Talked to a Hillary supporter today

[ashling]

who was handing out campaign literature at the university where I am in grad. school. She wanted to give me a flyer with the 10 top reasons that Hillary should be president. Here are a few, (not necessarily in this order):

1) Was to get us out of this war.

So I asked her how leaving our troops there for an extended period was going to get us out of this quagmire. She hemed and hawed, gaveme some "she wants us out of this war" I asked the question again. No answer.

2}Health Care.

So I asked her how requiring everyone to carry private health insurance would end scandalous/slipshod coverage and denials of major insurers. She replied that Hillary is for Universal Coverage just like federal employees get. I explained to her that federal employees are not covered by the government, but by individual private insurers who still do scandalous stuff. I told her that I had just done some extensive research on Health Care for a graduate class in public policy. She proceeded to argue that it was a lot better than having no coverage at all. I asked her about Single Payer and she replied that Hillary was for Universal coverage.

So we moved on

I asked her about Hillary's vote on Kyle/Lieberman. She said "Well, I really don't get in to that stuff."

Oh, well, ok," I said, "what about her vote on the Iraq War resolution. She voted for that ... and went through this long thing where people were upset because she refused to apologize. Here's what I want to know:

She says that she was mis-lead, and that George Bush betrayd her trust by taking us to war. What I want to know , is how, in her wildest imagination, She could have ever gotten the idea she could trust George Bush?"

"Well you've got to trust him."

"Why, I didn't. Other congrssmen and women didn't, milllions of people in the streets didn't"

"Well, you have to trust the president."

"So, you're telling me that Hillary Clinton's vote, and entire current foriegn policy position is: Trust George Bush?"

"Well, you've got to trust George Bush."

End of Conversation.

[aquart]

1. An idiot is handing out Hillary literature?

Because that's what you've proved. Big fucking deal.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. OK - So What Are The *Good* Answers To Those Questions?

Help us out here.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. (Cue Sound Of Crickets Chirping)...

[josh_edwards07]

170. The Crickets are Out

In the Clinton Camp.

Edwards 08

[TheFarseer]

20. Good answers don't exist

at least not from someone backing Hillary's position. Trusting George Bush on Iran is a terrible position. Simply mandating that people buy private insurance is totally unrealistic. There aren't any good answers for Iraq AT ALL from anyone. of course that's just my opinion.

[MGKrebs]

62. Good answers do exist. They've been hashed out here about a million times.

If you won't accept the concept of legitimate disagreement, there isn't much point in having the discussion over and over.

Some people just want the opportunity to get up on their little virtual soapbox and bash away.

[kenfrequed]

106. hmm

This short answer sounds a lot like other rationalizations I have heard before:

"Well we shouldn't argue about how we got in this mess in Iraq. We are there now. Do you want to be a part of the solution or not?"

Actually there are dozens of variations on that one and most of them are supposedly only spit out by right wing pundits and politicians.

The fuzzy loops at the bottom of this argumentation always bothered me.

[merbex]

79. I have had similar conversations with people( 3 total HC supporters)

who are activists and their defense of Hillary really boils down to "we'd get Bill back" and "it's cool to elect a woman President"

Isssues schmissues.

Her supporters DO. NOT. CARE. about issues when it comes to electing Hillary president. And under no circumstances should any Democrat ever say one negative thing about Hillary's position on issues or about how Hillary answers criricism about her stance on issues because that just gives the republicans ammunition.

Debate? No.

It is like talking to the wall when I talk to these people.

Everyone else, and I mean everyone else I know ( I am on a regional board of activist democrats) who supports some other Democrat other than Hillary Clinton will engage in a discussion about their candidate without getting defensive.

[AllyCat]

124. I've not met one HRC supporter. How did you find 3??? n/t

[hfojvt]

186. well I have to defend her health care policy

since it came from Edwards. It is not mandated coverage like Massachusetts, at least not without the key - one option would be affordable coverage from medicaid.

[ashling]

12. I didn't set out to "proove" anything

I just reported an encounter I had with someone handing out campaign literature who had invited me to talk to her.
I would like answers to those questions, though

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. I'm afraid you're going to be waiting a long time. nt

[ashling]

32. seems so

n/t

[HuckleB]

193. Exactly.

You can do that with almost anyone handing out flyers for any candidate. We thought we smart when we would do that in high school and college, too. I guess some things don't change.

[Joe the Revelator]

2. Seeing a Hillary supporter must be like seeing Bigfoot in the wild...

Equally rare occurrences.

[ElizabethDC]

4. Oh, really?

I had no idea that we were such elusive figures. :eyes:

[Capn Sunshine]

6. Yet, they seem to run in herds when polling organizations are around

maybe they are attracted by polls.

[ElizabethDC]

7. Well, ya see, we prefer to sit at home and wait for our phones to ring

rather than to venture out into the real world. I haven't been polled yet but, ya know, *fingers crossed.*:evilgrin:

[Joe the Revelator]

9. :)

Just repeat the mantra: "Today will be my day".

[ashling]

13. So, are you saying that

Hillary and her supporters are not quite connected with the real world, or just shun the real world?

just trying to understand.

[ElizabethDC]

15. Or perhaps I'm being

totally sarcastic.

[ashling]

17. I thought so, but

you never want to assume ... that gets me into places I would rather not go. LOL

[Divine Discontent]

48. yes

in general that would be a good summation. many of her supporters (unlike most here on DU) don't really know what she stands for, they just know her name, her face, and that they loved Bill, and how things were better before little dum-uck got put in power...

this example in the OP helps argue that point.

[Yael]

26. Yes, home doing nothing but typing on message boards

*snicker*

[ElizabethDC]

28. Well, that's what I do while I'm waiting for the pollsters to call

:evilgrin:

[emilyg]

38. 1297 posts since July. Seems that's all you do.

[cuke]

46. I've got more posts than that in a shorter time

[Viva_La_Revolution]

54. dude, you really don't wanna go there. nt

[cuke]

82. Why not?

I've got nothing to hide

[Ignis]

98. Because it would invoke a quality vs. quantity debate.

Not to mention a debate over motives.

[cuke]

99. So what?

[Ignis]

130. Thanks! I rest my case. (nt)

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnnyBoots]

70. I have yet to meet, in person, one Hillary supporter. I talk to a lot of people who know

politics too. Even just bar talk in DC, yet to meet one Hillary supporter in person. I find that perplexing.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Dollars to donuts the person was paid

Clinton has no grassroots support in my area. None. She has supporters, but no one who actually knocks on doors or hands out literature.

