BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:34 PM
Original message |
Poll question: So Hillary secretly opposed NAFTA, but agreed to support it because she was a tool. Is that right? |
Abacus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Breaking: Actions No Longer Matter. /nt |
stellanoir
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message |
2. She was for it, before she was against it. Or was she against it before she was for it? |
YOY
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message |
3. If only she had the experience then that she had now! |
|
Then she would have voted AGAINST the Iraq War! She would have OPPOSED NAFTA!
Dear GAWD! Why didn't she have the "experience"?!?!?
|
azmouse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Maybe she didn't spend enough time watching Bill? |
Rageneau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message |
5. People who read the article with an objective mind MUST vote "NO." |
|
Because trhe article in question is nothing but anonymous accusations. There is not a shred of actual proof in it.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
I'm putting all of the info together and offering the only assessment that makes sense to me.
|
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Schedule says nothing more than she attended 4 meetings - what was said isn't known |
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. People who attended those meetings have said they were astonished |
|
at her saying she did not support it then.
Except David Gergen the lying POS who claims she really didn't like it - and he should know because he was the reaganite who Clinton brought in to advise him on things like...NAFTA.
|
housewolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-20-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message |
8. What matters most is whether she tells the truth now about it or not |
|
If she actively supported NAFTA in support of Bill's priorities but privately had reservations about it, the fine - say that.
But if she says now that she personally never supported it, then she's betraying those individuals who believed AT THE TIME that she WAS supporting it.
By continuing to say that she didn't support it while there are people who remember her as supporting it, the she's either lying now or was lying then.
Either way, she's betraying someone, either those she fooled in the early 90's or those she's fooling now.
("By continuing to say that she didn't support it while there are people who remember her as supporting it" - hmmm, oddly reminiscent of her IWR talking point).
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 03:45 PM
Response to Original message |