Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I actually LIKE and admire Hillary

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 10:52 AM
Original message
I actually LIKE and admire Hillary
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 11:12 AM by Armstead
I think she's been a fairly good senator, I admire her other accomplishments, and I know she can be charismatic in person. If she were New York's Senator for Life, it wouldn;t bother me in the least.

So why am I always so eager to "bash" her, on DU and in the real world?

Because Hillary and her husband are aligned with the forces that are helping to destroy the idea of a two-party system, in which both the liberal/progressive and conservative instincts of the country are represented.

Hillary is the water carrier for both the DLC and the Jim Kramer Wall St. Democrats. This is the group who hates and dismisses real liberal populism, and has used their power and influence to surpress that in the Democratic Party.

The rest of us don;t really matter, except in rhetoric. "I'll fight for you until the last dog dies" said Bill in an inspired moment in his first presidential campaign....Unfortunately the last dog died real early in his presidency, and we got more Bushonomics and V-Chips instead.

Despite the DLC's clever labeling, I'm not talking about suppressing some fringe leftist minority in the Democratic Party. The DLC is equally determined to stamp out any vestige of liberalism and authentic populism of the mainstream variety.

The only forms of liberalism they will tolerate are those which are deemed safe and acceptable to the corporate elite. Which usually means the social issues -- and even then they are timid. Gay rights, for example are acceptable. Gay civil unions are acceptable. But allowing gays to marry? Sorry, that won't go over with the swing voters.

On the real issues of Money and Power, the DLC is determined to keep the Democratic Party locked into the same straightjacket as the Republicans. They just are able to gloss it over so it seems acceptable.

Health Insurers are a problem? We'll fix the problem by turning to them for the solutions.

The Monopolistic Media is distorting the public dialogue? Okay, we'll fic the problem by allowing Big Media to become even bigger.

We screwed up by going into Iraq? We'll fix the problem when we go into Iran.

It goes on and on.....Real problems are answered with phony Public-Relations oriented solutions that totally ignore underlying causes and further enable those who have too much money and power already.

If Hillary becomes the candidate it will be a slap in the face to every liberal and progressive who has tried to bring about meaningful reform in the nation and in the Democratic Party.

So my anger at the thought of anotehr eight years of domination by the more-of-the-same DLC crowd is upsetting.

But it's not personal about Hillary. She's free to hold whatever positions she chooses, and to align herself with whomever she chooses.

But it is about the direction the Democratic Party -- and its' impact on the greater good -- is going.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Great post
Best I have read yet that clearly outlines why Hillary is not the best nominee from the Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDJane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes. eom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
againes654 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. after hearing about the DLC boogeyman for years, wading through half truths and outright lies...
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 11:06 AM by wyldwolf
... about them from the left, hearing vitriol more vicious than anything the GOP could ever dream of spewing, and witnessing some of the saddest yet most hysterical revisionist history ever about the DLC from the left, I'm looking forward to Hillary Clinton being elected by the American people and "slapping the face of every (whiney)liberal and progressive who has tried to bring about meaningful reform in the nation and in the Democratic Party."

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Much of that revisionism comes from their own lips and typewriters
All one has to do is read their own publications and statements, and listen to their spokespeople on television.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Let's do a trade off. You give me an example of theirs, and I'll give you an example of yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I don't think he wants to play your kindergarden games.
Your tactics are so pathetic, in the "i know you are but what am i" vein.

I think that CB suit really is cutting off circulation to your head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. So giving examples of what he posted is kindergarten games?
I would have thought it would only bolster his case. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. dionysus is a flat earth "progressive"* - nothing needs to be proven beyond what he sees ...
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 11:38 AM by wyldwolf
...with his own eyes. Thus, the world is flat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. From wikipedia
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 11:59 AM by Pawel K
this is simple research you could have done yourself. Took a 2 second google search, for some reason I think you already knew this and it wont change anything in regards to your opinion.

