotes made by the administration. We can judge for ourselves whether they were true or not. But seeing how UN observers had emphatically stated there were no WMD's and anyone with half a brain knew that Saddam and Bin Ladin were opposed to each other in the extreme, well, what can one say but.. liar liar pants on fire.

Don't tell me you are advocating shutting down the media Sandy....But seeing how UN observers had emphatically stated there were no WMD's and anyone with half a brain knew that Saddam and Bin Ladin were opposed to each other in the extreme..

This is about the POS NYSlimes publishing classified info while we're at war. What don't you get about that?:confused:

The UN is a farce. They cannot be trusted. We don't care what they say. Their oil for food scandal was appalling. :rolleyes:

Saddam and binLaden were friends. I already proved that.

Where did you prove that sandy?

This is about the POS NYSlimes publishing classified info while we're at war. What don't you get about that?:confused:


I am a firm believer in free and open media Sandy. Hard for you to understand, I know, but hey, that's just the way it is. How did they happen to come by the classified information Sandy? Do you expect the media to not report on what information they are given? Do you want the media to get governmental approval prior to publishing their stories?

The UN is a farce. They cannot be trusted. We don't care what they say. Their oil for food scandal was appalling.
They knew enough to state emphatically prior to the war that there were no WMD's. You cared enough for what they say to send Powell to lie through his teeth to convince them otherwise. And their oil for food program is no less scandalous than lying about WMD's and the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Saddam and binLaden were friends. I already proved that.
You're now claiming you know more about their 'friendship' than the CIA does? You know more than the current administration does?

The intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks. According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely.[6] The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda)



The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545.html)


Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.
Link (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm)


Friends indeed.:rolleyes:

Yeah, yeah, yeah: They're fascists, we've heard this tripe from you before... Not "they" - the discussion was about the entire political spectrum in power in the US, and only some espouse fascist ideology, and those are the only ones I have ever referred to with the word.

If you've heard all this tripe from me so many times, and you have, why so much trouble in getting it straight ? Are they really that mentally challenging to you guys, these simple distinctions - that I use "fascist" for some but not others, "conservative" rarely and only in the old-fashioned meaningful sense, etc., and that claiming I use the words in ways that I don't is simply wrong ?

After all, the key circumstance here is that the accusations and innuendos from Clinton are generally inaccurate and seriously misleading, whereas those from Obama are generally not so far from the facts of the matter: right ? Reality does have a place in these discussions.

Saddam and binLaden were friends. I already proved that.

**Scratches head**

Huh?

Care to prove it just one more time? For me? Pleeaaase?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545.html

sandy its a real pitty that someone as inteligent as you are unable to devide propergander from fact:(

I am a firm believer in free and open media Sandy. Hard for you to understand, I know, but hey, that's just the way it is. How did they happen to come by the classified information Sandy? Do you expect the media to not report on what information they are given? Do you want the media to get governmental approval prior to publishing their stories?

With freedom comes responsability. While I too value a free and open media, one has to wonder if our media is truely free when so much of it has been bought out by large corporations. Also, while I value a free and open media, the media needs to understand what reproducing classified information in the public arena means, and anyone who does such, especially in a time of war, should face legal penalties.

Also, while I value a free and open media, the media needs to understand what reproducing classified information in the public arena means, and anyone who does such, especially in a time of war, should face legal penalties.

Penalties regardless of what the classified information is? No criteria?

ABS she is not talking about tactical infomation, your right publishing that can get people killed. But publishing public abuse of power is DEFINITLY going to SAVE lives. Reporting millartry abuse is going to save lives.

I am highly suspious of people who say that "oh we already got osama" makes me think that either a) he was actually a CIA agent who did his job quite well or b) you are embarised by the fact that you cant find him. I favor the second ESPECIALLY when you have a president DESPRATLY trying to find SOMETHING he can hold up as a legacy for his 8 years of abuse and incopitance

You could try this one.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1724845&postcount=3

With freedom comes responsability. While I too value a free and open media, one has to wonder if our media is truely free when so much of it has been bought out by large corporations. Also, while I value a free and open media, the media needs to understand what reproducing classified information in the public arena means, and anyone who does such, especially in a time of war, should face legal penalties.

I wonder if you feel the same way about Dickie exposing a CIA agent?

I didn't think so.

VROB being a one eyed fanatic doesn't make you unintelligent. There are some really intelligent people (like my dad:p) who still barrack for Collingwood:p (sorry you probably wont understand that but Bells and James will)

If you've heard all this tripe from me so many times, and you have, why so much trouble in getting it straight ? Are they really that mentally challenging to you guys, these simple distinctions - that I use "fascist" for some but not others, "conservative" rarely and only in the old-fashioned meaningful sense, etc., and that claiming I use the words in ways that I don't is simply wrong ?

I know it really baffles you that people don't agree with your self-perceived brilliance.

I know it really baffles you that people don't agree with your warped appreciation of reality.

But there's really nothing I — or anyone else — can do to snap you out of such solipsism.

I know it really baffles you that people don't agree with your self-perceived brilliance. Agreement with me has nothing to do with it. You can't seem to get it straight, what I post, in the first place. If you were despising what I actually said, or positions I actually held, that would be a different matter. Instead, you invent things for me to have said or meant, and then tangent from there to harangue against my character, ego, motives, background, etc, as you find them revealed in these inventions of yours.

It's all in your own head. The entire obsession. And you are posting paragraphs of it, all over this forum.

Lost in there was the point: the Clinton's campaign behaviors did not arise in an environment of honest and legitimate political discourse. The Clintons are survivors of some really nasty, seriously corrupting, fundamentally dishonest political attacks, in a coordinated and millionaire-funded and power-backed smear effort that has lasted for years now. It's unique, as far as I know, in American politics after WWII. And if they have become what they fought, in some ways, they wouldn't be the first.