[ecstatic]

8. Great! Maybe she'll support Giuliani now

:eyes:

[Joe the Revelator]

11. Why, please someone tell me why, Team Hillary is so afraid to talk about issues...

This is what the primary season is ALL about, finding out where a candidate stands on ISSUES, not pretty talking points.

[cuke]

14. What issues do you want to know about?

[Joe the Revelator]

18. I'm talking about the over reaching attitude being shown

nt

[cuke]

23. No, you're changing your story

First it was about how no one wanted to talk about HRC's positions on the issues. I'll even quote what you just said:

"Team Hillary is so afraid to talk about issues..."

So here I am, ready to talk about the issues, and you change your story about some kind of attitude that does not exist. I'm not afraid to discuss the issues with you. What are you scared of?

[CyberPieHole]

56. Haha, cuke...

you left the poster speechless.:cheers:

[ashling]

22. The ones discussedin my OP

for starters.

[cuke]

27. OK,

1) Having troops in Iraq does not mean we are fighting a war. We have troops in scores of nations and no one is claiming we are fighting a war in those countries

2) Like the other candidate plans, Clintons does nothing about denial of claims, nor does it claim to. I don't see how you can legislate this problem away, but if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. In the meantime, I'm not in the habit of making the perfect the enemy of the good

[ashling]

33. Well,

1) keeping military troops in a country where the populace (or a good proportion thereof) are currently trying to kill us (and doing a pretty damned good job of it) is not quite the same thing as having troops in Germany or South Korea where no one is currently shooting at us. Perhaps she should listen to Bill Richardson's suggestions that we get them all out and leave no residual forces. I am not necessarily a supporter of his, but he did do the heavy lifting for the Clinton Administration in foriegn affairs.

2) The point is that there is a better Democratic plan out there. Dennis Kucinich has a universal single payer plan that would get the private insurance companies out of the way - yes, they are in the way. I have no doubt that Hillary's plan or any Democratic plan is way better than the current Republican plan: Don't get sick. Why is Hillary's plan better than all the other Dem. plans?

3} And the there is the question of why Hillary trusted George ush to do the right thing? Her defense/explanation o her IWR vote is simply that she trusted Bush and he betrayed that trust. WHY ON GOD"S GREEN EARTH DID SHE TRUST BUSH? What did George Bush ever do to make her think she could trust him at all - especially on something of this magnitude.
And now she's doing it again with this Kyle/Liebershit vote. Even George Bush know's there is some saying bout trusting twice ( he doesn't know hat it is, or what it means, but he is aware that there is one)

And this begs the question. Why should we trust her judgement of personalities. That will be a big issue for the next president.

I am not trying to gang up on Hillary, trust me (oops, sorry about that) I just want to be able to trust her. An so far I have not gotten answers that lead in that direction.

[cuke]

35. well

1) Nothing you said justifies your claim that leaving troops in Iraq is the same thing as continuing our occupation of Iraq or the same as fighting a war in Iraq. It's reasonable to disagree with her opinion on this, but it's wrong to say it's the same as continuing the war

2) DK and his plan have no chance of passing, and it doesn't garauntee that people's claims would be accepted more often than an insurance company does. HRC's plan is better than the others because it is more comprehensive and detailed and provides greater subsidies to those who would have trouble affording insurance.

3) I don't know why you assume it has something to do with trusting *.

Finally, I have no problems with you asking questions. Feel free to ask more. Maybe eventually you'll stop saying that no HRC supporters will discuss her positions on the issues, which just is not true.

[ashling]

37. First of all,

it wasn't me who said that HRC supporters won't discuss the issues. My problem is just that I haven't gotten any good answers. I hope I will get some, because I want to be able to trust her. No matter who I want as our candidate, there is a chance that she will be it. If so, I will support her as wholeheartedly as I can.

Now, to your answers:
1)Ok, the conflict, the current tension which is getting people killed every day. After all, there is technically no "war" as one was never actually declared, but that doesn't seem to matter. Not good enough.

2}Actually, we have never been closer in this country to single payer. The fact that DK may not win doesn't answer the questions on the merits. The fact is that a single payer would be a lot more likely to play fair than the corporate ineptitude and profit motive that exists now.

3} It is all about trusting. Hillary said "I trusted George Bush." Simple question: "WHY?" How do we know that she will not blindly give her trust to some other charlatan?

Yes, I have other questions, but keep working on those till you give me something I can work with.

[cuke]

39. You're right about that

You didn't say that. I confused you with the poster I was originally responding to. I apolgize for that

1) I said nothing about it not being "technically" a war. We have had troops in places where hostilities were taking place without us being involved in a war. Your argument here is just fallacious. You don't get to decide what fighting a war means. "Fighting a war" means fighting a war and NOT "defending an embassy" and NOT "training troops"

2) I have no idea what you mean when you say "we have never been closer in this country to single payer" And I said more than "DK won't win". IIRC, I also said "Single payer won't get passed"

And I disagree that the govt would DEFINITELY do a better job with things as they are now.

3) And again, you just continue to believe that these are answers. You just continue to claim that these are not "good" answers, when the truth is they're answers you don't agree with or like.

And I don't think I'll be continuing. It's becoming obvious that you will accept nothing but what you want to hear and that any disagreement will be misportrayed as you have done with the first two questions. I haven't lied to you. I've done my best to answer you questions without any personal attacks. In return, you have accused me of double speak, continued to insist that "fighting a war" means something other than actually fighting a war, and have made baseless assertions (ex "we have never been closer in this country to single payer") and raised a straw man ("there is technically no "war"")

[ashling]

44. Please do not take anything I may have said as a personal

attack on you. It certainly was not meant that way.

My doublespeak" comment was only point out that in the context of the debate the other day, you might wantto be careful about posting one thing and then explaining it differently. I am not accusing you of doulespeak, only pointin out that yourpost could be interpreted that way. I did use the word phase "tendency toward."

As for your answers,

Perhaps we should step back and rephrasethe first issue. Why do you feel that it is necessary o keep troops there for such an extended period? I definitely do not, but I just want to know your (that is HRC's) logic.

I have studied medical policy for a while ( most recently in a graduate class on public policy} My dad was a Dr. and was in favor of that ever since he started in practice in 1947. I have studied the issue from a historical and a policy perspective and it is very clear from polling data that such a system has more support than ever before.

Hillary said that only voted for the war resolution to, basically, to give Bush the chane to use diplomacy and that she trusted him. I want to know why. If she thinks that Bush is a trustworthy guy, then she should say so.

Again, when talking about these issues, there is a tendency to use the fist person. I amnot atackin you.