--------------------------------
The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left" <7>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall reprised his right-wing credentials and called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."
--------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council#2003_invasion_of_Iraq

You are doing this message board a disservice with your childish and factually flawed posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Who edits wikipedia?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. You guys must be mentally fucking ill
this is all there sourced. What the fuck is wrong with you people? I try to keep calm but no facts anybody puts up will change your mind. You guys are no different than the GOP, how you fail to see that is shocking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. And you obviously have ADD. The wiki passage doesn't address "revisionism" which is our topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. I just asked who edits it.
Is there a problem with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. Yes, there is.
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:08 PM by Pawel K
You are trying to change the subject completely. You have absolutely no evidance what that wikipedia entry says is false. Yet you are trying to dispute its accuracy with that idiotic statement. Everyone knows who edits wikipedia, its right there on the history page. So again, will you address the post? If not do us all a favor and stop posting this bullshit with every thread that pops up telling the truth about Hillary and what the DLC stands for. What you are doing is trolling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. So I guess you don't want to answer who edits it then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. Apparently you are since you won't answer the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. I did answer your troll question
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:12 PM by Pawel K
who edits it is on the history page. Explain to me what this has to do with anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #53
87. kindergarden games
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
85. don't you see it's their "tactic"
two of them will do this little "show me a link" bullshit, then totally ignore that link, keep asking for links....

Then you get frustrated with their idiocy, stop responding, whence they claim victory.

How they can't see how stupid it looks is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. I have free time on my hands right now
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:40 PM by Pawel K
just gave the sources for everything. Still waiting for a response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. um... so? I accused "progressives"* of revisionism. What is revisionist about that passage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. What the hell are you talking about?
This is what the OP said:

-------------------
This is the group who hates and dismisses real liberal populism, and has used their power and influence to surpress that in the Democratic Party.
-------------------

You jumped on him that he is lying and he needs to put up examples or shut up. I gave you an example of them suppressing liberal ideals and them being on the wrong side of history (again) and you respond with that? Grow up, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #45
66. I'm talking about our discussion. Can you follow a threaded conversation?
wyldwolf: after hearing about the DLC boogeyman for years, wading through half truths and outright lies...and witnessing some of the saddest yet most hysterical revisionist history ever about the DLC from the left...

armstead: Much of that revisionism comes from their own lips and typewriters

wyldwolf: Let's do a trade off. You give me an example of theirs, and I'll give you an example of yours.

(now look out, here is where you interrupted with your WIKI quote)

:rofl:

Nope, like I said, it was completely irrelevant to the conversation on revisionist history...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. *Crickets chirping*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #66
81. Ok, so no opinion on the article?
We need to start there. Because in 2003 they were in strong support of the Iraq war. Fast forward and we have some revision in their opinion. So please, do give me your opinion on their position in 2003, their position calling Moore looney, their campaign against Dean, etc. Feel free to post some quotes from them today that remain consistant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #81
97. no, because, again, we were NOT discussing the Iraq War and there was no revisionism in it.
We need to start there. Because in 2003...

No we don't. The OP started in the 90s. Are you revising the OP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #97
125. If I started a new thread with that wikipedia article would you participate?
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 01:08 PM by Pawel K
I don't think you will but please prove me wrong and I'll post the link here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #125
139. no thank you. I've participated in the same 1000 Iraq war threads on DU already
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #139
142. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #142
147. well, thank you for once again showing "progressives" always resort to personal attacks
Because they just can't debate a point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. not gonna stay on topic in this thread, are ya?
I called you a pussy and a troll. If I said that and left it at that it would have been a personal attack. Instad I gave you evidance of why you are a pussy and you are a troll. But please, do prove me wrong.

"Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board... Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board... Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll..." --- From DU's Rules.


You were just proven wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. Oh noes. Did you already hit the alert button?
Quick, ban those people that call you on your bullshit. It still doesnt change anything, I stand by my statement. You could at least try to defend your convictions by addressing criticism of those convictions head on, but you cant because you aren't on the right side of this debate (well, actually you are, but not in a good way).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #153
157. We'd be better off without folks who call people "pussy" and "trolls" for asking for verification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #157
159. No, we would be better off with people that are honest about their positions
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 02:10 PM by Pawel K
and who they are.

You are anything but honest and you do not defend your positions, that makes you worse than a freeper. And the way you come and take swipes at posts makes you a troll. This is from that rule page you love so much:

Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior.

