PDA

View Full Version : Elections Karma, thy name is Hillary Clinton


HolmeZz
04-18-2008, 08:49 PM
Hillary gets busted smack-talking Democratic activists and moveon at a private fundraiser after they endorsed Obama. The irony in her accusing Barack of having gone behind closed doors to a private fundraiser and speaking about voters in a condescending manner.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html

The bigger story is probably that she only had kind words for them prior to the endorsement.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power."

This also probably slams the door shut on her chances of ever getting elected. You can't alienate a good chunk of your own party when more than half the country already hates you. MoveOn's made up of a lot of nuts who will take personal offense to this and wage a war.

memyselfI
04-18-2008, 08:53 PM
I don't see this as a negative for her. The Move.On folks are not going to be alienated by her words as they were not for her in any way to begin with. They feel she is too center, too beholden to the WH, too status quo.

If anything, I think Move.On's endorsement will hurt Obamessiah in the General Election. All the help he's getting from the endorsement has already transpired.

It might be embarrassing for her but it is geared towards a small group of highly partisan people who are not thought of very highly in the general public...

unlike Baaarack's bitter remarks.

HolmeZz
04-18-2008, 09:05 PM
I don't see this as a negative for her. The Move.On folks are not going to be alienated by her words as they were not for her in any way to begin with. They feel she is too center, too beholden to the WH, too status quo.

LMAO She would need the party activists for the general, dumbass.

If anything, I think Move.On's endorsement will hurt Obamessiah in the General Election. All the help he's getting from the endorsement has already transpired.

MoveOn's endorsement means nothing. Unless you insult them as Hillary did, they were going to back the Democratic candidate after the past 8 years anyway.

unlike Baaarack's bitter remarks.

The way you've come to the defense of Hillary is priceless, particularly since you're a fringe-nut.

Hillary's comments had to do with voters who would be voting for her in the General and who she didn't have a problem with until they endorsed Obama. The people truly up-in-arms over Barack's comments are people who weren't gonna vote for him in November to begin with.

Adept Havelock
04-18-2008, 09:39 PM
LMAO ROFL

How dare those commoners stand in the way of the Queen's Coronation! Off with their heads!

.

jettio
04-18-2008, 10:35 PM
I suppose this is not much different from the bootleg of Obama's remarks, but I don't like this idea of people surreptitiously recording what someone says in confidence and then springing it on them.

Obama and his campaign would be wise to minimize their comments on this. Especially since this appears to be a selectively edited audio to capture a couple sentences.

Huffington Post should not have broke the Obama story by playing a bootleg recording and I would rather not see them break another one against Clinton even if Clinton tried her damndest to make hay off of the last one.

Her campaign is just wasting everyone's time and money and hopefully she has alineated enough people to barely win PA and to lose Indiana and North Carolina and just bow out after that.

Once the candiates become the focus and not the talking heads squawking about nonsense, Obama will build for the general, and it will be good to see all of these dunderheads who predict that the candidate that has defeated the most formidable presumed nominee in primary history is somehow a weak candidate will get to be reminded who this once in a generation leader really is.

I can't believe that fools are trying to compare Obama with Kerry or Gore or Dukakis or Mondale or McGovern. We should have a rule that before any chiefsplanet idiot posts a comparison like that here, they must also post a video link to Obama's election night speeches especially Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Potomac, or Wisconsin night.

Obama will keep truth, intelligence and talent on his side. His enemies will have falsehoods, stupidity and incompetence going for them. The smart money, and the most money, is on Obama.

jAZ
04-18-2008, 10:57 PM
It might be embarrassing for her but it is geared towards a small group of highly partisan people who are not thought of very highly in the general public...

Tell Al Gore what it means to lose the support of even a small portion of the base. With her dissing of energetic young voters, the MoveOn crowd and trying to drive a racist wedge through the party, she's all but lost any chance she could ever have had to win in a general election.

Her campaign will go down as the BushCo of Democratic Primary campaigns.

Worst. Ever.

jettio
04-18-2008, 11:12 PM
Tell Al Gore what it means to lose the support of even a small portion of the base. With her dissing of energetic young voters, the MoveOn crowd and trying to drive a racist wedge through the party, she's all but lost any chance she could ever have had to win in a general election.

Her campaign will go down as the BushCo of Democratic Primary campaigns.

Worst. Ever.


She definitely started out with a strong brand and some big assets. She hired people that hate each other and can't work together and she never measured her opponent and his tactics and strategy until she lost 12 contests in a row.

She thought she could ride her strong brand to victory, but she has not really won any contest on anything other than her brand name before the contest started and lining up key supporters like RendellPa.), Strickland(Ohio), Villaraigosa(CA), and a few others.

If she wins Pa., it is because she had a favorable demographic profile and she had a popular governor working his azz off for her.

Rendell is fighting only for pride now, because it would be embarrassing for him to not deliver Pa. He will be a good soldier, but he is probably tired of Hillary's sh*t by now.

memyselfI
04-19-2008, 06:32 AM
I am not defending Clinton. I'm just pointing out that her losing favor with the Moveon folks is not the dire disaster that it would be if McCain was caught dissing Focus on the Family.

Move.on is not seen as a mainstream group and is considered fringe by most people both in and outside of the party. Thus, being seen dissing a fringe group by someone trying to appeal to the middle might not be a disaster at all. Might have even been planned...

it would not surprise me one bit.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 10:38 AM
Hillary gets busted smack-talking Democratic activists and moveon at a private fundraiser after they endorsed Obama. The irony in her accusing Barack of having gone behind closed doors to a private fundraiser and speaking about voters in a condescending manner.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html

The bigger story is probably that she only had kind words for them prior to the endorsement.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power."