I really want to be able in my own mind to believein thecandidate of our party. That candidate could be Hillary. Can you help me gain a level of trust on these issues?

And I apologize for my typos. I oviously have issue with typing, too. LOL :)
:hi:

[cuke]

51. OK, I won't

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt wrt the personal attack. However, there are still issues.

1) I explained how leaving troops in Iraq is NOT "fighting a war". When I've made a mistake in this thread, I havent hesitated to acknowledge it and corrected myself. I don't see the same sort of thing from you. Instead, you seem to be accepting my argument without actually saying so, instead going on to why I/HRC think we should leave them there. But I will answer:

They are there to protect our embassy and to train troops and no one says it's "necessary". HRC and I believe that is the right thing to do. Well actually, not quite

I do agree with our having an embassy there. It's the least we can do after destroying their nation. As far as training the troops, I'm not sure I agree with this as it might end up training both sides of a civil war. However, my concerns have nothing to do with how training troops is the same as fighting a war, as you previously implied

As far as single payer, I do believe that by giving people the option of choosing the Federal plan while placing limits on premiums, Hillary is setting the stage for single payer, but that is certainly open to debate by reasonable people. However, because most of the insured are happy with their coverage, any plan that eliminates people's ability to choose their own plan and requires them to be insured by the govt is politically unrealistic. The lack of choice helped kill UHC in 1993, and it will do it again if we go down that path. People want real change, until they hear the details.

wrt trusting * - I guess I'm just too cynical. When I hear a politician talking about trust and hope and other "glittering generalities" I think "Bullshit". IMO, it was a political decision that prevented the repukes from writing and passing an IWR that would have been much worse than the one that passed.

And as far as your ability to trust Hillary, or anyone else, that is up to you. If someone doesn't trust someone, it's hard to point to anything they've said or done that will convince someone that they're trustworthy. They just say "Well, I think that's a lie. I don't trust them" At least, that's been my experience. Trust is not something that can be proven.

IMO, you should look at their records and compare that to what they're saying now. Hillary has a long record of fighting for children, women, the poor, minorities and other oppressed and disadvantaged groups and on a number of other issues like health care, labor issues, etc. I have no reason to suspect she won't continue doing the same as president.

on edit: I'm getting sleepy. Have a good night

[MadHound]

60. Let me jump in here and correct your misconception

Hillary has flat out stated, in the last debate and elsewhere, that she will keep troops in Iraq to guard our embassies and bases(defensive action, continuation of the war), train Iraqi troops(which would include going out on missions with them, more war) and to carry out missions against Al Quaeda (hmmm, certainly sounds like war). This is why having Hillary leaving troops in Iraq is simply continuation of war.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be. . .

[cuke]

84. Sorry, but that's not fighting a war

gaurding bases and embassies is done by the US around the world and it's not considered fighting a war. Same thing for training, including accompanying Iraqi trainees on missions. The only point of yours that comes close is the one about Al Queda, but if you think any president, dem or repuke, is going to stop going after Al Queda, then there's nothing I can say to sway you

[MadHound]

108. Those are essentially the same goals that Bush has laid out

<http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/bush.transcript/index.html>
Very little difference between Bush and Clinton on what we're doing in Iraq, what our mission is. Very little difference at all.

[cuke]

109. Keep telling yourself (and Nader) that

"Very little difference" between Gore and * also

[MadHound]

133. I just love how you Hillary supporters do that

When your position is proven to be false and hollow, you try to brush it all aside with a strawman arguement, or switch the subject completely. Don't you realize that we're all onto this tactic that you and your candidate use?

At least have the moral and intellectual integrity and honesty to stick with the subject.

[cuke]

137. * has proven the Nadirites "there's no difference" was Bullshit

but some people will never learn

[MadHound]

139. Excuse me, but why are you continuing to bring up Nader into the conversation?

We were discussing Hillary's position vis-a-vis Iraq, and what the troops are over there for, what their mission is, and how Hillary's stated vision is quite similar to Bush's stated position(remember that link that I gave you). Yet now you're going all Nader on me. Why? Is the truth of the matter so unacceptable to you that you've got to change the topic? If so, then I consider this debate over and my position validated. If not, then stick with the topic and stop trying to set up strawmen and change the topic. I know that it's hard to defend the indefensible, but either give the old college try or leave the field graciously. All you're doing here is making yourself look weak, foolish and pathetic.

[cuke]

142. Because it shows your not reasonable

Anyone who thinks theres no difference is not thinking straight. If you want a reasonable discussion, you should try to be reasonable. If you want an unreasonable discussion, I can do that too

[MadHound]

145. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! So says the KIng of Diversion!

I point out the similarities between Hillary's position vis-a-vis combat troops in Iraq and Bush's position on the same, source it, and you say that I'm being unreasonable. That's priceless, really, truly priceless. Just about as priceless as you trying to say that troops going out on missions, training troops and guarding bases in live fire zones isn't war. Really, you need to stop now, you're embarrassing yourself.

[bpeale]

72. she said she was going to leave combat troops in iraq

and also conduct combat missions in iraq. to me that is the same as continuing the war. that is not simply guarding an embassy. she said that in one of the debates i watched.

she has given me no reason whatsoever to trust her or believe her words. she talks out of both sides of her mouth.

[cuke]

85. Wrong

Yes, she will leave combat troops in Iraq, just as we have combat troops in scores of countries like S Korea, Germany, Great Britain, etc. They are NOT there to engage in combat missions. They will be guarding embassies and bases, training troops, and going after Al Queda

[MadHound]

131. Umm, what do you think going after Al Quaeda is, if not combat mission, chopper liver?

Frankly, if you talk with any of the troops that have been over in Iraq, and I have, every single duty that you mention, guard duty, training Iraqi troops, and going after Al Quaeda, all involve combat, live fire, people dead and injured, and it happens on a daily basis.

The fact that you, and your candidate, are trying to split hairs on this issue shows just how desperately you both are grasping at straws. Dead is dead, get it?

[cuke]

132. It's not fighting a war

You obviously have a unique definition of war

[MadHound]

136. No, not really.

Going after an enemy, keeping troops in a hostile, live fire zone, going out on live fire missions, with or without Iraqi troops, getting shot, injured and killed. All sounds like a war to me. What's your definition, the Napoleonic one where two armies line up in straight lines and fire away:eyes:

Look, they tried this same sort of shit in Vietnam, claiming that the troops shipped over there were "advisers", that they were guarding bases, training the locals, going on missions against the Viet Minh. Yet everybody saw that for the war it was, and labeled it as such. If that was the truth then, then that is the truth now. Frankly, the only reason you're doing this semantic tap dance is because the truth of the matter shows up your candidate in a bad, warmongering light. Sad, really. I expect this kind of semantic hair splitting from Bushco and conservatives. Sad to see it coming from a Democrat, and very, very telling also. Think about it.