who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

But I'm a bigger man, I dont go run to a mod everytime I see something I dont like. Grow up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. true, and we wouldn't miss you one bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #161
164. damn! I was really hoping you were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morereason Donating Member (496 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #147
175. Debate? LOL. Framing, avoiding, trolling..... maybe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #38
59. *Crickets chirping*
I at least respect you a little more for simply not responding, its better than trolling which is what your buddy William769 is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
67. This seems to say a lot.
"This article does not cite any references or sources".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. "This article does not cite any references or sources". - sounds like the OP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. And I'm the one being called a troll!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #73
95. well, the shoe does fit you quite well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. And your proof?
O wait I forgot your the one that doesn't require proof. My bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #98
122. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #122
128. Was I responding to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #130
132. I am pretty sure responding to somebodys post
with what you did when your not part of that paticular conversation is a troll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. I now have a stalking fan club! Yea!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. Enjoy it. I sure will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #136
138. I bet you will. I'll make sure of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. And yet Im still waiting for a response as to why you think the DLC is a bad source
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 01:27 PM by Pawel K
and why the PNAC letters which high members of the DLC signed on to in support of the Iraq war aren't good sources? Facts are a bitch, aren't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #140
145. I'll give you an answer when you or anyone else can answer the question
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 01:32 PM by William769
I have tried so many times to get answered in this thread to no avail.

When did Hillary say "when we go into Iran"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #145
150. No, she never said that.
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 01:58 PM by Pawel K
She said all options are on the table and they are a serious threat to us. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

I never said she said she would bomb Iran, I said I dont trust her not to bomb Iran.

Happy? Now your turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #150
162. That quote is from the original OP
So I guess this whole thread is seneless then. If that not true, I wonder what else is not true in the original OP. Thats been my whole point all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. I answered your question. You said if I did you would answer sources question
Now you are refusing to. You are not being honest.

If you dont want to do it here fine, I'll make a new thread. Will you participate? Your buddy with the Clinton avatar is too scared to, will you stand by what you believe in? This way I can respect you a bit more. Let me know, I'll get the thread up later today and can post the link here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #162
170. So you aren't going to respond, are you?
Do you not see how you are the same vile group that so many of us spent so much time fighting? Arguing with you is like arguing with a Bush bot before the 2004 elections. No matter how many facts are thrown in your face, no matter if you are pinned in a corner in a debate/discussion, you will never change your opinion and pretend like these conversations never took place when you post the next troll reply the next time an anti-hillar or anti-DLC thread comes up. There have been plenty of unfair attacks against Hillary and other democrats around here. But there are plenty of valid points, one I just presented to you and you are now ignoring. You have absolutely no clue how frustrating this is. Please help me understand why you people do this, it will help me sleep better at night. Are you a paid troll? Are you really that naive? Do you have another account at freeperville? This makes absolutely no sense to me and frankly it is driving me insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #145
154. Self Delete
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 02:05 PM by Pawel K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #145
167. She never said that.
She didn't have to. Actions speak louder than words. And she supported the drumbeat to a newe war by voting to give Bush another justification for attacking Iran eventually. It's the same kind of action she took when "Iraq" could be substituted for "Iran" in 2002-03.

Now I suppose in your literal-minded response you will say "Okay then you admit you lied."

Yawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #167
177. Thanks for answering your own question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #135
144. think of it more as a ridicule club, don't overvalue yourself....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #72
82. See post 79.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #67
79. Here are the sources.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252914&kaid=127&subid=173

Are you going to deny whats on the official DLC web site?

Here is the PNAC letter signed by Will Marshall:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030319.htm

Spin away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
5. So sorry to hear your having a bad day.
Maybe tomorrow will be better for you, but I doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Perfect meaningless slapback
My day is fine thank you.

It's the country that I'm worried about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Perfect response for the tripe you posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Great...Anotehr meaningless slapback
You're good at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. What else is there to say when I respond to something thats meaningless?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. there are so many fabrications in the OP, it's ridiculous
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. And he wonders why I posted what I posted.
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 11:21 AM by William769
It's been the meme of some for so long (I should add taken right out of the republican play book), if you say it enough times it must be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. that's a nice DLC circle jerk you and wyld got goin here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Beats the hell out of your circular firing squad!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
44. Please tell me exactly what you disagree with, and I'll answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. For starters.
When did she say "When we go to Iran"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. She just voted to declare the Iranian army a terrorist organization
giving Bush an excuse. Same thing she did with the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. A non binding resolution.
the quote was "when we go to Iran". Want to try again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. So what you are saying is...
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:17 PM by Pawel K
that we should trust the same people that got us in to Iraq, never admitted that was a mistake, and now voted to declare Iran's army a terrorist organization not to invade a country with a terrorist army?

No thanks, I stopped trusting Hillary with that vote when combined with her vote for IWR and the DLC's support for that war. For you she could eat a baby on national TV and you would be just fine with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. I answered the op's question.
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:30 PM by William769
Still waiting for a response.