This also probably slams the door shut on her chances of ever getting elected. You can't alienate a good chunk of your own party when more than half the country already hates you. MoveOn's made up of a lot of nuts who will take personal offense to this and wage a war.So you think Hussein is going to be able to survive the swiftboating evil dirty Republican smear machine when he can't even wrestle the party from Shillary Rotton Clitler?

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 10:47 AM
I am not defending Clinton. I'm just pointing out that her losing favor with the Moveon folks is not the dire disaster that it would be if McCain was caught dissing Focus on the Family.

Move.on is not seen as a mainstream group and is considered fringe by most people both in and outside of the party. Thus, being seen dissing a fringe group by someone trying to appeal to the middle might not be a disaster at all. Might have even been planned...

it would not surprise me one bit.

Don't be a whore. You acted like it was a big f*cking deal when you perceived Obama to have been speaking condescendingly to people who wouldn't be voting for him anyway. Somehow that is detrimental to Barack's electability chances, but Hillary insulting Democratic activists and MoveOn.org(who supply the Democratic candidate with their time, money, and votes) wouldn't harm her one bit.

jettio
04-19-2008, 10:59 AM
So you think Hussein is going to be able to survive the swiftboating evil dirty Republican smear machine when he can't even wrestle the party from Shillary Rotton Clitler?


The people are the ones that vote.

Rove and B*sh and have proven that many of the American people can be tricked. Look at how many people were fooled into believing that B*sh was afraid of Saddam so much that B*sh thought UN inspections would not nullify the threat of WMD that did not even exist.

I guess you were one of those stupid people, but you would have to admit now that you would have to be an even bigger fool now than you were then if you don't realize that B*sh was not truly afraid of Saddam being so powerful that he could attack the US even if the UN Security Council was willing to put and keep inspectors in Iraq to thoroughly search for any evidence of WMD.

When it is down to McCain and Obama, the voters are going to go with the one that gives them the most confidence about being able to fix the problems that we have.

You really ought to say more about this Republican attack machine. If you spell it out, you might have to admit that you believe that people who do not have the best interest of our country at heart are able to trick people like you into not believing in our country's ideals and voting for people who want only to make themselves and their friends rich at the expense of our economy and the people who volunteer in the military to serve our country.

You really have to admit that B*sh was not the man for the job, but that he only got the job because of this Republican attack machine. I suppose McCain might agree with you on that except for the fact that he is not the man that he once was.

You may be right, it may be this Republican attack machine that put a p*ssy on McCain and turned him into its pigeon. John McCain 2000 would have a better chance than John McCain 2008.

keg in kc
04-19-2008, 11:10 AM
So you think Hussein is going to be able to survive the swiftboating evil dirty Republican smear machine when he can't even wrestle the party from Shillary Rotton Clitler?I spent about a half hour watching Fox News late last night, and it was amazing to me how anti-Obama and pro-Hillary they were. I wasn't sure whether they're still in "get Hillary the nomination, she'll be easier to beat in the GA" mode or "we think Obama's going to win the nod, so start the GA attack now". Either way, all this infighting is doing is keeping eyes off of McCain. The Republicans couldn't ask for more. The Democrats are pulling a GWB and turning a rolling tide of good will and an almost sure win in November into a potential loss. Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 11:30 AM
The people are the ones that vote.

Rove and B*sh and have proven that many of the American people can be tricked. Look at how many people were fooled into believing that B*sh was afraid of Saddam so much that B*sh thought UN inspections would not nullify the threat of WMD that did not even exist.

I guess you were one of those stupid people, but you would have to admit now that you would have to be an even bigger fool now than you were then if you don't realize that B*sh was not truly afraid of Saddam being so powerful that he could attack the US even if the UN Security Council was willing to put and keep inspectors in Iraq to thoroughly search for any evidence of WMD.

When it is down to McCain and Obama, the voters are going to go with the one that gives them the most confidence about being able to fix the problems that we have.

You really ought to say more about this Republican attack machine. If you spell it out, you might have to admit that you believe that people who do not have the best interest of our country at heart are able to trick people like you into not believing in our country's ideals and voting for people who want only to make themselves and their friends rich at the expense of our economy and the people who volunteer in the military to serve our country.

You really have to admit that B*sh was not the man for the job, but that he only got the job because of this Republican attack machine. I suppose McCain might agree with you on that except for the fact that he is not the man that he once was.

You may be right, it may be this Republican attack machine that put a p*ssy on McCain and turned him into its pigeon. John McCain 2000 would have a better chance than John McCain 2008.
I am stupid enough to be tricked into believing that Bush was a conservative, yeah, I'll admit that. I am not stoopid enough to beleeve that McCain is won though.

Go ahead and vote for Hussein, I hope it makes you feel better.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 11:32 AM
I spent about a half hour watching Fox News late last night, and it was amazing to me how anti-Obama and pro-Hillary they were. I wasn't sure whether they're still in "get Hillary the nomination, she'll be easier to beat in the GA" mode or "we think Obama's going to win the nod, so start the GA attack now". Either way, all this infighting is doing is keeping eyes off of McCain. The Republicans couldn't ask for more. The Democrats are pulling a GWB and turning a rolling tide of good will and an almost sure win in November into a potential loss. Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.And I am the stupid one.