Agreement with me has nothing to do with it.

Agreement with you has everything to do with it.

For if someone disagrees with your definition of a term or your perception of reality, then you assert people don't agree with you because they fail to understand what you're talking about, are dishonest or on drugs (these are just some of your favorite monikers).

The simple fact that people can assess the same thing as you and reach a different conclusion seems to totally stupify you — or it fails to compute. I don't know which, nor do I care. You are who you are, and you've not shifted an iota or anything since I've joined this site. Your self-belief and refusal to be swayed on all things is evident to anyone who has taken the time to deal with you.

Lost in there was the point: the Clinton's campaign behaviors did not arise in an environment of honest and legitimate political discourse. The Clintons are survivors of some really nasty, seriously corrupting, fundamentally dishonest political attacks, in a coordinated and millionaire-funded and power-backed smear effort that has lasted for years now. It's unique, as far as I know, in American politics after WWII. And if they have become what they fought, in some ways, they wouldn't be the first.

By this, am I to conclude that you endorse Hillary Clinton's vast, right-wing conspiracy theory, because it certainly sounds like you do?

I don't care what FOX says. I have several properties in IL and am there frequently. I remember the Muslim/madrassa story breaking years ago when Obama ran for Senate.

my entire family is from ill and they didn't hear shit

Yes. Lieberman.

lieberman is not a liberal

This is about the POS NYSlimes publishing classified info while we're at war. What don't you get about that?:confused:

The UN is a farce. They cannot be trusted. We don't care what they say. Their oil for food scandal was appalling. :rolleyes:

Saddam and binLaden were friends. I already proved that.

you did not prove anything you just posted to conservative sites just as biased as you.

Do you just go around looking for sandy's posts all day? Is that what brings you to sciforums?

Do you just go around looking for sandy's posts all day? Is that what brings you to sciforums?

well most of the other people i would reply to have left or don't post as much.

For if someone disagrees with your definition of a term or your perception of reality, then you assert people don't agree with you because they fail to understand what you're talking about, Let's take the example above, in this thread: string said I "caterwauled" that "they were all conservative". You asserted that I said "they were fascist" (about the same "they" as string's). I claim I made no such statements, and in fact have made specifically contrary statements numerous times.

I am correct about that, and you and string are incorrect, regardless of understandings or agreements. I have very little interest your understandings, and none in your agreements. I want you to quit saying I said things I didn't say.

Meanwhile, there is something worth talking about: The Clintons's continuing descent into Atwater World. To what extent is that an American Tragedy, in the Greek Drama sense ? Is it an erosion of a facade, over their fundamental nature, or would we find them in their youths with cleaner and more fundamentally idealistic natures, since bent by the Fates ?

Let's take the example above, in this thread: string said I "caterwauled" that "they were all conservative".

You have. Numerous times. I couldn't care less about your prevarication now. You pissed and moaned about how American politicians were all [to paraphrase] conservatives [especially when compared to the rest of the world]. We were regaled with your comparative knowledge of how Americans blinded by political reality and how Democrats weren't really liberal (if not, then what are they?).

~String

string all your politions ARE to the right of the political spectrum here, here at least. After all i posted the policy's of the last election and someone posted that they were all "libral" problems. Most of them came from Howard who was a right wing pollie. Its all about perspective. What is concidered the middle depends on your own culture

Let's take the example above, in this thread: string said I "caterwauled" that "they were all conservative". ”
You have. Numerous times. I couldn't care less about your prevarication now. -- Provide one quote from one thread anywhere on this forum. Not one of your bullshit "paraphrases", please, an actual quote.

This is what you have to match: Iceaura caterwauls that they are all conservative You don't have to match the "caterwaul" - no one expects civil discourse out of people in your political category, so you get a pass on the playground shit - but you do have to match the exact vocabulary and reference ("they") on the rest of it.

Good luck.

(As far as what the Democrats are? The powerful ones, and the majority of the rest, are Right Authoritarian corporate oriented politicians. )

string all your politions ARE to the right of the political spectrum here, here at least. After all i posted the policy's of the last election and someone posted that they were all "libral" problems. Most of them came from Howard who was a right wing pollie. Its all about perspective. What is concidered the middle depends on your own culture

I'm aware of the overall right-slant of American politicians when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. That said, I couldn't care less if everybody else lives in a liberal utopia, so comparing American politics to British politics is pointless. When talking about the USA and in the American political landscape: Democrats (for the most part) are the liberal party and Republicans are the conservative party.

We could play the same game in Britain. British politics are considerably more conservative than... say... European politics. Labor in Britain has shown itself to be more to the right than German or French conservatives. But this comparison doesn't really matter, does it?

~String

Im sorry didnt realise you were talking internally

I thought the post you were replying to was saying that the US system is to the right of most of the world which it is

When talking about the USA and in the American political landscape: Democrats (for the most part) are the liberal party and Republicans are the conservative party. This is true, in the US mass media: and it is a consequence of the words "liberal" and "conservative" being gutted of actual meaning by propaganda usage. Which is why I don't use them much on thie forum, and one of several reasons I never said "they are all conservative".

We could play the same game in Britain. British politics are considerably more conservative than... say... European politics. Labor in Britain has shown itself to be more to the right than German or French conservatives. But this comparison doesn't really matter, does it? It matters.

In particular, it matters if without the clarification you are going to start confusing important aspects of the former meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" with the nature of the entities you have so labeled in the new meaningless usage. The modern Republican Party's power structure in the US is not notably conservative, in the old meaning of the word. Under the old meanings it would be hard to figure out which modern Party in the US is more liberal, which more conservative. The modern Republican Party is only "more conservative" in the new, meaningless usage.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html