I would advise you to see what the difference is in the IWR vote and the most recent vote, you might learn something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #71
88. Please, do enlighten me
And because the OP hasn't answered your questions you wont answer mine? How classy of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #88
96. What question do you want answered?
I'm sure I will have time to answer it because the op or any one else for that matter won't be able to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #96
104. This is getting ridiculous
On post #68 I asked you if I should trust Hillary and the DLC not to go to Iran.

Below I also posted the sources to the wikipedia entry. I am waiting for your response on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #104
110. Frankly my dear, I don't give a danm who you trust.
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 01:00 PM by William769
As to your two sources one is from a magazine posted at the DLC website the other I'm still trying to figure out who wrote it. So much for the sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #110
118. LOL. You are disputing the DLC as a source for information about the DLC?
The second letter is written by PNAC cosigned by leaders of the DLC. You guys are fucking moronic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #49
90. When she voted with Bush to label Irans army as a terrorist organization
Of course she hedged her bets by sayiung she was not voting for a war -- but that would be really muddleheaded considering the history of GW in that regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #90
100. How does that translate into "when we go to war?
Sorry my Klingon translator is busted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #100
105. No apparently you have forgotten all about Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #105
112. I have not. still waiting for you to show proof of "when we go to Iran" though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #112
169. As I noted in another post, she never said it.
You can look for the post to see the rest of my answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. You wish your posts had as much meaning.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. well, come on, Thomcat, have the courage of your convictions.
If the OP doesn't have the balls to defend his writing, you're welcome to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:51 AM
Original message
You certainly haven't proven that anything in the OP is
incorrect. Just because you're a chearleader for the DLC doesn't make your beliefs gospel. Nobody but you has to believe your rose-colored delusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
28. I don't HAVE to. That isn't how it works. The one making the statement has the burden of proof
Now, are you any better than drive by posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Anyone who calls him a liar damned well better prove it.
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 11:58 AM by ThomCat
Are you any better than a drive by bully, sniping at people with nothing of value to say?

Edit: because it was you who called him a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. "Are you any better than a drive by bully, sniping at people with nothing of value to say?"
Seems to me thats excately what you are doing.

Who called who a liar? Asking for facts is calling someone a liar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. uh uh. The burden of proof is on him.. But I'll give you a free sample
The OP claimed Clinton used "Bushonomics" (whatever that is.) The record shows Clinton completely dismissed the economic systems of Reagan and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Really, so she voted against
Bush's budgets and his funding for the war? She opposed "free trade" and other institutionalized corporate giveaways? She voted against "bankrupsy reform?"

If you think she's so different from Bush, show us where.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. Pay attention Thomcat. The OP was referring to BILL Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. So, you think Bill Clinton is a "she?"
When did that happen? :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. Thomcat. It's right there in the OP. Do I have to quote the passage for you??
The rest of us don;t really matter, except in rhetoric. "I'll fight for you until the last dog dies" said Bill in an inspired moment in his first presidential campaign....Unfortunately the last dog died real early in his presidency, and we got more Bushonomics and V-Chips instead.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. Also in the OP
"I think she's been a fairly good senator, I admire her other accomplishments"

The OP uses Bill as an example of the what Hillary will probably support and continue. But it's about Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. so? I gave you an example of a lie that you asked for.
There was NO "Bushonomics" during Clinton's administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #69
89. It's common to analyze and label things after the fact.
And it's a good description when you look at the Bill Clinton economy. He gave in to Greenspan, built a bubble economy with the tech sector, and then real estate. He pushed NAFTA through, enshrining "free trade" as the modern foundation of America's corporate economy. He had wall street (Robert Rubin, et al) running the US Treasury.

Bill Clinton's biggest (and only) accomplishment was balancing the budget. But even that was done on the backs of the lower and middle class. The Clinton economy was far different from the Bush economy in degree, but not so different in direction.

And Hillary Clinton still has Rubin as one of her economic wizards. It's still going to be an economy run for Wall Street, not Main Street.

You might disagree with calling that Bushonomics. I'd call it "Bushonomics Lite." That's a disagreement. Get used to is.

Calling anyone a liar just because you disagree with them is a petty. It would be very nice if you'd grow up and leave the middle school tactics behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #89
99. Be that as it may, NO ONE called Clinton's economics "Bushonomics" DURING the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #99
107. Who cares what it was called at the time?
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:51 PM by ThomCat
It's an analogy, and analogies are constructed at any time using current language for the current audience.