They can't even pick which affirmative action candidate they want to advocate the hardest.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 11:33 AM
Don't be a whore. You acted like it was a big f*cking deal when you perceived Obama to have been speaking condescendingly to people who wouldn't be voting for him anyway. Somehow that is detrimental to Barack's electability chances, but Hillary insulting Democratic activists and MoveOn.org(who supply the Democratic candidate with their time, money, and votes) wouldn't harm her one bit.
Leave Meme alone, she deserves a female candidate to represent her interests.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:05 PM
Don't be a whore. You acted like it was a big f*cking deal when you perceived Obama to have been speaking condescendingly to people who wouldn't be voting for him anyway. Somehow that is detrimental to Barack's electability chances, but Hillary insulting Democratic activists and MoveOn.org(who supply the Democratic candidate with their time, money, and votes) wouldn't harm her one bit.

It's funny how you equate bad-mouthing of the nuts from MoveOn.org with Obama's condescension toward regular, working-class rural voters.

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 12:15 PM
It's funny how you equate bad-mouthing of the nuts from MoveOn.org with Obama's condescension toward regular, working-class rural voters.

It's funny how you're still feigning outrage.

I must've missed all your posts railing against Obama for being 'condescending' when he was talking about the resentments and bitterness within urban areas. Where might I find those?

jettio
04-19-2008, 12:30 PM
I am stupid enough to be tricked into believing that Bush was a conservative, yeah, I'll admit that. I am not stoopid enough to beleeve that McCain is won though.

Go ahead and vote for Hussein, I hope it makes you feel better.

You are also stupid and/or lacking in honor enough to think it is okay for a President to lie about the reasons behind a deployment of our military.

Folks like you that claim to value people that serve in the military should be the ones at the front of the line to have B*sh and Cheney put in jail for pretending to be afraid of Saddam and pretending to believe that the only answer was an invasion and occupation without international support and without enough troops.

The people that were smart and honest about Iraq are the people you badmouth. Our country will not be what it should be until the folks like you realize that your enemies are the ones that lied to you and talked you into joining the chorus that called for disastrous decision-making.

If you received any moral training at all and any schooling at all you ought to be able to figure out that lying to start a war that ruins the lives of millions of people and costs billions upon billions of dollars that could be useful somewhere else is one of the worst things a person can do.

memyselfI
04-19-2008, 12:39 PM
Don't be a whore. You acted like it was a big f*cking deal when you perceived Obama to have been speaking condescendingly to people who wouldn't be voting for him anyway. Somehow that is detrimental to Barack's electability chances, but Hillary insulting Democratic activists and MoveOn.org(who supply the Democratic candidate with their time, money, and votes) wouldn't harm her one bit.

I should feel sorry for you but I don't. You are in for such a let down. And you are calling names and making yourself look really foolish for what will be for nothing in the end.

:clap:

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:58 PM
You are also stupid and/or lacking in honor enough to think it is okay for a President to lie about the reasons behind a deployment of our military.

Folks like you that claim to value people that serve in the military should be the ones at the front of the line to have B*sh and Cheney put in jail for pretending to be afraid of Saddam and pretending to believe that the only answer was an invasion and occupation without international support and without enough troops.

The people that were smart and honest about Iraq are the people you badmouth. Our country will not be what it should be until the folks like you realize that your enemies are the ones that lied to you and talked you into joining the chorus that called for disastrous decision-making.

If you received any moral training at all and any schooling at all you ought to be able to figure out that lying to start a war that ruins the lives of millions of people and costs billions upon billions of dollars that could be useful somewhere else is one of the worst things a person can do.

Lying to start a war? Did we uncover something new?

jettio
04-19-2008, 01:26 PM
Lying to start a war? Did we uncover something new?


How about apply 1 thousandth of the effort that you have applied to Obama over trivial sh*t, figuring out B*sh's pretending to fear Saddam so much that he thought Saddam could still attack us even if the UN Security Council was ready to enforce a rigorous inspections regime with significant international support?

You ought to realize that all of the people whose lives, bodies and minds have been ruined because of B*sh's pretending to be afraid when he was not truly afraid but only thought that war was fun and games and sh*ts and giggles, are real life human beings who deserve more respect from a keyboard jockey like yourself.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:16 PM
How about apply 1 thousandth of the effort that you have applied to Obama over trivial sh*t, figuring out B*sh's pretending to fear Saddam so much that he thought Saddam could still attack us even if the UN Security Council was ready to enforce a rigorous inspections regime with significant international support?

You ought to realize that all of the people whose lives, bodies and minds have been ruined because of B*sh's pretending to be afraid when he was not truly afraid but only thought that war was fun and games and sh*ts and giggles, are real life human beings who deserve more respect from a keyboard jockey like yourself.
Just wait until Hussein is CIC. It will be real shits and giggles.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:17 PM
You are also stupid and/or lacking in honor enough to think it is okay for a President to lie about the reasons behind a deployment of our military.

Folks like you that claim to value people that serve in the military should be the ones at the front of the line to have B*sh and Cheney put in jail for pretending to be afraid of Saddam and pretending to believe that the only answer was an invasion and occupation without international support and without enough troops.

The people that were smart and honest about Iraq are the people you badmouth. Our country will not be what it should be until the folks like you realize that your enemies are the ones that lied to you and talked you into joining the chorus that called for disastrous decision-making.

If you received any moral training at all and any schooling at all you ought to be able to figure out that lying to start a war that ruins the lives of millions of people and costs billions upon billions of dollars that could be useful somewhere else is one of the worst things a person can do.Hey buddy, Bush blew ut the WTC. I heard it from a reliable source.
It was on the TV. Rosie said so.

banyon
04-19-2008, 03:17 PM
Just wait until Hussein is CIC. It will be real shits and giggles.

Hey that's the third time you've called him "Hussein" in a row. You should see if there's any room on the comedy tour circuit, I think you have a real future there.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:23 PM
How about apply 1 thousandth of the effort that you have applied to Obama over trivial sh*t, figuring out B*sh's pretending to fear Saddam so much that he thought Saddam could still attack us even if the UN Security Council was ready to enforce a rigorous inspections regime with significant international support?