[cuke]

138. Yes, really

but it's obvious that you're stuck in the Nadirite-"no difference"-on-everything-in-order-to-have-a-point frame of mind

[MadHound]

140. Here you go again with the Nader crap. Tell you what, either put up or shut up.

Do you have any sort of prove that what I'm asserting as a definition of war, ie going on combat missions, training troops, pulling guard duty in live fire areas, isn't war? Links, sources, anything? If not, all you're doing with this Nader crap is trying to distract people away from the fact that your ass has been handed to you and your candidate is indeed going to keep combat troops and combat missions and the war going, as she has stated on record. This makes Hillary nothing more than another warmonger. Like I said, stop trying to slither away with the Nader strawman, put up or shut up. Geez you Hillary supporters are just as pathetic as your candidate when it comes to trying to weasel and double speak your way out of shit.

[cuke]

143. You are being extremely unreasonable

Just like your tripe about war mongering. It's just more of the "there's no difference" idiocy.

If you want a reasonable discussion, then be reasonable. So far, you're not

[MadHound]

147. In other words you don't have anything to back your ass, or your definition up with

And now you're just trying to play distraction games. Great, the worst possible situation, you can't put up, and you won't shut up. Really, if your position is so solid, surely there is something that you can source out there, somewhere. I mean really now, I sourced my argument, why can't you source yours?

Oh, yeah, that's right, there is no source backing up your position. Hillary has said time and again that she will be keeping combat troops in Iraq, going out on combat missions, doing guard duty and training duty in live fire zones, and as I source upthread, continuing a policy very similar to Bush's.

No wonder people think she's a warmonger. Her actions and words prove it.

[dionysus]

164. but Cuke says the troops will be safe like they are in germany!

and south korea! iraq is *not* a war zone, ok? Well, may is is *now*, but once hillary gets in, she'll snap her fingers, it will be all good, and our permanent force in iraq will be once again showered with rose petals and candy... didn't you get the memo?

[cuke]

167. Making stuff up about me won't help you. It only demonstrates your weakness

I didn't say there was no danger. There is danger guarding the embassy in Saudi Arabia. It's been attacked several times. No one says we're fighting a war in Saudi Arabia

There is danger guarding the embassy in Pakistan. No one says we're fighting a war in Pakistan.

[dionysus]

168. man you have no persuasive skills

you may have forgotten that your argument is not over the danger level of guarding SA and pakistani embassies... but your claim the a permanet force in iraq is not different that those around the world.

The point you repeatedly refuse to address, is that iraq is, unlike those places, A WAR ZONE. I asked you how you envision iraq ceasing to become a war zone, and you haven't got a thing to respond to that with. try again...

[cuke]

171. Pakistan is just as much a war zone

So was Bosnia. So is Israel.

[dionysus]

173. i didn't realize we were occupying israel

and i forgot the 3rd armored division is garrisoned in pakistan, silly me.

could you please answer the question of how you envision iraq ceasing to become a war zone, so hillary's permanet force will be as safe as the troops on the DMZ in south korea?

you really can't answer that can you. surely you can come up with something?

[cuke]

175. We won't be occupying Iraq

if all we are doing is protecting our embassy and our bases. And since you have a problem with clear english, I'll say it slowly:

Iraq. Will. Still. Be. A. War. Zone. But. We. Won't. Be. Participating. In. It.

and

I. Did. Not. Say. Those. Troops. Would. Be. Safe.

Why must you continue to make stuff up? Don't you have a real argument to make?

[dionysus]

179. again, no dice billy

Cuke: 1) Having troops in Iraq does not mean we are fighting a war. We have troops in scores of nations and no one is claiming we are fighting a war in those countries

Having troops in a live fire zone, exposes them to combat.

None of the the troops in the "scores of nations" are in a live fire zone.

Training Iraqi troops in a fire zone exposes them to combat.

Fighting AQ in iraq is wartime combat.

Cuke: We won't be occupying Iraq

ok, enjoy that warped view of reality.

[MadHound]

177. No, you're just saying that once Hillary get into office there will be no war, no combat troops,

No military missions.

Yet Hillary has stated that the troops will be guarding bases and training troops in a live fire zone, and that they will indeed be going on combat missions. She has stated this time and again, yet you somehow refuse to believe that this is war, even though it fits the definition of war, even though this position of Hillary's is similar to Bush's position(which has been sourced and proven upthread) which we call a war.

This isn't like Saudi Arabia, which isn't a live fire zone, this isn't like guarding a base in Pakistan, S. Korea or Germany. This is a live fire zone which inherently makes it a war, a military operation.

Sheesh, it continues to amaze me the kind of rhetorical hairs you Hillary supporters will try to split, all in order to support your candidate.

[cuke]

178. Nope, I said the exact opposite

There *will* continue to be a war in Iraq, a low-level civil war. We just won't be fighting in it.

And there will be combat troops in Iraq. Ive said that several times. Since you can't read simple english with any comprehension, you go on ignore

Oh, and Pakistan is a live fire zone, or maybe you're just completely unfamiliar with what is going on there.

"Sheesh, it continues to amaze me the kind of rhetorical hairs you Hillary supporters will try to split, all in order to support your candidate. "

Learn to read

[dionysus]

180. once again, his arguments shattered, cuke resorts to personal attacks...

remind me, where do we have troops ducking bullets in pakistan?

you got nothin, your arguments are bankrupt. thanks for playing. you need to find a new line of work, seriously.

[MadHound]

182. Careful, he might put you on ignore too!

:evilgrin:

[dionysus]

184. he did *sob* fetch me the smelling salts, i need to lay down...

:wave:

[MadHound]

181. You are soooo funny! Pathetic, but funny none the less

The way you try to wiggle your way out of things. Do I really need to link you to our exchange from last night? Do I really need to quote you from upthread, or can you go read for yourself what you said?

And now you're going to put me on ignore. Not surprising, you seem to do that with everybody who kicks your ass in an exchange, your typical MO. You make some outrageous statement that is easily disproven, you rant, rave, stick up strawmen, split hairs, and then if all else fails, put the person on ignore with a great flourish of indignation. Hmmm, what does that remind me of:think: Oh that's right, a small child's temper tantrum. Perhaps it is time you grow the fuck up and learn to deal with reality:shrug:

Well, go ahead and put me on ignore, it is no skin off my nose and only goes to show how limited your thinking and your world is. I will still continue to respond to your BS when I see fit, but you won't know how badly you're getting your ass kicked now will you. Or maybe you will, you might just be one of those who just has to take a look:evilgrin: Either way, it's no difference to me:hi:

By the by, if you check with the military and state department, you will find that while Iraq is indeed officially considered a live fire zone, Pakistan isn't. It helps having friends in the military, perhaps you should get some.