Wow. So your whole objection is that people didn't call his policies Bushonomics at the time? Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #107
116. Me. The Clintons. Democrats. The Democratic party. Hey, here's something fun...
...go to any Democratic party meeting across the country (not DFA, not "Drinking Liberally", etc.) DEMOCRATIC party meetings and tell them the Clinton years were a continuation of "Bushonomics."

And video it for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
57. Did he dismniss deregulation?
Did he -- with one strange exception of Microsoft -- ever say or do anything critical of the geometric concentration of power and wealth occurring through the mergermania of the 90's?

Did he not totally cave into the Media Monopolists by supporting the Deregulation of 1996 that basically made the airwaves the captive of corporations like Clear Channel and NewsCorp?

Did he not become a champion of "small government" in favor of privatization?

Whatever Clinton said about his goals, the upshot was heavily in favor of the same economic policies as Bush-Reagan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #57
75. with one huge glaring exception
Every economic class moved forward - not backwards as they'd done during the Reagan Bush years. Hardly "Bushonomics." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #75
83. If you'd care to do some reading
Here's a selection of articles that discuss thjese things in-depth by William Greider.

http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/william_greider



In particular I'd suggest this one written at the end of Clinton's presidency. It goes into detail as well as giving an overall expanation of how many of us see the situation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000214/greider

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #83
93. I've read them before
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #93
178. Not an answer
I've read that before too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
29. And no one has proven it is correct. Even the OP.
Should I also mention you? Why should we disprove something that has not been proven?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. So it's not true just because you say so?
Present even a shred of evidence that says it's not true.

I love how you try to rig the discussion. Everyone has to have proof and documentation for their opinions, except you. You stand in judgement of everyone, and you seem to think you're right just because you say so.
:eyes:

The OP is an opinion piece. And it's an opinion many people here share. If you disagree, fine. But don't be a idiot and demand evidence from others that you aren't willing to provide yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Yea we wouldn't want any evidence would we?
Then the whole op would be useless. :eyes:

ANd many people here are crying in thier beers right now, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. If you want to start presenting some evidence
I'm sure we'd all love to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. I would love to see any evidence of the original OP
But I won't hold my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. And again, you demand what you are unwilling to provide.
Nice double standard. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #52
58. I didn't start the the thread.
But I guess when people write books you don't want them to use footnotes either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #52
77. the burden of proof is on the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. I would love to see any evidence of the original OP
But I won't hold my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #47
92. You know DLC op, you should show the OP, one of the original DUers
just a tad of respect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #29
64. The OP has provided many specifics over the years here
But frankly, he got real tired of people like yourself who shoot out quick quips, then demand "proof" and then ignore the proof and refuse to discuss it on substance.

I am always happy to engage in substantive discussion with people who hold differing opinions for a reason, when it's actually a two way discussion.

But I get real tired of "nyah nyah nyah" and I don't waste my time with that anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #64
74. Give me proof and I promise not to ignore it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #64
80. I'll allow the possibility you've made many posts like your OP...
...so perhaps our definition of "proof" is different. Mine requires verification from the historic record. Yours obviously only requires other people agreeing with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #80
94. what's your "proof"? Talking to your Al From poster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #94
101. another fine example of replying just for the sake of replying
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #101
108. hey, i don't like your cheap thread-hijacking bullshit, what can i say?
DLC! DLC! DLC! :puke:

what is the name of that PAC you said you work for again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #108
121. asking someone to prove assertions is threadjacking? LOL!
flat earth "progressive"* flat earth "progressive"* flat earth "progressive"* :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #121
127. when you and you lil buddy spam a thread like this
that is the definition of threadjacking.

a case of attempted bullying as well, but this time you're not outnumbering your mark and it's got your chewbacca suit in a bunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #127
131. in the world of dionysus, arguing for proof with a fairy tale "progressive"* is "spamming."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #131
158. spamming, threadjacking, call it what you will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #158
165. ok. Insisting for proof of dubious claims = spamming, threadjacking. Got it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #165
173. how's the CB suit and underoos old pal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #173
180. ask your mother
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #94
114. Now you want proof?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #26
84. you confuse "having balls" with
"wasting time trying to refute your poor attempt at bullying"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #84
106. no confusion there at all. I bet you flat earth "progressives"* were a real hoot in science class.
"I don't have to show the forumula... no... you show YOUR formula..."