You ought to realize that all of the people whose lives, bodies and minds have been ruined because of B*sh's pretending to be afraid when he was not truly afraid but only thought that war was fun and games and sh*ts and giggles, are real life human beings who deserve more respect from a keyboard jockey like yourself.
And if I don't figure it out like you, then I am stupid, right?

Why don't you just have the idiots like me rounded up and killed, your life would be so much easier then.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:29 PM
Hey that's the third time you've called him "Hussein" in a row. You should see if there's any room on the comedy tour circuit, I think you have a real future there.
Is there anything wrong with calling him Hussein?

My middle name is my fathers first name, and I am damn pround to have it. I do not cower in shame of it.

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 03:34 PM
Is there anything wrong with calling him Hussein?

My middle name is my fathers first name, and I am damn pround to have it. I do not cower in shame of it.

What if it was Hitler?

And what if Barack's middle name was John? Would you be calling him John?

banyon
04-19-2008, 03:38 PM
Is there anything wrong with calling him Hussein?

My middle name is my fathers first name, and I am damn pround to have it. I do not cower in shame of it.

No, it's just really, REALLY funny. I just wanted you to know how hilarious you were.




(..wait is that laughing at or with?)

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:40 PM
No, it's just really, REALLY funny. I just wanted you to know how hilarious you were.




(..wait is that laughing at or with?)It couldn't be anymore funny than the millions of times I have heard DUHbya over the last 8 years.

Hussen in 08. f888 yeah!11

banyon
04-19-2008, 03:41 PM
It couldn't be anymore funny than the millions of times I have heard DUHbya over the last 8 years.

Hussen in 08. f888 yeah!11

yeah, meme isn't funny either. You should be proud to have descended into her company (no one else here uses that).

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:42 PM
What if it was Hitler?

And what if Barack's middle name was John? Would you be calling him John?
Barack Hussein Hitler Obama? I didn't know he had 4 names? You have to go slow with me, I am stupid.

I don't think my Dad would have the stupidity to name the next president of the United States after a mass Murderer, would your dad do that?

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 03:44 PM
Hussein's, flag pins, madrassa's, not putting your hand over your heart during the national anthem, nah, we aren't calling him unpatriotic or anything...

banyon
04-19-2008, 03:46 PM
Hussein's, flag pins, madrassa's, not putting your hand over your heart during the national anthem, nah, we aren't calling him unpatriotic or anything...

Well discusing the issues with a candidate who admits he doesn't understand the economy isn't going to work for them.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:46 PM
Hussein's, flag pins, madrassa's, not putting your hand over your heart during the national anthem, nah, we aren't calling him unpatriotic or anything...
But what we are calling him, is a pimp.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:48 PM
Well discusing the issues with a candidate who admits he doesn't understand the economy isn't going to work for them.
Who is your candidate anyway, I heard talk of Al Gore was HEATING UP.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 03:51 PM
Well discusing the issues with a candidate who admits he doesn't understand the economy isn't going to work for them.

It's what's best for the country.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 03:53 PM
But what we are calling him, is a pimp.

Trash? Criminal? Ghetto? You choose.

Oh wait, I know... Muslim!

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 03:56 PM
Trash? Criminal? Ghetto? You choose.

Oh wait, I know... Muslim!Who are you talking about? My pastor?

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 03:57 PM
Who are you talking about? My pastor?

Don't make deals with the devil.

jettio
04-19-2008, 04:00 PM
And if I don't figure it out like you, then I am stupid, right?

Why don't you just have the idiots like me rounded up and killed, your life would be so much easier then.


If B*sh and Rove and Cheney made You as scared of Saddam as they pretended to be, then you are stupid.

The fact that you have more of a problem with the people that are correct about the lying sack of Raiduhs B*sh instead of the lying sack of Raiduhs himself shows you lack the full amount of morals and honor that you should have.

I am not propoising hurting people like you, I am just asking you guys to act like somebody raised you with enough moral guidance to realize that what is obviously wrong and immoral is obviously wrong and immoral.

banyon
04-19-2008, 04:07 PM
Who is your candidate anyway, I heard talk of Al Gore was HEATING UP.

I'll support Obama. If Hillary wins, I vote for Nader/Green Party.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 04:15 PM
If B*sh and Rove and Cheney made You as scared of Saddam as they pretended to be, then you are stupid.

The fact that you have more of a problem with the people that are correct about the lying sack of Raiduhs B*sh instead of the lying sack of Raiduhs himself shows you lack the full amount of morals and honor that you should have.

I am not propoising hurting people like you, I am just asking you guys to act like somebody raised you with enough moral guidance to realize that what is obviously wrong and immoral is obviously wrong and immoral.
The Bible says to pray for the President, do you? Then don't lecture me about morality.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 04:21 PM
I'll support Obama. If Hillary wins, I vote for Nader/Green Party.
I honestly haven't figured out if I CAN vote for McCain either.

I am hoping for a third party candidate as well. What this election is going to come down to, sad to say, is which of the 2 sides has fewer defections due to satisfaction, and how far across the aisle of independent and democrat voters can McCain reach.

McCain=Nixon.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 04:27 PM
If B*sh and Rove and Cheney made You as scared of Saddam as they pretended to be, then you are stupid.

The fact that you have more of a problem with the people that are correct about the lying sack of Raiduhs B*sh instead of the lying sack of Raiduhs himself shows you lack the full amount of morals and honor that you should have.

I am not propoising hurting people like you, I am just asking you guys to act like somebody raised you with enough moral guidance to realize that what is obviously wrong and immoral is obviously wrong and immoral.People "like me". You are a bigot my friend.

jettio
04-19-2008, 05:22 PM
Just wait until Hussein is CIC. It will be real shits and giggles.