[dionysus]

185. todays pwnage brought to you by: MadHound, Since 2002

lolololol

[dionysus]

165. going after al-quaida isn't combat? jesus h christ on a pogo stick

once again, tell me how iraq will stop being a war zone?

[cuke]

176. Welcome to ignore

Since you can't stop lying about what I've said

[dionysus]

183. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

*sob* oh heavens, what ever shall I do?

it's not my fault you're full of crap.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

69. what tha...

1) Having troops in Iraq does not mean we are fighting a war.

are you serious? You think keeping troops in iraq the way it is now is akin to our garrisons in germany and south korea? you think the insurgents are going to magically stop attacking us? wow.

[cuke]

86. We have combat troops in scores of countries

We have combat troops in S Korea. Are we at war in S Korea? What about Germany? Are we fighting a war in Germany?

And we have an embassy in Saudi Arabia that's been attacked several times. Are we at war in Saudia Arabia?

[Critters2]

152. Technically, we are still at war in S. Korea.

A truce was declared, but no peace treaty was ever signed. Not exactly optimal. Is this what Hillary has in mind in Iraq....endless war?

[cuke]

154. Two things

1) The issue is about "fighting a war" and not so much whether it is declared or not

2) I would be thrilled if Iraq ends up as peacefully as S Korea. Not exactly optimal, but a whole lot better than what we have now

[dionysus]

156. are you purposely obtuse?

no crap we have troops all over the planet...

it's ridiculous for me to have to point out to you that none of those places are active war zones like afghanistan and iraq...

[cuke]

158. No, are you?

We have had troops in nations that were involved in an active war (ex. Israel) or a civil war (Bosnia) and that never led to anyone claiming we were fighting a war. It's only when Clinton suggests it that the faux outrage at fighting a war comes into play

[dionysus]

160. faux outrage? holy mackeral thats weak...

so please detail the situation where you believe, should hillary get elected, that the violence in iraq shall magically cease, the place will cease being a war zone, and everything will be just dandy and our troops will be free of danger...

pathetic, treating this war like a fucking political game. you should be ashamed of yourself

[cuke]

162. Straw men are weak

I didn't say the violence will cease. I said it won't mean we're fighting a war. We have an embassy in Saudi Arabia, there's violence there, but no one claims we're fighting a war.

We have an embassy in Pakistan, an extremely violent nation where extremists opposed to the govt are active. No one claims we are fighting a war in Pakistan.

Your straw men and faux outrage is what's pathetic, particularly with your username

[dionysus]

163. project much?

none of the places you listed are active war zones.

IRAQ IS A WAR ZONE. WE *are* FIGHTING A WAR IN IRAQ.

apparently you don't give a shit we've got people dying over there.

now again, please detail your scenario how, upon being elected, Hillary causes Iraq to stop being a war zone, so when she keeps the troops there indefinately, they will be as safe asthe garrisons in germany and south korea, as you suggested.

I know you can't, so toss up some more weak insults.

[kenfrequed]

128. on the one hand

1) This argument is not comparable. A more honest comparsion would be Beruit, Lebanon when we had troops there, and even that would not have been terribly accurate. We are talking about leaving troops in the midst of an ongoing civil conflict with no end in sight and no effective plan for dealing this the violence there.

[cuke]

144. Iraq is nothing like Beirut

and our troops will be at an embassy and a base that are not in the middle of a population center. Not the same

[TheFarseer]

24. outsourcing

explain to me how sending IT jobs and manufacturing jobs to India and China will get us more and better paying jobs back here?

[cuke]

29. Her position is identical to the other candidates

At one of the debates, they asked all the candidates about NAFTA. Everyone but DK agreed with HRC

As far as bringing jobs here, it won't. However, trade barriers do hurt employment in the US. We are an exporting nation. Our economy would be destroyed without trade

[ashling]

34. Wait a minute,

First you said:

Her position is identical to the other candidates


and then you said:

Everyone but DK agreed with HRC


I don't want to seem petty, but I wouldthink that a tendancy toward "doublespeak" is something that you would want to avoid. :shrug:

[cuke]

36. "other candidates" = "candidates not named Dennis Kucinich"

there is DK, and there are the "other candidates"

And theres nothing petty about asking for clarification. There is something distasteful about calling something I said doublespeak simply because you are unclear on what I said

on edit: I haven't insulted you in any way. I only ask you do the same

[HughBeaumont]

67. Hate to break it to you, but our economy is already destroyed WITH trade.

The "FREE" kind, the "let the free market decide" kind of trade. Oh, it's making the wealthy lots of moolah hand-over-fist, if we're referring to "The Old Money" as the "economy". Joe Cubeslave? Not s'much.

Her trade position is one of the foremost reasons I cannot and WILL not get behind a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

Let's toss aside the IWR vote, which don't get me wrong is a sore spot.

Ohio (especially Cuyahoga County) has bled so many jobs, white and blue collar, due to free-trade policies which she continues to support and make no apologies for supporting. There AREN'T two sides to outsourcing as she has claimed. This practice DOES NOT work for Joe Dayjob; it only benefits the wealthy of the countries involved. She's WRONG on this issue.

I'd like a logical explanation from Hillary how destroying one nation's working class to lift another helps working classes from both countries involved.

Does she take in account unemployment and closed plants and businesses means less tax money going into the local and state communities, less income going into the economy, more secondary businesses such as bars, local stores, etc, closing because of all the lost revenue they once had when people are gainfully employed?

Does she take into account the cost of retraining and the greater cost to the overall economy of likely underemployment (i.e. going from $25 to $13 dollars an hour)? Does she take into account the toll on the physical and mental health of the worker and the stress placed on families and relationships due to displacement? These are only some of the many reasons why offshoring and layoffs are unnecessary and economically detrimental; it's the core of lousy "free trade" agreements which she's supportive of.

It's so important and critical for the future of the youth of this country that economic fairness be stressed as a top priority. You cannot have politicians and leaders keep telling America's young to go into Math and Science and Technology as a career, when the reality is, they'll likely already be priced out of a job when they graduate thanks to cheap offshore labor. Right now we simply don't have fairness or any kind of a plan to amend this course of rotten and it's getting worse.

I'm not convinced that a Hillary presidency is going to change that. I believe it will be more of the same.

[cuke]

87. You couldn't be more wrong

and HRC's position on trade is nearly identical to the other candidates (excepting DK)

[HughBeaumont]

94. Uh, I don't really think I'm wrong on this one.

Book after book after documentary after testimonial after TV interview provides more than enough real life examples of how this predatory and zero-sum practice is killing the livelihoods of everyday people, dismantling their hard work through no choice of their own. The Government and Corporate America does absolutely NOTHING to research, quell or cure this issue except brush off concerns and stunningly blame the WORKERS for their bad fortune.

Are people other than Republicans SERIOUSLY suggesting there's a positive side to American workers losing their jobs, their progress and often their livelihoods? Read Lous Uchitelle's book The Disposable American. Read Screwed by Thomas Hartmann. Read The Myths of Free Trade by Ohio SENATOR Sherrod Brown (feels SO good to say that!) and get back to me. Read Take This Job and Ship It by Byron Dorgan and get back to me. More than enough empirical and monitored evidence to prove me right there.

How many real life examples do people NEED? Fair trade is the better and more benevolent model, which we are NOT practicing. We have nothing but a victim-blaming Darwinist model and it hurts millions.

Her position on labor is identical to that of Edwards?

[cuke]

96. You're citing the Boob Tube as your source?

That pretty much says it all

[HughBeaumont]

97. Riiiiiiiiiiiight, because ALL TV is fictional and mind-numbing . . .

:yoiks:

[dionysus]

166. *cough* bullshit *cough*

edwards' trade outlook = hillary's trade outlook? pass me that pipe you got man.

[Capn Sunshine]

25. How about "all of the above"

and a straight answer from someone who should know better?

[cuke]

30. How about "No"

and an honest question from someone who should know better?

[DutchLiberal]

66. Uhm... no. Primary season IS about pretty talking points.

Duh. :P

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Sounds a lot like a Young Republican campaigning for Hillary.

Now WHY would they do that?

[ashling]

21. Do YOU have the answers to these questions?

I am Diogenese in search of honesty.

[cuke]

31. I do

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. No, you don't. As you have already demonstrated. nt

[burythehatchet]

74. You got JACK... SQUAT... NADA ... BUPKIS... ZILCH!

Just like your candidate

[cuke]

89. Welcome to my ignore list

there's no reason to put with no content posters

[burythehatchet]

100. Proud to make it! Thank you.

[dionysus]

187. can we start a

"We made Cukes Ignore List" club with t-shirts and everything! He sure showed us, that crafty feller!

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. Nope. But I do have an idea why a young republican would be

campaigning for Hillary.

[JohnnyBoots]

76. Coincidentally, Hillary was President of the Young Republicans at Wellesley. n/t

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cuke]

126. Are you sure you're on the correct website

It's been a while since I've heard that one

[0007]

148. Indeed!!

In the 1930s, Alinsky organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago (made famous by Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle on the horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards). He went on to found the Industrial Areas Foundation while organizing the Woodlawn neighborhood, which trained leftist organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country. In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of leftist radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. The documentary, "The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy," claims that "Alinsky championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless that created a backyard revolution in cities across America."

[calteacherguy]

40. There is a significant portion of Hillary Clinton's supporters who just want to see a woman elected

and don't know much else. I, too, would like to see a woman President someday. It's too bad those folks don't have a better vehicle for their aspirations.

[bfantana]

49. Do you think any of the Female Senators could make it as VP or Prez?

Like the California or Maine senators. They have served longer than Hillary, yet no one mentions them as viable VP or Prez candidates.

Carolyn Braun also ran for president, but female voters didn't care.

Its sad that name recognition over-rides the importance of issues or a candidate's integrity

I also don't know what Hillary actually "accomplished" as First Lady.

[AllyCat]

125. I would love to see Boxer run. Feinstein, not so much.

Snowe? Uh-uh.

[Bread and Circus]

169. You've hit the nail on the head.

[ClarkUSA]

43. If this volunteer/staffer reflects the quality of her Iowa caucus goers' powers of persuasion...

Then Bush I/Clinton I/Bush II/Clinton II will be avoided.

Great questions.

Thanks for the apocryphal tale.

[ashling]

47. Thank you

n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. You Do Know "Apocryphal" Means False

·poc·ry·phal /əˈpɒkrəfəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of doubtful authorship or authenticity.
2. Ecclesiastical. a. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Apocrypha.
b. of doubtful sanction; uncanonical.

3. false; spurious: He told an apocryphal story about the sword, but the truth was later revealed.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apocryphal

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cuke]

50. Here's a few

1) Helped force * to increase funding for Ryan White Care Act
2) Helped force * and his FDA to approve Plan B for OTC access
3) Forced * to fulfill his promise of $20b to rebuild NYC after 9/11
4) Got health care to first responders with health problems from working at Ground Zero
5) Passed legislation that tracks the health of returning Iraqi vets in order to avoid another Gulf War Syndrome fiasco
6) Convinced Bill Clinton to support the creation of SCHIP, which provides insurance to millions of children
7) Wrote legislation that requires drug corps to test their drugs to insure they are safe for children


And these are just from her Senate career. She has a long list of accomplishments. A lifetime's worth

[bfantana]

52. No, I'm specifically asking what are her 3 greatest accomplishments?

Or do you think Kerry-esque long-winded senate speak will win over independent voters?

I'm asking Hillary supporters to name the Top 3 accomplishments that they admire about Hillary Clinton.

What makes Hillary more special than Kerry or the other senators and candidates?

[cuke]

53. And I gave you more than seven

All of which helped, at the very least, thousands of people. SCHIP has helped millions of children. All of them were short and clear

And all you can do is blather about "long winded Senate speak".

"What makes Hillary more special than Kerry or the other senators and candidates?"

The things I just listed and more, but you think Clinton supporters must have three and no more than three reasons and they must be numbered by importance. You are awfully full of yourself for someone who just got pwned

[bfantana]

55. Let me re-phrase, what Top 3 Hillary accomplishments do you care most about?

Most people don't live in NYC, so some of your list doesn't affect them. I think the children health care is good.

But what did she accomplish as First Lady?

What are the things that make you support Hillary instead of Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson. Even Richardson has an impressive resume. I think its a given that every candidate has a lengthy resume. I can list dozens of accomplishments and laws that they have passed. Unless Hillary directly sponsored those laws, there were 49 other members that contributed to passing them.

But specifically what are the 3 things that separates Hillary from the rest of the group? and why are these 3 things important to you and your choice to vote for that person?

Or maybe its too Difficult to explain Hillary's appeal in under 30 seconds. After all, much like the illegal immigration driver licenses, she is just too complicated to understand in an e-mail or conversation.

[cuke]

90. How old are you?

You seem to think this is a pop quiz and you're the teacher.

Clue: You don't get to set the conditions for an acceptable answer.

[bfantana]

110. I must be too stupid to comprehend Hillary Clinton

I guess I'll have to vote for someone else.

These long lists are very confusing. Maybe if she wants to have an hour long conversation with me I'll be able to understand her nuanced stances on these big complicated issues that we're facing today.

As a blue collar American, I just can't understand how these issues affect me and my daily life.

I'm still trying to figure out what accomplishments you admire about her.

The children's health care was important, the other issues don't really affect me.

[cuke]

112. So it's all about you

"The children's health care was important, the other issues don't really affect me."

[bfantana]

115. I know Hillary doesn't care about me or other Legal Americans

is that what you are implying.

[cuke]

117. Why should anyone care about you if you don't care about others?

You said it yourself

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cuke]

127. You must be confused. It was the repukes who brought those up

and it's been about twenty years since I heard the repukes complain about dems being the party of "special interests"

[rinsd]

93. So what was your DU screename last time around?

[Ignis]

101. "You are awfully full of yourself for someone who just got pwned"

Apparently, maturity and civility are in short supply among new-to-DU HRH HRC supporters. Very classy.

[cuke]

134. bfontana is no longer with us

You must be proud of the way you defended a freeper

[Ignis]

150. Nice try at sliming by association, Noob.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. I Think Your Pal Was Tombstoned....

Just sayin...

[Ignis]

151. Not my pal. Thanks for the guilt by association, though.

I just don't like seeing jerks like the above poster drag down the level of discourse at DU. Just alert the Freepers and move on. They're not difficult to spot.

[rinsd]

83. You asked for 3, you were given 7.

So naturally you moved the goalposts.

What did you think you were the first Hillary hater to play this game?

:rofl:

[bfantana]

57. What are her lifetime accomplishments before 2000?

what did she do before her Senate career that makes her qualified?

None of this legislation is greater or close to Kerry's record. I think that Biden or Dodd had a vote in most of these, I'll have to check on it.

[rinsd]

88. Quite a few things.

She was the 1st student to speak at commencement for Wellesley.

She was did some legal work for the poor and became involved with the Children's Defense Fund before joining impeachment inquiry staff of the House to do procedural research for the Nixon impeachment.

During her years as 1st lady after the failure of her 1994 healthcare proposal, she joined with Ted Kennedy and others in forming SCHIP.

But keep moving those goal posts. It makes the rest of your crap so transparent.

[cuke]

91. DISQUALIFIED!!!!

There are more than three achievements

[bfantana]

113. Wow, finally a 30 second answer

congratulations

[JohnnyBoots]

77. She did 1-5 all by herself? n/t

[cuke]

92. Keep moving them goal posts

Name any senator, living or dead, who got things done by themselves

[bfantana]

116. According to you Hillary's greatest accomplishment was the Ryan White law?

nt

[cuke]

119. Keep pretending

you're not fooling anyone

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bfantana]

58. Hillary's greatest Senate accomplishment was voting for the Iraq War

Above any of her other senate votes or sponsorships, the Iraq vote was something that she made with clarity and purpose. It makes her look strong enough on military issues and it makes her a puppet of George Bush.

Hillary is courting the Security Moms/Housewives who want to protect their little children from terrorist attacks. This was a calculated vote because it was a Gender vote, because that is her platform.

Hillary does not care about the anti-war crowd. Besides those who serve do so voluntarily and are highly trained and paid to do so. Its their privilege and honor to fight. That's why she is unapologetic.

Edwards voted for the Iraq War, but he quickly realized that he was an unwitting puppet of Bush and that serving in the Congress and in the congressional minority does not get anything done.

There are 2 sides to the anti-war crowd. Those who want to leave now, and those who want to fight it smarter and better. The GOP lost in 2006 not because of the anti-war, but because of Iraq incompetence. There's still a strong sentiment that if we can fight it better and smarter in the middle-east we can somehow win.

That's why the neo-cons and Hillary want to move onto Iran.

[Ignis]

103. Well said. And welcome to DU.

:hi:

[cuke]

135. Do you always agree with repukes?

[Ignis]

149. You're asking me to agree with you on what issue?

Paging Dr. Ad'Hominem...

[Lerkfish]

188. post.of.the.day

LOL!

[Ignis]

194. Oh, stop -- you'll make me blush, Lerky!

:rofl:

[cuke]

195. Shouldn;t you be

at the other place, making sure I remain on the "complicity list"?

[Perry Logan]

59. Here are some of Hillary's accomplishments.

Hillary's Record

Hillary has been a leading member of the Environment and Public Works Committee since she was elected to the Senate. Today, she chairs the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee and in that capacity has promoted legislation to evaluate and protect against the impact of environmental pollutants on people's health and clean up toxic waste.

Global warming and Clean Air
Spoken out forcefully about the need to tackle global warming in hearings, speeches, rallies and on the Senate floor and co-sponsored "cap and trade" legislation.
Worked to reduce air pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory diseases by writing and helping to pass new laws to clean up exhaust from school buses, and other diesel-powered equipment.
Supported legislation to reduce pollution from power plants, including harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide - emissions that contribute to poor air quality, smog, acid rain, global warming, and mercury contamination of fish.
Aggressively fought the Bush Administration's ill-advised attempts to weaken clean air laws.

Improving Water Quality and Protecting Drinking Water
Helped to overturn the Bush Administration's attempt to allow more arsenic in drinking water.
Cosponsored legislation to protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters by fighting the spread of destructive invasive species, such as the zebra mussel.
Helped ot pass new clean water laws, including measures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

Protecting Public Lands
Fought oil company efforts to pen the Artic Wildlife Refuge in Alask and Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters to drilling.
Cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which prohibits road construction and logging in unspoiled, roadless areas of the National Forest System, and voted for additional funding and manpower to combat forest fires in the west.

Reducing Dangerous Chemicals and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste
Supported legislation to restore the "polluter pays" principle by reinstating a chemical company fee to fund cleanups of highly contaminated "Superfund" waste sites.
Cosponsored the "kids-Safe Chemical Act," which requires chemical companies to provide health and safety before putting new chemicals in consumer products.
Proposed legislation to create an environmental health tracking network to enable us to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being.

Tackling the Toxic Legacy of 9/11
Pushed for health care benefits for first responders, residents and others whose health has been impacted from breathing the toxic dust and smoke in New York City after 9/11.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/20/134810/677

She also gets high ratings from progressive groups:

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

[mwb970]

61. This is a mighty slender thread.

As I understand it, you are saying that Hillary should not be president because you encountered a foolish person who supports her.

Great logic!

[ginchinchili]

63. She's a spin-meister.

[LWolf]

64. New Clinton campaign talking point:

"You've got to trust George Bush."

:rofl:

[HughBeaumont]

68. Is anybody but me completely SICK of the "Well, I didn't know he'd LIE" defense???

"DUH, w'ull, I din't know he'd lie to us . . . d'uh . . ."

UNbelieveable.

For all of Hillary's degrees, acclaim and experience, she sure can't seem to read people worth a shit.

People, he's a BUSH.

He steals, he lies, he cares only about corporations and gives no shit about anyone who isn't making $300,000 per year, he breaks the law and gets away with it.

That's what he DOES. That's what ALL Bushes do.

What part of this did NO one understand going in? What was so enigmatic and charming about this fortunate son assrapist that no one GOT it? What about this war-prelude fantasy concocted by defense corporation-bought warhawks was SO iron-clad a case that attacking a nation that threatened not ONE American citizen seemed so completely plausible?

Same goes for the Dumberican public. I believe there was some chicanery involved in BOTH elections to get the Simian in there, but there's always one burning question I have to ask that gets my blood boiling.

After all we knew about this man and after ALL the trouble his administration had caused and lack of ONE thing positive that happened for the middle class during his first term . . . WHY was this election even CLOSE enough to steal?

You gotta be one supremely gullible or just flat-out lobotomized stupid idiot to believe giving this doorknob a second chance would improve things. I can't be nice to people who are experiencing buyers remorse and I don't care if I'm not building bridges.

Back to the "You got to Trust George Bush"bot, I'm kind of glad you didn't ask her about the "outsourcing will continue" speech she gave in 2005.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

I think you would have had a Scanners moment on your hands.

[L0oniX]

71. She will fit in just great since everyone is already used to abuse of executive privilege

[NMMNG]

75. Trust George Bush?

:rofl:

[oasis]

78. If you honestly want answers to your questions, go to Hillary's website.(eom)

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. That's silly.

The best place for an unbiased, honest appraisal of Hillary's record is --

her own website.

:eyes:

[rinsd]

81. I love these fake anecdotes

The OPs never realize how badly they come off treating a real person like they would during a DU conversation.

[Ignis]

104. Why beat around the bush? Call the OP a BIG FAT LIAR.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone by speaking in the third person?

[rinsd]

114. Why would I comment on the OP's weight?

:shrug:

[Ignis]

129. In your case, I won't assume you're being intentionally dense.

I'll just assume you're really that literal-minded due to faults in genetics or upbringing.

Fair enough?

[cuke]

155. Question

Have you made any substantive posts or arguments since registering here on DU, or are all your posts as petty and hateful as the ones in this thread?

[Ignis]

196. Are you calling me out? Or just sticking up for your pal?

I've been around here since the 2000 election, and weathered the peaks and valleys. We are often invaded by trolls, misanthropes, paid operatives, freepers, and other wankers. Some people use the Ignore button, but I don't let jerks abuse the good nature of DUers with impunity.

You, on the other hand, seem to delight in "substantive" posts that consist of one or two words. Color me unimpressed.

Welcome to DU, by the way. Planning on staying long?

[itsrobert]

95. You found one? I haven't

They don't exist except in the virtual world on non-reality.

[NewHampster]

102. Those interns fresh from school

don't know squat and you shouldn't expect them to. 100s of them have just been hired on in the last week or two.

Same with every campaign if you find the new face in town. Chances are good that they applied to multiple campaigns too, how shocking. Political Science majors who want to work in politics, wherever.

[Renew Deal]

105. Did you talk to Britney Spears?

:shrug:

[derby378]

111. Sounds like some of the Denton Dems have already drank the Kool-Aid

Trust George W. Bush? Not by a damn site. I'm surprised you didn't belt her in the mouth.

[Evergreen Emerald]

118. you are wrong--no wonder she had nothing to say.

You might want to dig deeper about the war. I wonder why people just believe the spin and criticism from others and not the substance of what the candidates say?

[zulchzulu]

120. I commend her for handing out campaign literature

She certainly needs to do some homework however. I hope she got the message from her encounter with you.

[leftofthedial]

146. to support Hillary at this point

you have to either be:

a. A republican

or

b. Ignorant of her actual position and record

or

c. Ignorant of the issue on which she has a position

or

d. All of the above

[HughBeaumont]

153. What I'M dumbfounded about . . .

. . . is that there are those who call themselves Dems supporting her very Republican and somewhat uncaring position on trade and outsourcing. Never mind they won't take a stand against her wanting to continue this useless oil occupation until 2013 or even consider it a sore spot.

Look at this recent quote by her, addressing workers who lost their jobs at a Maytag factory in Newton Iowa:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071108/pl_nm/usa_politics_trade_dc_3

"Trade is a positive for America but I don't believe in giving away and getting nothing in return," Clinton said in response to persistent questioning from James Ploeser, an audience member.

Really? Which America is Free Trade positive for? Certainly not the one the former and some now-underemployed Maytag workers are members of.

[leftofthedial]

157. If there were no "D's" and "R's" beside candidate names

She would be indistinguishable from the majority of repukes over the last generation


free-trading, supply-side friendly, illegal-occupation and possible future illegal "war"-supporting, civil liberty-attacking, torture-compliant, Constitution-ignoring . . .


she'd gut a live human infant if she thought it would get her a juicy corporate contribution

[redqueen]

161. Oh come on... I despise her enthusiasm for Free Trade and trusting GW,

but that human infant shit is just batshit insane.

:wtf:

:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

172. okay, it was transparent hyperbole

she strikes me as amoral

She didn't always, but she's sold out so reliably and predictably the last 7 years that I'm not sure there is a principled center in there anywhere

[redqueen]

174. I know... but it just makes the fighting worse...

And yeah... I'm sure there's a principled center... I just don't know that I agree with all the principles in there all that much.

[Lerkfish]

189. or e. aware of her position but completely agree with it.

or wait, is that the same as "a">?

[leftofthedial]

190. that's pretty much "a"

[ElizabethDC]

191. I'm a Hillary supporter, and I'm none of the above.

But thanks for your input.

[redqueen]

159. ...

:rofl:

[madmunchie]

192. Sounds a lot like a JE supporter