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. Politics is not science.
Way to change the subject to raise up a straw man. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #109
115. well, shall we list the great arsenal of debate "tactics" of ye mighty
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:55 PM by dionysus
DLC'er?

1)insults
2)projection
3)hypocrisy
4)copycat posts
5)strawmen
6)misuse\overuse of :rofl:

am I missing anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #115
129. or of you
fairy tale "progressive*"

1. Create an event or a convenient reason for something to fit your world view
2. Repeat it often
3. Rebuke all calls for proof
4. ad hominem
5. Projection
6. misuse/overuse of :puke:

am I missing anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #129
141. excellent use of your copycat tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. why, thank you. Nice use of the ad hominem tactic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #143
155. any time!
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 02:05 PM by dionysus
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #109
123. but facts are provable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. Yes, but a common tactic
of threadjackers and trolls is to endlessly ask for facts, dismiss anything that might be posted, and then insist that nothing suitable has ever been presented.

It's a silly game, designed to keep your opponent working furiously doing more and more research while the troll sits back and laughs.

Don't be surprised when people have your number and don't bother to play your game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #126
134. The OP has yet to post anything to prove his OP... nothing has been dimissed by me
But the common tactic here is repeat blog lines then balk when you get called on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #106
113. projection, hypocrisy, you've got nothing more than that.
":rofl:"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #113
120. "So, dionysus, your answer was wrong, how did you arrive at that conclusion?"
"Well, Dr. Smith, someone told me and I believed that person."

"You didn't use the scientific method? You didn't consider proving your answer with previously established fact?

"No, Dr. Smith! I read my answer on a blog! projection, hypocrisy, you've got nothing more than that!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #120
124. not making a dent Ms. trolly mcblowhard
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #124
137. of course not, Mr. Ugota Tinybrain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlecBGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
13. I couldnt agree more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomRain Donating Member (164 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
19. I never much liked her, but
recently she's been impressing me with talking about the "War on Science," and baby bonds.

Still she's 4th after Gore, Kucinich, and Edwards - IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
21. K&R.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
23. I also agree
I have found more than one instance where She "Changed her position" the new answer is always Populist. that irritates me to no end. she avoids tough questions, speaks alot without saying anything, and Hints that it would be another Bill Clinton presidency. I'd vote for bill in a second. however He is not on the ballot She is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turn CO Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
24. I like her too. I love Bill. But I don't want her for our nominee.
I am not bashing her. And as I said, I like her fine. But she is still my very last choice (at this point) for the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
25. Hillary has close links with the pro-war movement
Two words: Mark Penn

My reasons for not supporting Hillary are summed up in this Washington Post article:

"Penn has always believed that strength is critical for running the country, and that people want to have a president who's going to be willing to defend the country -- that's the number one criteria," said Al From, the chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council, who considers Penn a friend.

Penn gained his foreign policy expertise working on numerous campaigns overseas, especially in Israel. In 1981, he and business partner Doug Schoen helped reelect Menachem Begin, one of the most right-wing prime ministers in the country's history, and emerged with a new outlook on the Middle East. "We got a chance to experience firsthand the perils and possibilities that the state of Israel presents," Schoen said in an interview.

In a pivotal moment, the pollsters watched as Begin launched airstrikes against a developing Iraqi nuclear facility, Osirak, in the middle of the campaign. "In the end, bombing the Osirak reactor became a metaphor for the type of man that Begin was and the steps he was willing to take to safeguard Israel's security," Schoen wrote in his autobiography, "The Power of the Vote."

Ever since, Penn has been a prominent advocate of conveying strength in foreign policy. As recently as the 2004 presidential contest, Penn argued that Democrats would lose if they failed to close the "security gap." His client list includes prominent backers of the Iraq war, particularly Lieberman, whose presidential campaign Penn helped run in 2004, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose campaign he advised when Blair won a historic third term in 2005.

(...)

Today, from a sleek 12th-floor office just off Thomas Circle, Penn manages both the strategy of the Democratic presidential front-runner and a multimillion-dollar corporation as worldwide chief executive of Burson-Marsteller, a 2,000-employee public relations firm. The job is the latest iteration of the lucrative corporate work that Penn and Schoen began in the 1980s, at the same time they were making their names as political pollsters, and that put them in the company of a new generation of business-minded Democratic consultants.

(...)

A year and a half ago, Penn was named CEO of Burson-Marsteller, succeeding Thomas Nides, another Democratic campaign operative. Although he is Clinton's chief strategist, he is not technically on the campaign staff. Instead, the Clinton campaign employs his polling firm, Penn Schoen & Berland Associates, a 175-employee unit within Burson-Marsteller.