Why do you think that?

He was one of the only ones to not let 9/11 scare him into being afraid to use his own brain to evaluate the BS coming out of the white house to sell that collossal clusterf*ck in Iraq.

You must be one of those folks that thinks the GOP is better than the United States itself, because you have voted for folks a lot less capable, intellectually and morally, than Obama.

Unless of course you can't get past the man's skin color. Maybe that is how someone that voted for B*sh and went along with all of his dumb ideas could automatically argue against Obama being a commander in chief without even being able to spell it out.

jettio
04-19-2008, 05:26 PM
People "like me". You are a bigot my friend.


You ought to get yourself a dictionary, and I don't feel very friendly towards folks that don't mind a president starting a war based on lies as if the people that get their lives ruined do not matter.

The United States of America is always more important than the political parties that exist in it. Too bad you were taught civics by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 05:47 PM
Why do you think that?

He was one of the only ones to not let 9/11 scare him into being afraid to use his own brain to evaluate the BS coming out of the white house to sell that collossal clusterf*ck in Iraq.

You must be one of those folks that thinks the GOP is better than the United States itself, because you have voted for folks a lot less capable, intellectually and morally, than Obama.

Unless of course you can't get past the man's skin color. Maybe that is how someone that voted for B*sh and went along with all of his dumb ideas could automatically argue against Obama being a commander in chief without even being able to spell it out.
I think that, because it will take more than "change" and "hope" to protect our country from Radical Islamic extremists in WHATEVER MOTHA FUGGIN COUNTRY THEY RESIDE IN, including our own.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 06:00 PM
You ought to get yourself a dictionary, and I don't feel very friendly towards folks that don't mind a president starting a war based on lies as if the people that get their lives ruined do not matter.

The United States of America is always more important than the political parties that exist in it. Too bad you were taught civics by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.Too bad your brother is way smarter than you. Perhaps you have a real problem living up to that, I know I would.

jettio
04-19-2008, 07:32 PM
I think that, because it will take more than "change" and "hope" to protect our country from Radical Islamic extremists in WHATEVER MOTHA FUGGIN COUNTRY THEY RESIDE IN, including our own.

Well, the proof is in the pudding.

B*sh's record speaks for itself and Obama's record will prove you to be as wrong about him as you were about B*sh.

If you supported B*sh, you ought to go ahead and admit that your judgment is not as good as you thought.

jettio
04-19-2008, 07:44 PM
Too bad your brother is way smarter than you. Perhaps you have a real problem living up to that, I know I would.

DanT and I are in agreement about B*sh and the lies that he told to start an unnecessary war and how dishonorable that lying sack of Raiduhs B*sh is to lie to sell a war that ruins peoples' lives.

I have not had any problem living up to that, if you had been raised in our family you would worry more about people acting honorably and not a whole lot about competing with your family members.

You probably ought to ask your family members if they think that B*sh was genuinely so afraid of Saddam that he figured that the UN inspections and international pressure that were already being brought to bear would not be enough to protect our country from an attack by Saddam.

I am certain that B*sh was not truly afraid of Saddam and that he did know that UN inspections and international pressure would have nullified any threat posed by Saddam.

patteeu
04-20-2008, 10:05 AM
How about apply 1 thousandth of the effort that you have applied to Obama over trivial sh*t, figuring out B*sh's pretending to fear Saddam so much that he thought Saddam could still attack us even if the UN Security Council was ready to enforce a rigorous inspections regime with significant international support?

You ought to realize that all of the people whose lives, bodies and minds have been ruined because of B*sh's pretending to be afraid when he was not truly afraid but only thought that war was fun and games and sh*ts and giggles, are real life human beings who deserve more respect from a keyboard jockey like yourself.

Bush didn't appear afraid to me to begin with so I don't even reach the question of whether or not he was pretending. In fact, IMO Bush has been one of our most courageous presidents in a long time. I'd put him ahead of even Reagan in that department.

I agree with this statement from former NYC mayor, Ed Koch:

President George W. Bush, vilified by many, supported by some, is a hero to me.

Why do I say that? It's not because I agree with the President's domestic agenda. It's not because I think he's done a perfect job in the White House.

George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage. The President does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.

patteeu
04-20-2008, 10:08 AM
yeah, meme isn't funny either. You should be proud to have descended into her company (no one else here uses that).

You may not use it, but there are plenty of people around here who have used something along those lines or far worse.

mlyonsd
04-20-2008, 10:26 AM
You probably ought to ask your family members if they think that B*sh was genuinely so afraid of Saddam that he figured that the UN inspections and international pressure that were already being brought to bear would not be enough to protect our country from an attack by Saddam.

I don't think you invade somebody you fear. You might invade somebody you consider a threat, which is an entirely different thing.

And, in case you don't remember, support for the UN sanctions was starting to weaken even though Saddam had never proven he had destroyed his already known cache of WMD. So the case he was a threat can be made, even if you don't agree with it.

jettio
04-20-2008, 12:11 PM
I don't think you invade somebody you fear. You might invade somebody you consider a threat, which is an entirely different thing.

And, in case you don't remember, support for the UN sanctions was starting to weaken even though Saddam had never proven he had destroyed his already known cache of WMD. So the case he was a threat can be made, even if you don't agree with it.

The UN Security Council remained commited to disarming Iraq through increased weapons inspections and more rigorous timelines for cooperation in proving the destruction of weapons and access to suspected sites.

B*sh announced that if the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force invasion resolution that he would go in with a coalition of the willing.

I suppose it is natural for people that have allowed themselves to be deceived not to want to admit to being duped, but you should know that B*sh's stated reasons for the invasions did not reflect his true objective.

He thought he could invade Iraq and quickly and easily establish a thriving Muslim democracy that would serve as a model for the region.

He did not consider Saddam a genuine threat and he also knew that any threat posed by Saddam could be effectively nullified by the actions that the UN Security Council would have remained committed to.

Real people are dead, maimed and psychologically scarred. A lot of those real people are Americans who volunteered to serve our country. They deserve a lot better than a lying sack of Raiduhs president who starts a war pretending to address an exagerrated threat when the real goal is a pie in the sky hope for Utopia in a place where rivalries are a thousand years old and the culture is to fight whenever they sense weakness in an adversary.

mlyonsd
04-20-2008, 12:31 PM
The UN Security Council remained commited to disarming Iraq through increased weapons inspections and more rigorous timelines for cooperation in proving the destruction of weapons and access to suspected sites.

B*sh announced that if the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force invasion resolution that he would go in with a coalition of the willing.

I suppose it is natural for people that have allowed themselves to be deceived not to want to admit to being duped, but you should know that B*sh's stated reasons for the invasions did not reflect his true objective.

He thought he could invade Iraq and quickly and easily establish a thriving Muslim democracy that would serve as a model for the region.

He did not consider Saddam a genuine threat and he also knew that any threat posed by Saddam could be effectively nullified by the actions that the UN Security Council would have remained committed to.

Real people are dead, maimed and psychologically scarred. A lot of those real people are Americans who volunteered to serve our country. They deserve a lot better than a lying sack of Raiduhs president who starts a war pretending to address an exagerrated threat when the real goal is a pie in the sky hope for Utopia in a place where rivalries are a thousand years old and the culture is to fight whenever they sense weakness in an adversary.

The only thing holding the sanctions together were those that were getting their palms greased by the Oil for Food debacle.

My recollection is support for the sanctions was waning, and without sanctions the UN Security Council would have lost their teeth.

Guess we'll have to disagree on that point.

And if you're going to talk about people really considering Saddam a threat why don't you plug in about 90% of the democrats too?

jettio
04-20-2008, 01:23 PM
The only thing holding the sanctions together were those that were getting their palms greased by the Oil for Food debacle.

My recollection is support for the sanctions was waning, and without sanctions the UN Security Council would have lost their teeth.

Guess we'll have to disagree on that point.

And if you're going to talk about people really considering Saddam a threat why don't you plug in about 90% of the democrats too?

The goal of the sanctions was to make Saddam weak in his country so that he would be pushed out.

Saddam held to power, even when a lot of people did not get enough food or medical care.

It was never a matter of hurrying up and invading because of the possible lifting of sanctions.

Lifting sanctions was a separate policy discussion because of the humanitarian argument that it was not right to let Iraqis starve and die out of an attempt to punish Saddam who was still hoarding wealth and in power.

I agree that many democrats were duped or dishonest. It was not 90%, more like a minority of the house democrats (39%) and 29 of 50 (58%) of democratic senators who voted for the Iraq War resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

B*sh and Rove scheduled the vote before the 2002 midterms. I think a lot of democrat vote in favor was due to cynicism and a belief that the war would be an easy success and they did not want their vote to be used against them if they wanted to run for re-election or in the case of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or John Edwards, run for Presdient down the line.

I would dare say that most of the congressional vote in favor of the resolution was based on an idea that Gulf War I was a smashing success and that invading Iraq and installing a new government would be an easy mission and they did not care if it was morally justified.

B*sh and Rove put a p*ssy on the Congress and the press to sell the war, and they managed to sell it to that part of the public that goes along with whatever their political party says, and, the part of the public out of whom Bin Laden scared out their common sense and morality.

mlyonsd
04-20-2008, 03:39 PM
The goal of the sanctions was to make Saddam weak in his country so that he would be pushed out.

Saddam held to power, even when a lot of people did not get enough food or medical care.

It was never a matter of hurrying up and invading because of the possible lifting of sanctions.

Lifting sanctions was a separate policy discussion because of the humanitarian argument that it was not right to let Iraqis starve and die out of an attempt to punish Saddam who was still hoarding wealth and in power.

I agree that many democrats were duped or dishonest. It was not 90%, more like a minority of the house democrats (39%) and 29 of 50 (58%) of democratic senators who voted for the Iraq War resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

B*sh and Rove scheduled the vote before the 2002 midterms. I think a lot of democrat vote in favor was due to cynicism and a belief that the war would be an easy success and they did not want their vote to be used against them if they wanted to run for re-election or in the case of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or John Edwards, run for Presdient down the line.

I would dare say that most of the congressional vote in favor of the resolution was based on an idea that Gulf War I was a smashing success and that invading Iraq and installing a new government would be an easy mission and they did not care if it was morally justified.

B*sh and Rove put a p*ssy on the Congress and the press to sell the war, and they managed to sell it to that part of the public that goes along with whatever their political party says, and, the part of the public out of whom Bin Laden scared out their common sense and morality.

I think the threat of losing the sanctions was coupled with the fact his known weapons were never accounted for, and after 911 the longer they weren't accounted for the bigger the threat.