(...)

Penn said that he has been cleared of all client responsibilities, except for Microsoft, for the duration of the campaign but that he still relies on a team of about 20 employees to do most of the day-to-day work. Though running a major company and a presidential campaign at the same time would seem to provide a number of possible conflicts, Penn insists there are none.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661_pf.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
103. Two more words: Jack Kennedy
"... strength is critical for running the country, and that people want to have a president who's going to be willing to defend the country." Closing the "Security Gap" is straight out of the JFK play book. Wilson, FDR, Truman for heaven's sake. Pacifism has never been mainstream Democratic position. Bill can be criticized for NOT going into Rwanda and letting Bosnia drag on before acting. He was a cautious president, and Hillary shows every sign of the same caution, refusing to tie herself down. As for Regime Change - it was the policy of every administration since Bush I. Al Gore was running planning exercises for it involving 360,000 ground troop after Saddam kicked out the inspectors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Admiral Loinpresser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
27. I do too.
I hope she has a long and beneficial career in the Senate, like Teddy Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
35. Outstanding Post! :-)
:thumbsup: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
65. I think our recent dicussion is applicable here
For one thing, I think it is incorrect to assume that Hillary or the DLC has not changed at all since the 90's. Nearly everyone (dumya accepted) revise their thinking on important issues as the world changes. There are very very view differences in policy positions worth talking about between the major candidates (imho). This is because they have all reached similar conclusions on what is good policy and what Americans want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #65
76. I think both the message and the messenger are important
My problem is that the whole framework has been narrowed to a very limited sphere, by a combination of media Myopia and the power of the Elite Concensus.

Given more choices, I believe the public would respond much more favorably to a clearly liberal candidate than it might seem based on the conventional wisdom.

I frankly believe that overall Dennis Kucinich has the most valid positions, and they could resonate with the public if the Democrats would give them a chance.

Unfortunately, he's not an effective messenger in today's political climate of soundbytes and image. And he doesn't have the money and organization behind him.

But when he is allowed to make his case in depth, his policies are -- at the least -- worth considering and are very substantative. His plans for universal single payer coverage are backed up by specifics and details, and a sound rationale.

One may disagree with his healthcare plan, but if a candidate with the charisma and the backing of the party were to take that course, I believe it would resonate with voters (except for the right-winguts).

I also think, on a much more mocderate level, Chris Dodd has very liberal -- but mainstream -- positions. Candidates like him should not be getting ignored by the media and the party poo-bahs simply because his last name isn't Clinton and he isn't oozing with charisma.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #76
86. If it is narrow
it is because after much campaigning, polling, etc, these messages they are using is what is working. If Kucinich or Dodd cannot gain support after many months and debates by touting a different approach then there are many people who disagree with that approach. The media does not control local politics (Iowa and NH) as much. The public in those states should be seeing what they need to, to make a valid choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #86
102. The race was called a three-way from the start
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:53 PM by Armstead
Dodd, Biden, Richardsen and Lucinich have been treated like they are not serious contenders, despite their long records of public service.

It was just between the Hillary soap opera, the charismatic black guy and the former vice presidential candidate.

The rest were marganilized from the start.

And ideas and candidates can't be judged if very few political people who are not junkies are allowed to hear them.

For example, I saw Hardball on the day Matthews had the candidates on individually earlier in the day to discuss healthcare.

Kucinich had given a very detailed and cogent explanation of his healthcare plan. But he was totally ignored in the subsequent coverage and discussions by the pundits. About the only clip they showed was some pandering statement from Hillary that she would declare a "war on Cancer" which they played over and over.

That's what I mean by a narrowing of the debate.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #102
111. National media coverage
has a lesser effect in the early states if Iowa and NH. You're not disputing that are you?

The national media looks at fund raising to determine where to spend most of their yakking time. In order to get good coverage on the national media, a candidate first has to work the ground hard. These politicians know how to do that, it just ain't workin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #111
119. Hilary has not been as strong in those early states
Yes the bandwagon effect has taken hold there because of the big money and the drumbeat of the conventional wisdom in those states.

But the polls have been much closer there than nationally.

And, as I noted in my original post, Hilary is a good campaigner in person. She came to my hometown one day for an event when Bill was president, and she knocked everyone off their feet.

But her charisma is not the point. It's what she stands for that I'm talking about.