Your assessment of what went on in Congress might not be far off, but to Joe dumb azz (me) sitting in South Dakota, when the leaders of both parties agree Saddam was a threat we take it seriously, and consider both of them responsible for the conflict. Might just be a realist thing I deal with on a daily basis.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 03:47 PM
I think the threat of losing the sanctions was coupled with the fact his known weapons were never accounted for, and after 911 the longer they weren't accounted for the bigger the threat.
Actually, they were accounted for. It was just speculated that SH still had some due to his behavior because he was afraid to look vulernable to Iran, his arch enemy. He had officially disarmed. Scott Ritter and other inspectors said so. His own son, when he defected to Jordan said he disarmed too, his recent FBI interrogrator claimed the same, as did SH former head of WMD said on Fox news several years ago. Problem was the CIA corrupted the inspection process by trying to attempt a coup by going into areas they had no authorized access. In fact SH never even threw out the inspectors, Bill Clinton told them he was sending a missile in during the Lewinsky crisis and if they wanted to be safe they'd have to leave.

penchief
04-20-2008, 03:47 PM
IMO, Hillary has lost a large segment of those who feel disenfranchised by government corruption. Her antics (and Bill's) have turned off a large portion of the country that is sick and tired of the status quo.

Their republican-style behavior has exhibited a willingness to be tools for the same powerful interests that have bought and paid for the corruption that is currently screwing America over.

One may be skeptical of Obama but I think he offers the best hope of shedding the burden of undue influence in a way that restores the government of the people, by the people, and for the people...back to the people.

penchief
04-20-2008, 03:55 PM
Too bad your brother is way smarter than you. Perhaps you have a real problem living up to that, I know I would.

Where did you learn civics?

patteeu
04-21-2008, 06:17 AM
The UN Security Council remained commited to disarming Iraq through increased weapons inspections and more rigorous timelines for cooperation in proving the destruction of weapons and access to suspected sites.

B*sh announced that if the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force invasion resolution that he would go in with a coalition of the willing.

I suppose it is natural for people that have allowed themselves to be deceived not to want to admit to being duped, but you should know that B*sh's stated reasons for the invasions did not reflect his true objective.

You're unsurprisingly wrong about this.

The UN security counsel declared that Saddam was in "material breach" of prior security counsel resolutions and insisted that once and for all, Saddam was supposed to come clean with an accounting for his WMD programs and stockpiles or face "serious consequences". He failed and the US/UK/coalition provided the consequences.

He thought he could invade Iraq and quickly and easily establish a thriving Muslim democracy that would serve as a model for the region.

He did not consider Saddam a genuine threat and he also knew that any threat posed by Saddam could be effectively nullified by the actions that the UN Security Council would have remained committed to.

Real people are dead, maimed and psychologically scarred. A lot of those real people are Americans who volunteered to serve our country. They deserve a lot better than a lying sack of Raiduhs president who starts a war pretending to address an exagerrated threat when the real goal is a pie in the sky hope for Utopia in a place where rivalries are a thousand years old and the culture is to fight whenever they sense weakness in an adversary.

So now you're saying Bush wasn't afraid?

patteeu
04-21-2008, 06:28 AM
The goal of the sanctions was to make Saddam weak in his country so that he would be pushed out.

Saddam held to power, even when a lot of people did not get enough food or medical care.

It was never a matter of hurrying up and invading because of the possible lifting of sanctions.

Lifting sanctions was a separate policy discussion because of the humanitarian argument that it was not right to let Iraqis starve and die out of an attempt to punish Saddam who was still hoarding wealth and in power.



Holy revisionism, batman. The sanctions were failing because support for them in Europe and Russia was failing. You even admit, in your last paragraph, that there was pressure to lift sanctions from some quarters.

Not only was there some urgency to invade as a result of the receding support for sanctions, but there was an even greater urgency to make an invade/stand down decision once we forward deployed our invasion forces and with the heat of summer approaching. Saddam had plenty of time to comply with the resolution 1441 and to show his WMD hand, but he chose not to.

patteeu
04-21-2008, 06:30 AM
Actually, they were accounted for. It was just speculated that SH still had some due to his behavior because he was afraid to look vulernable to Iran, his arch enemy. He had officially disarmed. Scott Ritter and other inspectors said so. His own son, when he defected to Jordan said he disarmed too, his recent FBI interrogrator claimed the same, as did SH former head of WMD said on Fox news several years ago. Problem was the CIA corrupted the inspection process by trying to attempt a coup by going into areas they had no authorized access. In fact SH never even threw out the inspectors, Bill Clinton told them he was sending a missile in during the Lewinsky crisis and if they wanted to be safe they'd have to leave.

That's not what "accounted for" means. They weren't accounted for and he failed to respond fully to the demand in resolution 1441 insisting on an accounting.

patteeu
04-21-2008, 06:32 AM
IMO, Hillary has lost a large segment of those who feel disenfranchised by government corruption. Her antics (and Bill's) have turned off a large portion of the country that is sick and tired of the status quo.

Their republican-style behavior has exhibited a willingness to be tools for the same powerful interests that have bought and paid for the corruption that is currently screwing America over.

One may be skeptical of Obama but I think he offers the best hope of shedding the burden of undue influence in a way that restores the government of the people, by the people, and for the people...back to the people.

Since the Clintons have been behaving pretty much the same way since at least 1991, maybe their behavior is really democrat-style.

jettio
04-21-2008, 08:01 AM
You're unsurprisingly wrong about this.

The UN security counsel declared that Saddam was in "material breach" of prior security counsel resolutions and insisted that once and for all, Saddam was supposed to come clean with an accounting for his WMD programs and stockpiles or face "serious consequences". He failed and the US/UK/coalition provided the consequences.



So now you're saying Bush wasn't afraid?


I am saying that B*sh was not afraid, that he pretended to be afraid about Saddam attacking the US, that he also pretended that continued inspections and international pressure would not be enough to nullify the threat.

The sanctions were not material to going to war and the sanctions were not lifted until May 2003 when the US occupiers were the ones asking for the end of sanctions.

B*sh thought Iraq could be turned into Utopian Muslim Democracy and that it would be our 51st state by 2006, paid for by oil revenues. He lied to start a war he thought would be a cakewalk.

banyon
04-21-2008, 08:04 AM
That's not what "accounted for" means. They weren't accounted for and he failed to respond fully to the demand in resolution 1441 insisting on an accounting.

How do you know? We redacted the report before the UN ever saw it.

jettio
04-21-2008, 08:11 AM
Holy revisionism, batman. The sanctions were failing because support for them in Europe and Russia was failing. You even admit, in your last paragraph, that there was pressure to lift sanctions from some quarters.

Not only was there some urgency to invade as a result of the receding support for sanctions, but there was an even greater urgency to make an invade/stand down decision once we forward deployed our invasion forces and with the heat of summer approaching. Saddam had plenty of time to comply with the resolution 1441 and to show his WMD hand, but he chose not to.

A President with a brain does not start an endless war because an internationally imposed sanctions regime loses support.

Bin Laden turned you into a dipsh*t moron. If you had ever served in the military or had been raised to have a proper sense of honor and perspective you would understand the costs of war and have a better idea of when they should be fought.

If you had honor and judgment, you would not rely on the success of an abbreviated first Gulf War to think that War is fun and games and sh*ts and giggles and that all you have to do to create Utopia is to hope that people hate the ousted dictator so much that they all fall in line.

penguinz
04-21-2008, 08:11 AM
Clinton scares the shit out of me.

http://img.skitch.com/20080421-r41bf9jc7ae4f35xd5puhqpi2r.preview.jpg (http://skitch.com/shouston/j6jj/preview)Click for full size (http://skitch.com/shouston/j6jj/preview)

patteeu
04-21-2008, 08:43 AM
How do you know? We redacted the report before the UN ever saw it.

I think we can agree that Hans Blix was not a cheerleader for the US invasion of Iraq. Instead, he favored continuing inspections. Here's what Blix reported to the UNSC on Feb. 14, 2003 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/iraq/main540681.shtml):

Another matter and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Adept Havelock
04-21-2008, 09:38 AM
If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.


:hmmm:

Dave Lane
04-21-2008, 10:20 AM
So you think Hussein is going to be able to survive the swiftboating evil dirty Republican smear machine when he can't even wrestle the party from Shillary Rotton Clitler?

Very good point. Given the general acttacks he faces from a very devious rep party this is a vetting of sorts to tough him up. The reps will just up the ante...

Dave

jettio
04-21-2008, 11:32 AM
Very good point. Given the general acttacks he faces from a very devious rep party this is a vetting of sorts to tough him up. The reps will just up the ante...

Dave

Wrestling the nomination and party from Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill, the only two full term Democratic President since FDR, was something to nobody predicted as being possible much less easy.

I suppose we will have to see, but McCain's strongest feature is that he is a centrist on some important issues. Unfortuately for him, he is more of the same on the two most crucial issues, the economy and the War.

Obama has a lot more support than Kerry, and McCain is unlikely to generate the fervor that B*sh did from people who were ready to vote social issues in 2004. You would have to remember how much B*sh misled the public about the situation on the ground in Iraq during that election campaign.

A lot of folks that were crazy about B*sh were parroting the propaganda and we're ready to vote for B*sh because they liked him and were against abortion and gay marriage.

Obama has a movement as good or as strong as B*sh, a ground game as good or better. Obama is a much more inspirational candidate the Kerry. Obama has a lot more money than Kerry to fight back. Obama has the lesson of 2004 available for study. And a lot of voters who voted GOP or did not bother going to vote in 2004, really have not appreciated what they ended up with for the last 8 years.

McCain is less inspiring than B*sh, Obama is more inspiring than Kerry. B*sh won the election by one state, Ohio. The known facts about the economy and the war make the GOP much weaker overall than in 2004.

I think it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on those Voter ID laws that GOP majority legislators passed to depress elderly & poor democratic votes. I bet that if the Supreme Court goes along with those politically motivated laws, the party under Dean and Obama is now so energized that there will be a massive effort to get government IDs for a lot of voters that the GOP tried to screw and a lot more of those folks targetted for disenfranchisement will end up voting than if the Supreme Court sides with the Democrats.

Radar Chief
04-21-2008, 12:09 PM
Actually, they were accounted for. It was just speculated that SH still had some due to his behavior because he was afraid to look vulernable to Iran, his arch enemy. He had officially disarmed. Scott Ritter and other inspectors said so. His own son, when he defected to Jordan said he disarmed too, his recent FBI interrogrator claimed the same, as did SH former head of WMD said on Fox news several years ago. Problem was the CIA corrupted the inspection process by trying to attempt a coup by going into areas they had no authorized access. In fact SH never even threw out the inspectors, Bill Clinton told them he was sending a missile in during the Lewinsky crisis and if they wanted to be safe they'd have to leave.


Both his sons, Uday and Qusay, were killed in Iraq. They never defected. :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2008, 02:21 PM
The Bible says to pray for the President, do you? Then don't lecture me about morality.

I'm too busy killing people for eating meat on the wrong day and laying down my righteous vengeance upon the evil men who wear clothes comprised of two different types of fabric.

Those motherf*ckers :cuss: :cuss:

penchief
04-21-2008, 02:30 PM
Since the Clintons have been behaving pretty much the same way since at least 1991, maybe their behavior is really democrat-style.

I don't think that's true. Before this election, they have been very much anti-Newt and anti-Bush. However, suddenly, they have recognized the need to be subservient to the power-quo only because the voice of the poeple does not jibe with their ascendence.

The voice of the people wants something very different. And since they expected to be the heir-apparent, they are quickly adjusting their tact to appease the status quo because Obama has taken away their hope of being the voice of the people.

JMO.