I'd also disagree about the media. They're just soap opera producers, and a candidate has to have a "hook" before they'll pay any attention. Hillary was being called the front-runner ever since 2000. That wasn;t groundwork. She just had the highest profile and an intersting "storyline." It wasn't based on her record, which was non-existant at the time.

Also the media is dominated by incestuous dunderheads. Like the pundit a couple of years ago who said "Health care isn't really an issue worth discussing." Not for her with her hundreds of thousands of dollar salary and full-benefits job.



(PS I do appreciate the fact that, unlike some here, you are willing to actually engage in a substantive way.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
78. This thread definitely has to go to the nest!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
117. Thank you, Armstead. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
146. When I read your title, I wanted to respond, "So do I, but...." - until I found you already said it.


(better than I)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SergeyDovlatov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
148. bomb bomb Iran and Iraq and torture? No thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
152. Thanks for a thoughful (and non-bashing) OP.
I don't agree, but I thank you for the tone of your message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
156. Best post I've seen about Hillary and the biggest reason many
bristle at the repeated assertions that her candidacy is "inevtitable".

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
166. What's the difference between civil unions and allowing gays to marry?
I sincerely do not understand this argument.

Here is my foundation for starters:

I always thought if your wedding was performed by someone such as licensed Justice of the Peace it was a civil union, and if your wedding was performed by say a Catholic Priest in a Church it was the Sacrament of Marriage.

In some countries you are required by law to have the civil ceremony, but in the United States you can just have the church ceremony.

So in my narrow concept of unions vs. marriages, the government should have no say in marriage ceremonies except for allowing them to take the place of civil ceremonies.

Please kindly shoot holes in this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #166
168. A civil ceremony is marriage
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 02:50 PM by Armstead
It doesn't matter whether you go to a church or not to get married. It's a legal ceremony. It can also be a religious one, but that's optional.

If you go to a Justice of the Peace in Las Vegas who dresses like Elvis, you are married.

Not allowing gays to have the same right to do that as straight people is discrimination pure and simple. It's like saying to a Black person: "You can marry, but you can't marry a white person."

If a church does not wish to recognize gay marriage, that's a seperate matter. However, legal marriage is a civil right that should not be denied to gays.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #168
171. And I agree - legal marriage is a civil right that should not be denied to gays
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 05:15 PM by Maribelle
But if someone supports civil unions but not marriage for gays - - - what is the civil union? Whould that be a totally separate legal procedure that is newly developed by each state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #171
176. "Developed by each state" is exactly the problem
Civil unions do not get Social Security for the kids whose parents live in states where it is available. Full faith and credit does NOT apply to civil unions as it does to marriage. Move to a state that doesn't recongnize civil unions and you don't have it anymore, unlike marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract enforced by the state. Churches can perform them, but legal issues are entirely up to secular courts. When was the last time you ever heard of anybody going to church to enforce child support?

The issue of churches requiring marriage in the church as a requirement of being part of a particular religious community is something that the government is mandated to stay out of, and gay marriage won't change that. If a rabbi refuses to marry you because you aren't Jewish, you have no recourse to the state. The same would apply to gay marriage--churches will not be required to perform them, or recognize them for sacramental purposes. However, no rabbi can tell peole who aren't Jewish that they can't marry at the Justice of the Peace office, and the same would apply to gay people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
172. Don't we all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
174. Her main accomplishment is that she married well.
Also-the other elephant in the room:

And thinks because she suffered in that marriage-is smart and likable, and thus she DESERVES the presidency. Well, you know what-women like me RESENT women like HER that think they DESERVE something because they married it. You have no idea how deep the dislike of Hillary goes. And women like me-married middle aged women are not voting for her. Not only is she the anti-Dem to me-she's the anti-feminist. She's already been in the white house. She slept her way there. Yes, she did. She calculated that Clinton was brilliant and charismatic and he is-and she loved him and she married him. (I'm not saying her marriage is not real-I think it is) He cheated on her, made her suffer and a fool-and now he owes it to her to do everything he can to give her the presidency.

She should have been a politician if that's what she wanted to be. But instead she married it, and takes this route because it was easier. So much easier than running for office by herself thirty years ago. Bill does all the work and now-she gets a presidency by default because he cheated on her. UGH.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
179. With friends like you...
What a waste of space that was:

"aligned with the blah blah blah"

And I guess based on your sayso I guess.

Crapola and without evidence too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC