Mitt Romney Gaffe and How Much the Democrats Suck [Archive]

midwinter

09-13-2007, 04:55 PM

So.

I don't normally read the Daily Kos anymore, but I found this post of Kos's (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/13/145842/287) via Atrios. The gist of it, if you don't want to bother clicking through, is that Romney [Edit: WTF did I get that? Boehner Boehner Boehner]called 4000 dead US soldiers a "small price" to pay, which is, of course, a HUGE gaffe for a presidential candidate [edit: minority leader].

But where are the Democrats with their condemnation of those remarks?

*crickets chirping*

Nowhere. Not one member of the Democratic Party's leadership has spoken out about it, and only John Kerry has said anything so far.

TalkingPointsMemo noted this:

"We hear various Democrats are weighing right now whether to try to make an issue of his comment."

That is utterly, utterly typical of the Democrats, who seem to be completely afraid of standing up to the Republicans. They seem to be completely afraid of doing ANYTHING. We elected them with a MANDATE to end the war in Iraq, and they've done NOTHING. We elected them to stand up to the GOP minority, and they've done NOTHING.

And believe me, come November, people will remember. There are already rumblings among the netroots to mount primary challenges against incumbents.

Harumph.

Thoughts?

trumptman

09-13-2007, 05:02 PM

I think they were too busy ignoring the Obama statement about genocide to notice the Romney statement about price.

Nick

@_@ Artman

09-13-2007, 05:33 PM

TalkingPointsMemo noted this:
"We hear various Democrats are weighing right now whether to try to make an issue of his comment."
That is utterly, utterly typical of the Democrats, who seem to be completely afraid of standing up to the Republicans. They seem to be completely afraid of doing ANYTHING. We elected them with a MANDATE to end the war in Iraq, and they've done NOTHING. We elected them to stand up to the GOP minority, and they've done NOTHING.
And believe me, come November, people will remember. There are already rumblings among the netroots to mount primary challenges against incumbents.
Harumph.
Thoughts?

Interesting. I just read that the troops are donating more money to Democrats (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/military_shifti.html). Obama has received more military money than any other candidate. He should stand up to this if he's got that kind of backing.

Two wolves and a sheep deciding on whats for dinner. :err:

southside grabowski

09-13-2007, 05:42 PM

@_@ Artman

09-13-2007, 05:47 PM

Those who voted for Dems to end the war were clueless. It was easy for CANDIDATES to TALK about ending the war, but those ELECTED know it is near IMMPOSSIBLE. The efforts in Iraq will continue for the foreseeable future no matter who is selected. Sorry, even Obama won't end it. He will change his tune if elected

You sound as cynical as I do. There are only to choices left, Kucinich, Edwards or Paul...even they bother me. Not leadership quality at all. Who knows whether they'll flop either. I feel like crawling into a hole for the next...millennium. :\

SDW2001

09-13-2007, 06:33 PM

So.

I don't normally read the Daily Kos anymore, but I found this post of Kos's (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/13/145842/287) via Atrios. The gist of it, if you don't want to bother clicking through, is that Romney called 4000 dead US soldiers a "small price" to pay, which is, of course, a HUGE gaffe for a presidential candidate.

But where are the Democrats with their condemnation of those remarks?

*crickets chirping*

Nowhere. Not one member of the Democratic Party's leadership has spoken out about it, and only John Kerry has said anything so far.

TalkingPointsMemo noted this:

"We hear various Democrats are weighing right now whether to try to make an issue of his comment."

That is utterly, utterly typical of the Democrats, who seem to be completely afraid of standing up to the Republicans. They seem to be completely afraid of doing ANYTHING. We elected them with a MANDATE to end the war in Iraq, and they've done NOTHING. We elected them to stand up to the GOP minority, and they've done NOTHING.

And believe me, come November, people will remember. There are already rumblings among the netroots to mount primary challenges against incumbents.

Harumph.

Thoughts?

While I agree it was a poor choice of words, I don't see it as a "huge gaffe." Secondly, are you kidding me with this notion of Democrats "not standing up to Republicans?" That's hysterical. Have you noticed ANY of the comments in the last week, not to mention that last, uh, 4 years?

Back to point #1. Here are some "huge gaffes":

Obama of Afghanistan:

"We've to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

John Kerry on Iraq:

You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs.

Joe Biden:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." --on Barack Obama

Biden Again:

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. ... I'm not joking."

Howard Dean:

"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

and

“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”

and:

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags (search) in their pickup trucks,"

Hillary:

"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian."

and

<joking> “He ran a gas station down in St. Louis... No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century.” –introducing a quote by Mahatma Gandhi

and of course, on the war:

1. On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.”

2. On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton’s support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force,” she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed.”

3. On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN’s Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority,” noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.”

4. In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.”

5. By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.”

6. On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today” show: "I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”

7. On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush’s call for a troop surge: "I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.”

8. On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.

10. Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office.”

So, let me ask: Why the free pass on all of these quotes, mid? I don't see you pointing them out. Why not? What about Obama's absurd and shameful portrayal of our efforts in Afghanistan? What about Howard Dean's multiple racist quotes? What about John Kerry's "botched joke" and statement that we are terrorizing civilians? What about Hillary's unquestionable and ridiculous chameleon impression on the war?

No, none of this matters. You're too busy excoriating "Teh Surge" and "Teh Awesome" and Mitt Romney, who at worst could have chosen his words a bit better.

vinea

09-13-2007, 06:52 PM

So, let me ask: Why the free pass on all of these quotes, mid? I don't see you pointing them out. Why not? What about Obama's absurd and shameful portrayal of our efforts in Afghanistan? What about Howard Dean's multiple racist quotes? What about John Kerry's "botched joke" and statement that we are terrorizing civilians? What about Hillary's unquestionable and ridiculous chameleon impression on the war?

Um, none of them got a free pass. Hear about that all the time.

Afghanistan has been botched. Mostly becuase of and unnoticed because of Iraq. However, Obama still came off as naive.

Howard Dean is a nutjob and Republicans are delighted.

Kerry's pretty much out of it now. Political has been since he bowed out of 2008. Not likely he'll pull a Gore and rehabilitate himself. For one thing, half of Gore's attraction is the guy really doesn't want to run.

Why aren't Democrats making a big stink over Romney? Is it because it was by Boehner?

Did I click the wrong link?

As an aside...I heard that liberal talk radio is the fastest growing segment...I find I tune into Washington Post radio these days over WMAL (the only guy I like there is Chris Core and he got punted to some time I'm not on the road) because...well they don't take themselves too seriously and there a brit lady with a nice accent.

Grandy and Andy annoy me.

@_@ Artman

09-13-2007, 08:32 PM

So, let me ask: Why the free pass on all of these quotes, mid? I don't see you pointing them out. Why not? What about Obama's absurd and shameful portrayal of our efforts in Afghanistan? What about Howard Dean's multiple racist quotes? What about John Kerry's "botched joke" and statement that we are terrorizing civilians? What about Hillary's unquestionable and ridiculous chameleon impression on the war?

You asked and answered this question in your own comment. Here:

No, none of this matters. You're too busy excoriating "Teh Surge" and "Teh Awesome" and Mitt Romney, who at worst could have chosen his words a bit better.

See, when someone, anyone speaks and we listen...there are moments where what they say and how they say it makes one react a certain way. Romney's on the TV and he speaks his mind and the overall reaction here is "Oh shit". We all do it. I could continue by Googling all the quotes from Chimpy McFlightsuit's famous gaffs, but the exposure that guy gets is insurmountable right now.

How about Hillary Clinton?

Bill Maher Asks Clinton: "Why Should Americans Vote For Someone Who Can Be Fooled By George Bush? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/13/maher-asks-clinton-why-_n_64242.html)"

Be warned all. Her response will immediately make you cringe. I think she is a lizard. But they all fuck up. Are fucked up. Whatever. :\

Kudos to Bill Maher for asking that brilliant question. :smokey:

My question of the day would be, how many troops would be needed after we withdraw from Iraq for the security and operations of the 7 -14 permanent U.S. military bases and the U.S. Embassy?

I wish I heard General Petraeus' answer to that. Oh wait, no one asked him...:rolleyes:

jimmac

09-13-2007, 10:21 PM

You asked and answered this question in your own comment. Here:

See, when someone, anyone speaks and we listen...there are moments where what they say and how they say it makes one react a certain way. Romney's on the TV and he speaks his mind and the overall reaction here is "Oh shit". We all do it. I could continue by Googling all the quotes from Chimpy McFlightsuit's famous gaffs, but the exposure that guy gets is insurmountable right now.

How about Hillary Clinton?

Bill Maher Asks Clinton: "Why Should Americans Vote For Someone Who Can Be Fooled By George Bush? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/13/maher-asks-clinton-why-_n_64242.html)"

Be warned all. Her response will immediately make you cringe. I think she is a lizard. But they all fuck up. Are fucked up. Whatever. :\

Kudos to Bill Maher for asking that brilliant question. :smokey:

My question of the day would be, how many troops would be needed after we withdraw from Iraq for the security and operations of the 7 -14 permanent U.S. military bases and the U.S. Embassy?

I wish I heard General Petraeus' answer to that. Oh wait, no one asked him...:rolleyes:

Ok Artman.

I watched the video and I know you don't like Clinton. But I didn't hear anything that would make me " Cringe ".

So what gives?

jimmac

09-13-2007, 10:25 PM

Those who voted for Dems to end the war were clueless. It was easy for CANDIDATES to TALK about ending the war, but those ELECTED know it is near IMMPOSSIBLE. The efforts in Iraq will continue for the foreseeable future no matter who is selected. Sorry, even Obama won't end it. He will change his tune if elected

Like you'd know anything about what's going to happen.

So moe how's that wiretapping prediction going for you?:lol:

crentist

09-13-2007, 11:07 PM

Um, none of them got a free pass. Hear about that all the time.
one thing, half of Gore's attraction is the guy really doesn't want to run.

Why aren't Democrats making a big stink over Romney? Is it because it was by Boehner?

That is hilarious. Some guy in UT looking for a reason not to like Mitt Romney decides that he can jump the gun and throw an ill-timed comment (which people make - not the end of the world) by one person into the mouth of another.

Honest mistake misquoting as you did? Perhaps, but the fact that you give us all the "gist" of the article in case we "don't want to bother clicking through" just makes this look pretty shady.

Sorry friend, but if you are going to take an opportunity to speak ill of a presidential candidate or anyone else for that matter and don't have your facts straight you kind of have it coming. And if you intentionally crafted your thread title and "quote" to be misleading, well. . . that is just not right.

Edit: Speaking of "right," maybe its time to change the thread title to correct an editorial mistake and spare someone's good name. Only fair.

vinea

09-13-2007, 11:16 PM

You can make the new title "Boner by Boehner".

Its kinda funny folks didn't click through but commented anyway.

midwinter

09-13-2007, 11:19 PM

That is hilarious. Some guy in UT looking for a reason not to like Mitt Romney decides that he can jump the gun and throw an ill-timed comment (which people make - not the end of the world) by one person into the mouth of another.

Honest mistake misquoting as you did? Perhaps, but the fact that you give us all the "gist" of the article in case we "don't want to bother clicking through" just makes this look pretty shady.

Sorry friend, but if you are going to take an opportunity to speak ill of a presidential candidate or anyone else for that matter and don't have your facts straight you kind of have it coming. And if you intentionally crafted your thread title and "quote" to be misleading, well. . . that is just not right.

Edit: Speaking of "right," maybe its time to change the thread title to correct an editorial mistake and spare someone's good name. Only fair.

Hi, Centrist. Nice to meet you. Don't be an asshole. My post is not about who made the crack. It's about how much the Democrats suck at responding to things.

MODS! Can someone please change this thread title from Romney to Boehner since I apparently have lost the ability to read. Thanks.

midwinter

09-13-2007, 11:21 PM

Why aren't Democrats making a big stink over Romney? Is it because it was by Boehner?

Did I click the wrong link?

Nope. I just apparently can't read today. I've edited the original post to indicate that I'm a blithering idiot.

vinea

09-13-2007, 11:26 PM

Hi, Centrist. Nice to meet you. Don't be an asshole. My post is not about who made the crack. It's about how much the Democrats suck at responding to things.

MODS! Can someone please change this thread title from Romney to Boehner since I apparently have lost the ability to read. Thanks.

LOL...how on earth did you confuse the two? But heck, who really gets fired up about anything Reid or Pelosi says these days either? All eyes and mics are on presidential candidates.

Taking a pot shot at Boehner, Reid or Pelosi is just wasted ammunition.

If Romney had said such a dumb thing Giuliani would have been all over it.

midwinter

09-13-2007, 11:44 PM

LOL...how on earth did you confuse the two? But heck, who really gets fired up about anything Reid or Pelosi says these days either? All eyes and mics are on presidential candidates.

Taking a pot shot at Boehner, Reid or Pelosi is just wasted ammunition.

If Romney had said such a dumb thing Giuliani would have been all over it.

I have no friggin' idea how I got them mixed up. I was sleepy.

Anyway, the point of the original blogs was that the Dems suck mightily at rapid response to things like that. Some loony professor in Colorado says something batshit crazy (that's actually NOT batshit crazy but is certainly in shitty taste)? He's the new poster boy for the Dems, according to every Right-wing blog and talk show host. The point was that the GOP/conservatives are just flat out BETTER at rapid response type stuff because they actually, you know, RESPOND, while the Dems just sit around with their thumbs up their asses being worried about hurting someone's feelings.

BRussell

09-14-2007, 01:54 AM

I'm glad they're not as quick to play those dumb games. Let the Republicans play that way, let the media parrot them. I'd rather place trust in people to not buy into it.

midwinter

09-14-2007, 01:59 AM

I'm glad they're not as quick to play those dumb games. Let the Republicans play that way, let the media parrot them. I'd rather place trust in people to not buy into it.

While I agree that these are more often than not dumb games, as you say, sometimes they're not. Going after this little bit would have been not worth it and stupid; but what about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Kerry didn't respond for weeks because he trusted people not to buy into it.

trumptman

09-14-2007, 07:48 AM

A couple points, while there are a few in the Republican party who can do rapid response, I think the party as a whole doesn't. The other is anyone in any party who brings up the service of the other candidate a flaw, then stands on their own party's convention platform saying the words "Reporting for duty and saluting" and then thinks no one will go after that in any form or fashion, is just looney as well.

Nick

SDW2001

09-14-2007, 08:45 AM

Um, none of them got a free pass. Hear about that all the time.

Afghanistan has been botched. Mostly becuase of and unnoticed because of Iraq. However, Obama still came off as naive.

You might here about it, but they're not taken to task for those comments. Obama's was a perfect example. The only place I've heard it is on conservative media outlets. It's never on MSNBC or CNN or what have you. There are no editorials in The Times. That's the point...they're a double standard. A big one.

Howard Dean is a nutjob and Republicans are delighted.

Kerry's pretty much out of it now. Political has been since he bowed out of 2008. Not likely he'll pull a Gore and rehabilitate himself. For one thing, half of Gore's attraction is the guy really doesn't want to run.

Why aren't Democrats making a big stink over Romney? Is it because it was by Boehner?

Did I click the wrong link?

As an aside...I heard that liberal talk radio is the fastest growing segment...I find I tune into Washington Post radio these days over WMAL (the only guy I like there is Chris Core and he got punted to some time I'm not on the road) because...well they don't take themselves too seriously and there a brit lady with a nice accent.

Grandy and Andy annoy me.

I'm not sure what happened with the link.

SDW2001

09-14-2007, 08:48 AM

You asked and answered this question in your own comment. Here:

See, when someone, anyone speaks and we listen...there are moments where what they say and how they say it makes one react a certain way. Romney's on the TV and he speaks his mind and the overall reaction here is "Oh shit". We all do it. I could continue by Googling all the quotes from Chimpy McFlightsuit's famous gaffs, but the exposure that guy gets is insurmountable right now.

How about Hillary Clinton?

Bill Maher Asks Clinton: "Why Should Americans Vote For Someone Who Can Be Fooled By George Bush? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/13/maher-asks-clinton-why-_n_64242.html)"

Be warned all. Her response will immediately make you cringe. I think she is a lizard. But they all fuck up. Are fucked up. Whatever. :\

Kudos to Bill Maher for asking that brilliant question. :smokey:

My question of the day would be, how many troops would be needed after we withdraw from Iraq for the security and operations of the 7 -14 permanent U.S. military bases and the U.S. Embassy?

I wish I heard General Petraeus' answer to that. Oh wait, no one asked him...:rolleyes:

All good points, actually. And OMG...that Hillary clip. It started out OK, and then she got to the part where she made it seem like she never voted "yes" for the force authorization.

SDW2001

09-14-2007, 08:55 AM

Ok Artman.

I watched the video and I know you don't like Clinton. But I didn't hear anything that would make me " Cringe ".

So what gives?

Did you watch the whole thing. Do me a favor and watch it again. The answer starts just fine, and I say that as someone who despises her. But then she revises history and dodges the question, but making it seem like her vote wasn't a vote for the use of force, which of course it was. She portrayed it as a vote to restart weapons inspections, which is of course, total bullshit.

Hi, Centrist. Nice to meet you. Don't be an asshole. My post is not about who made the crack. It's about how much the Democrats suck at responding to things.

MODS! Can someone please change this thread title from Romney to Boehner since I apparently have lost the ability to read. Thanks.

:lol::lol::lol:

Nope. I just apparently can't read today. I've edited the original post to indicate that I'm a blithering idiot.

:lol::lol::lol:

I have no friggin' idea how I got them mixed up. I was sleepy.

It happens dude. Just remember that the next time one of "us" accidentally misquotes somebody.

Anyway, the point of the original blogs was that the Dems suck mightily at rapid response to things like that. Some loony professor in Colorado says something batshit crazy (that's actually NOT batshit crazy but is certainly in shitty taste)? He's the new poster boy for the Dems, according to every Right-wing blog and talk show host. The point was that the GOP/conservatives are just flat out BETTER at rapid response type stuff because they actually, you know, RESPOND, while the Dems just sit around with their thumbs up their asses being worried about hurting someone's feelings.

Again...:lol: I guess I'd have to agree with that for the most part. Repubs are better at rapid response.

@_@ Artman

09-14-2007, 08:56 AM

All good points, actually. And OMG...that Hillary clip. It started out OK, and then she got to the part where she made it seem like she never voted "yes" for the force authorization.

What I didn't like was her cackle at the start. Bill Maherwasn't joking. It was a serious question. And she laughed out of surprise, defensively and I'd even say anger. It's a tough question, but she could have handled it better than that. There'll be plenty more Hillary, plenty...:grumble:

southside grabowski

09-14-2007, 09:21 AM

Like you'd know anything about what's going to happen.

So moe how's that wiretapping prediction going for you?:lol:

I understand it pretty well. We overran a government and upset the balance of power in the region. We will pay the price for this for several years. You will see candidates push for a complete pull out, but they will change their tunes when elected and faced with the reality of the situation. This was a huge tactical error. This is like a surgery gone bad. The patient will be in ICU for a long time.

midwinter

09-14-2007, 09:31 AM

I guess I'd have to agree with that for the most part. Repubs are better at rapid response.

yeah, but part of my point is that that is sort of like being better at math than the severely retarded kid next door.

trumptman

09-14-2007, 09:42 AM

Why does it not surprise me that you disagree with her personality.

:no:

It isn't her personality, it is her response. She laughed at a question that while delivered by a comedian, had a very serious point.

Maher makes the same point I've made on here and that is the insane and thus no responsibility required duality Democrats portray with Bush. He is the see all, knows all, controls all person who manipulates media, votes in Congress, voting machines and wants to be king for life. Then he is also ape-boy who can't figure out which door by which to leave the room.

The Maher question is perfect because it nails this avoidance of responsibility due to Bush being all incompetent and all powerful and knowing evil at the same time. Hillary voted for the war when others did not. They either bought the lies of an incompetent bumpkin, or they weren't lies and were the consensus view at the time and they acted on that view.

It shows that anyone who bought into the consensus view at the time likely didn't question the process and as such probably isn't the best change agent or means of fixing the process. Since Hillary is trying to be both quasi-incumbent and quasi-change agent, (triangulation) it exposes the nonsense she is trying to perpetuate often at the expense of say, Obama.

Nick

@_@ Artman

09-14-2007, 09:59 AM

Why does it not surprise me that you disagree with her personality.
:no:

...including her half-assed answer. No, I don't like her. I haven't heard anything new or relevant to why I should either.

trumptman

09-14-2007, 10:01 AM

yeah, but part of my point is that that is sort of like being better at math than the severely retarded kid next door.

I've heard that the Democrats are putting forward a bill whereby you vote by means of distinguishing M's and W's. Bush, believing that a W indicates he would be running and garner votes will likely sign the bill.

Republicans noted that our current alphabet has middle eastern/Phoenician origins and wondered whether this might support terrorism.

Democrats countered that they never really endorsed the ideal of letters since they would only reflect certain ancestries and cultural backgrounds and Republicans had actually brought up the letters since they were racist.

A coalition of Republicans and Democrats decide to endorse a system of voting that utilizes W and M but also several symbols from other languages and writing systems. Republicans vote all M's. Democrats fracture among the many different symbols.

Democrats declare that all Republicans pushing M is proof of racist and now sexist intent since an M looks like two legs with a penis hanging down and could stand for man. Republicans quickly respond that several of the symbols that Democrats included are actually pornographic words and concepts within their respective languages and cultures. Democrats declare that these were omissions and accidents and their intent proves what the real purpose was in selecting those symbols even while ignorant to their meaning They also aren't really responsibly for selecting them since they were only attempting to counter racist Republican attempts to limit voting to letters of certain languages in the first place.

In the meantime.. a Republican is actually found in a public bathroom stall with a penis hanging down between his two legs. The media reports on this. Hillary collects gobs of cash from loads of people in loads of bundles from many different countries using many different writing systems. The media ignores this, and here we all are, on a Friday.

Nick

BRussell

09-14-2007, 10:46 AM

While I agree that these are more often than not dumb games, as you say, sometimes they're not. Going after this little bit would have been not worth it and stupid; but what about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Kerry didn't respond for weeks because he trusted people not to buy into it.

Yeah I know. But your post triggered this thought: Some Democrats, particularly the Kos-types and bloggy-types, want Democrats to more aggressively use tactics normally associated with Republicans. But what I always wonder is whether that's a good idea.

The Republican political people like Rove have made all government positions and agencies political offices. Everyone has to be on message all the time. Everything is a political spin. The assumption is that this was successful for them and should therefore be copied by Dems... but I wonder.

My view is that it backfires. It backfires partially because superficial politicization wears very thin and just seems silly and desperate. And, more importantly, it backfires partially because a bad policy will be bad even if it has been successfully politicized. Even if tax cuts are popular, they backfire because they increase deficits; even if killing Arabs is popular, war in Iraq backfires because it's bad long-term policy.

The best political strategy is to enact good policy. Bush has enacted terrible policies at every turn, with usually excellent politicization. Perhaps that's a recipe for disaster. Perhaps trying to enact good, effective policies, and toning way down the politicization of such policies, is really the best political strategy.

I know this goes way, way beyond your one example, but those are the types of thoughts that were triggered when I read it, and that I was thinking about in my previous post.

@_@ Artman

09-14-2007, 01:09 PM

“I’m prepared to tell you that Americans are getting fatter and dumber. I have no problem saying that (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/prez-candidate-.html).” - Mike Gravel

Actually.......................................... ............he's right. :err:

BRussell

09-14-2007, 04:31 PM

Some democrats, yes.

I'm not sure if that's a fair characterization of the lefty bloggers though. That group is a moving target to be sure, but I think it's fair to say about Kos. He's said so pretty explicitly on a number of occasions and in his book.

midwinter

09-14-2007, 05:05 PM

That group is a moving target to be sure, but I think it's fair to say about Kos. He's said so pretty explicitly on a number of occasions and in his book.

Yes. Kos is probably the most aggresive of the popular lefty bloggers, though.

jimmac

09-14-2007, 09:01 PM

Did you watch the whole thing. Do me a favor and watch it again. The answer starts just fine, and I say that as someone who despises her. But then she revises history and dodges the question, but making it seem like her vote wasn't a vote for the use of force, which of course it was. She portrayed it as a vote to restart weapons inspections, which is of course, total bullshit.

:lol::lol::lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

It happens dude. Just remember that the next time one of "us" accidentally misquotes somebody.

Again...:lol: I guess I'd have to agree with that for the most part. Repubs are better at rapid response.

" Did you watch the whole thing. Do me a favor and watch it again. The answer starts just fine, and I say that as someone who despises her. But then she revises history and dodges the question, but making it seem like her vote wasn't a vote for the use of force, which of course it was. She portrayed it as a vote to restart weapons inspections, which is of course, total bullshit. "

Ok I'll bite. Yes I watched the whole thing.

Do you have proof that she voted for something other than restarting the weapons inspections again?

If so link please. If not the burden of proof is on you since you made the statement.

jimmac

09-14-2007, 09:22 PM

I understand it pretty well. We overran a government and upset the balance of power in the region. We will pay the price for this for several years. You will see candidates push for a complete pull out, but they will change their tunes when elected and faced with the reality of the situation. This was a huge tactical error. This is like a surgery gone bad. The patient will be in ICU for a long time.

Well I seem to remember that you're a teenager so you probably don't remember a place called Vietnam. Well we were faced with a similar situation and had to finaly leave. The government fell and the north took over.

It's my feeling that something similar will happen here. Even with the the oil in the region. We may find that it will only complicate being a viable customer by staying.

Sometimes you have to let the guy on the table go. Because sometimes after a certain point you're just prolonging his suffering by trying to save him.

jimmac

09-14-2007, 09:26 PM

@_@ Artman

09-15-2007, 08:57 AM

I'm still waiting to hear why I should " Cringe "?

Because she's a laughing condescending bitch? Because I could fill a thimble with her vacuous answer?

If you recall, I stated that when a person speaks, there will be a unique reaction that the listener will get from it. I was embarrassed that she reacted that way. I was angered that she answered with nothing relevant or any importance to me.

You can react any way you want. As far as I'm concerned, she's not getting my vote or another minute of my time unless she wakes up and starts telling the truth. Oh wait, she's a politician. :rolleyes:

Ask her (any of the top candidates) this question:

How many troops would be needed after we "withdraw" from Iraq for the security and operations of the 7 -14 permanent U.S. military bases and the U.S. Embassy?

jimmac

09-15-2007, 09:26 AM

Because she's a laughing condescending bitch? Because I could fill a thimble with her vacuous answer?

If you recall, I stated that when a person speaks, there will be a unique reaction that the listener will get from it. I was embarrassed that she reacted that way. I was angered that she answered with nothing relevant or any importance to me.

You can react any way you want. As far as I'm concerned, she's not getting my vote or another minute of my time unless she wakes up and starts telling the truth. Oh wait, she's a politician. :rolleyes:

Ask her (any of the top candidates) this question:

How many troops would be needed after we "withdraw" from Iraq for the security and operations of the 7 -14 permanent U.S. military bases and the U.S. Embassy?

Funny I didn't get that from that video at all.

What I saw was her reacting to a question that's become standard , stock, rhetoric from the conservatives.

And Artman they're all politicians ( even Gravel ). Once you realize they couldn't have got where they are without being one you learn to judge them accordingly.

I know it's shitty but right now in this day and age it's all we have to work with. So you can choose to just let things happen or work within the system toward something better. Right now with Bush in charge ( or any of the neocons that might follow ) we have the worst of the worst. We need to get out of that situation before we can work toward something else. Because they won't let that happen as long as they are in charge. I really do believe that the republicans are much better " politicians " than the democrats. At least with democrats we have a chance.

Also with Hillary we get Bill Clinton as president again. And things really were better under him.

Despite what the guys like SDW are saying really they were. Not perfect but much better. Just look through the record of those times if you don't recall or believe me.

After what we've been through in the last 8 years this country needs to do some healing. I think Clinton is just the medium for us to do that in. I like Obama also but I don't think he has the punch behind him to win. I still think a Clinton / Obama ticket would be the best scenario.

@_@ Artman

09-15-2007, 10:11 AM

Funny I didn't get that from that video at all.

Wasn't expecting you to.

What I saw was her reacting to a question that's become standard , stock, rhetoric from the conservatives.

Er, you did see and hear the question, right?

Why Should Americans Vote For Someone Who Can Be Fooled By George Bush?"

And Artman they're all politicians ( even Gravel ). Once you realize they couldn't have got where they are without being one you learn to judge them accordingly.

Gravel is a good example. He stood up against the liars during the Vietnam War and got no recognition or brownie points from his party. He became disgruntled with the mess in Washington DC and went back to state legislature. Now he is a crotchety old man who feels (felt) he had one more chance to wake the American people up and make change. Look where the truth got him.

I know it's shitty but right now in this day and age it's all we have to work with. So you can choose to just let things happen or work within the system toward something better. Right now with Bush in charge ( or any of the neocons that might follow ) we have the worst of the worst. We need to get out of that situation before we can work toward something else. Because they won't let that happen as long as they are in charge. I really do believe that the republicans are much better " politicians " than the democrats. At least with democrats we have a chance.

Also with Hillary we get Bill Clinton as president again. And things really were better under him.

You have to be kidding me. Things were better when Mr. Clinton was in office. You think we need these two (who do not live together, you know) in the same house?

Think of this too:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/november2005/221105hw.jpg

Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush)-Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton)-Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)-Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton). Either our two party system, the electoral system or Americans malaise in general needs some serious repair. Or maybe they (both parties) have taken over it all. Lock, stock and barrel.

Despite what the guys like SDW are saying really they were. Not perfect but much better. Just look through the record of those times if you don't recall or believe me.

That was then. This is now. We are in a Middle East shit-storm, trillions in debt, the dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar, freedoms, liberties eroding, U.S. reputation tanked etc., etc.,.....

After what we've been through in the last 8 years this country needs to do some healing. I think Clinton is just the medium for us to do that in. I like Obama also but I don't think he has the punch behind him to win. I still think a Clinton / Obama ticket would be the best scenario.

"Medium"?

http://www.themarkedward.com/Working%20Photo%201.jpg

jimmac

09-15-2007, 10:13 AM

Wasn't expecting you to.

Er, you did see and hear the question, right?

Why Should Americans Vote For Someone Who Can Be Fooled By George Bush?"

Gravel is a good example. He stood up against the liars during the Vietnam War and got no recognition or brownie points from his party. He became disgruntled with the mess in Washington DC and went back to state legislature. Now he is a crotchety old man who feels (felt) he had one more chance to wake the American people up and make change. Look where the truth got him.

You have to be kidding me. Things were better when Mr. Clinton was in office. You think we need these two (who do not live together, you know) in the same house?

Think of this too:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/november2005/221105hw.jpg

Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush)-Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton)-Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)-Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton). Either our two party system, the electoral system or Americans malaise in general needs some serious repair.

That was then. This is now. We are in a Middle East shit-storm, trillions in debt, the dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar, freedoms, liberties eroding, etc., etc.,.....

"Medium"?

http://www.themarkedward.com/Working%20Photo%201.jpg

First it doesn't matter how you phrase that question. It's the same thing the rightwingers have been saying all along. Many good people went along with the idea that Bush was trying to scare us all with. One person who didn't was senator Byrd who was ridiculed not for what he was saying but because of his past. It's how these republican politicians operate. " Let's not talk about the current facts but let's bring up something irrelevent to distract from discussing the truth. That's why I say the republicans are better poilicians than the democrats. More polished. More nasty and dangerous.

Artman,

Can Gravel win?

jimmac

09-15-2007, 10:16 AM

SDW2001

09-15-2007, 10:39 AM

What I didn't like was her cackle at the start. Bill Maherwasn't joking. It was a serious question. And she laughed out of surprise, defensively and I'd even say anger. It's a tough question, but she could have handled it better than that. There'll be plenty more Hillary, plenty...:grumble:

Well..she does that laugh whenever she is uncomfortable. She was once asked on the radio if she ever did weed. She cackled and then tried to joke that host had "too much Pepsi for breakfast" or something. So he pressed her, and she gave a very questionable "No, and insert talking point].

That said, I thought Mahr's question was spot on...and funny. So I kind of took her laughter as somewhat genuine...like the "OMG he actually said that" laughter. But then when she portrayed her vote as a vote to restart inspections (in worse fashion than Kerry did, actually) and segued to her "wouldn't have voted for it" line, I almost puked.

yeah, but part of my point is that that is sort of like being better at math than the severely retarded kid next door.

I don't really get that analogy.

Some democrats, yes.

I'm not sure if that's a fair characterization of the lefty bloggers though.

You're kidding, right? I hope so. The lefty bloggers...the REAL lefties...they are vitriolic. I mean really.

" Did you watch the whole thing. Do me a favor and watch it again. The answer starts just fine, and I say that as someone who despises her. But then she revises history and dodges the question, but making it seem like her vote wasn't a vote for the use of force, which of course it was. She portrayed it as a vote to restart weapons inspections, which is of course, total bullshit. "

Ok I'll bite. Yes I watched the whole thing.

Do you have proof that she voted for something other than restarting the weapons inspections again?

If so link please. If not the burden of proof is on you since you made the statement.
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to give fair warning that I am about to finally prove, once and for all and unequivocally, that jimmac is a polarized partisan who doesn't have any grasp of facts whatsoever. In fact, this slamming will be so demonstrative of jimmac's aforementioned ignorance, he would do well to never post here in PO again afterwards.

Oh, how I have waited for this day. Let me savor this moment.

OK. I'm ready now. Everyone else ready? Ahem..... <sdw winds up and looks down at the helpless jimmac>

jimmac: Do you have proof that she voted for something other than restarting the weapons inspections again?

SDW: Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York voted in the affirmative on:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Source: Wikipedia.

jimmac, please: For your own sake, leave now. If you return, I don't see how any sane person that's read this could ever take the time to read another one of your posts again.

@_@ Artman

09-15-2007, 10:43 AM

I'll wait for your reply on the above question however I can site several examples of why things were better than the current situation ( or even before ) with Clinton if you'd like. Remember not perfect but better.

I don't get it. Bill Maher (noted left-wing dude) asked that question to a Democratic candidate in a way that should have made her examine how much of a fool she was. Brilliant question. Stupid answer.

You mean Gravel? No. The Mainstream media took care of him pretty quickly. But I had serious doubts after this campaign ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8) myself too (took guts to do it though). His explanation of "The Rock" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57GOsJNjRkY). The media made him out as a mean old man. I thought he had the most honest, forthright answers in all the debates. So did Paul and Kucinich...

Maybe you're right. Maybe Hillary would be just what we need. Hope that she can be elected for a third term, it'll take that long to get our country back to the sunshine and rainbows of the '90's.

shetline

09-15-2007, 11:31 AM

Be warned all. Her response will immediately make you cringe. I think she is a lizard. But they all fuck up. Are fucked up. Whatever. :\
Doesn't make me cringe at all. She sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Then again, perhaps I'm a lot more sympathetic to those who voted for the IWR because I certainly thought that upping the threat against Saddam was a good idea at the time. I understand that wanting to start a war and giving a President the authority to start one are two different things -- whereas a lot of the people who were vehemently antiwar from the start, with their "I was right all along!" pride greatly enhanced by the absolute fuck-up of historical portions that Bush created given that authority, can conveniently pretend there was no difference.

I certainly don't think that the mess was inevitable. A better planned and executed invasion might have worked out much, much better, certainly by the metric of what the people of Iraq suffered under Saddam.

I never fell for the BS of trying to link Saddam to 9/11. WMD didn't seem too likely either, but possible. Saddam was doing his best to play a game where he was both denying he had WMD, and then deliberately acting as if he had something to hide. But all in all, not being able to predict that if the authorization lead to an actual war (which I didn't consider likely at the time), it was hard to imagine that the results could be SO very fucked up that having Saddam still in power would be better.

As much as I always thought of Bush as a complete idiot, I never imagined the depths of the incompetence that the people he'd surrounded himself with were capable of. I think it was quite possible before the war started to be reasonably in favor of the IWR, and that "being fooled" in this one case hardly disqualifies you from being able to make smart decisions in the future. Some people had good reasons to be against the IWR too, but a lot of the anti-war sentiment wasn't a sign of great geopolitical intelligence, but knee-jerk pacifism that in this particular case just happened to turn out to be right.

jimmac

09-15-2007, 12:15 PM

Well..she does that laugh whenever she is uncomfortable. She was once asked on the radio if she ever did weed. She cackled and then tried to joke that host had "too much Pepsi for breakfast" or something. So he pressed her, and she gave a very questionable "No, and insert talking point].

That said, I thought Mahr's question was spot on...and funny. So I kind of took her laughter as somewhat genuine...like the "OMG he actually said that" laughter. But then when she portrayed her vote as a vote to restart inspections (in worse fashion than Kerry did, actually) and segued to her "wouldn't have voted for it" line, I almost puked.

I don't really get that analogy.

You're kidding, right? I hope so. The lefty bloggers...the REAL lefties...they are vitriolic. I mean really.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to give fair warning that I am about to finally prove, once and for all and unequivocally, that jimmac is a polarized partisan who doesn't have any grasp of facts whatsoever. In fact, this slamming will be so demonstrative of jimmac's aforementioned ignorance, he would do well to never post here in PO again afterwards.

Oh, how I have waited for this day. Let me savor this moment.

OK. I'm ready now. Everyone else ready? Ahem..... <sdw winds up and looks down at the helpless jimmac>

jimmac:

SDW: Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York voted in the affirmative on:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Source: Wikipedia.

jimmac, please: For your own sake, leave now. If you return, I don't see how any sane person that's read this could ever take the time to read another one of your posts again.

Why? Plenty of people still read yours don't they?:lol:

I knew it was time for the : Bizzaro Report!

" Make war not love! " :lol:

Even when you look at facts ( which isn't all that often ) you still only see what you want to see.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Oh, how I have waited for this day. Let me savor this moment. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how's it taste? Dining on something empty. Was it all you expected?

Whatever floats your boat SDW!

You'll still be at it when we're waving goodbye to Dubbya and his party of lackeys and henchmen for at least 4 years. And my guess is more like 8 or more! ;):lol:

@_@ Artman

09-15-2007, 08:08 PM

First it doesn't matter how you phrase that question. It's the same thing the rightwingers have been saying all along. Many good people went along with the idea that Bush was trying to scare us all with. One person who didn't was senator Byrd who was ridiculed not for what he was saying but because of his past. It's how these republican politicians operate. " Let's not talk about the current facts but let's bring up something irrelevent to distract from discussing the truth. That's why I say the republicans are better poilicians than the democrats. More polished. More nasty and dangerous.

Still have no clue what you are talking about. While Fox spoon feeds softball questions and kisses the asses of the republican douche-bags, a far left wing comedian throws a real hard one at a donkey and it rolls over. She said nothing different than her opponents (or really what her counterparts say all the time) which was vacuous and had no substance.

Artman, Can Gravel win?

Of course not! He's gotten shafted by the media, has no contributors (his coffer, last time I checked was about $100,000 maybe $50K now). He probably didn't have a chance. But I will give him credit for speaking the truth. But nobody wants to hear that anymore.

Face it. The electoral system, the two party system and the political process is shit. And in some ways it's all our fault. We have to wake up to these delusions.

But go ahead, vote for re-runs, nut-jobs and whatever. I am out of the grid. I'm not sure yet if I'm voting for anyone if things keep going downhill like this.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tr/2007/tr070915.gif

SDW2001

09-16-2007, 10:08 AM

Let's review:

jimmac: Do you have proof that she voted for something other than restarting the weapons inspections again?

SDW:

Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York voted in the affirmative on:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Really. Go away. You can't bullshit and insult your way through this one.

midwinter

09-16-2007, 10:51 AM

I don't really get that analogy.

You said

Repubs are better at rapid response.

And I said, basically, that that ain't saying much, considering how much the Dems suck at it.

jimmac

09-16-2007, 11:23 AM

Let's review:

jimmac:

SDW:

Really. Go away. You can't bullshit and insult your way through this one.

Sorry but you can focus on what ever you want. But I'm not going away.

Not until Bush is out of office and we have someone reasonable in there.

SDW2001

09-17-2007, 12:20 AM

Sorry but you can focus on what ever you want. But I'm not going away.

Not until Bush is out of office and we have someone reasonable in there.

You asked for proof. I gave it to you. Care to comment on THAT?

jimmac

09-17-2007, 01:29 AM

You asked for proof. I gave it to you. Care to comment on THAT?

Ok so she voted for the use of military force. We've been over that SDW.

You just want to see it your way and not consider any other way of looking at it. Why? Because it gives you an imagined leverage point for arguing against the democrats.

She voted for the war. Big deal. A lot of good people made that mistake.

But only one person started this.

SDW2001

09-18-2007, 11:31 PM

Ok so she voted for the use of military force. We've been over that SDW.
No, you liar. That is NOT what you said. You said "prove she voted for anything OTHER than UN weapons inspections!!!!

You just want to see it your way and not consider any other way of looking at it. Why? Because it gives you an imagined leverage point for arguing against the democrats.

I truly have no idea what that means.

She voted for the war. Big deal. A lot of good people made that mistake.

But only one person started this.

Big deal. BIG DEAL? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yes, it's a big deal. She not only voted for it, she argued actively for it. She did "her own research." Then all of a sudden she was tricked by Evil Genius Bush™. Of course, at the same time he is a moron.

And hasn't even apologized or admitted she made a mistake. I mean shit, at least Edwards did that. She literally cannot do it, because she is a goddamned robot ruled by raw political ambition.

Oh, and no...you can't excuse her vote and pin it all on Bush. She was as culpable as him. Nothing you say can change that.

Fellowship

09-18-2007, 11:45 PM

jimmac

09-19-2007, 08:55 AM

No, you liar. That is NOT what you said. You said "prove she voted for anything OTHER than UN weapons inspections!!!!

I truly have no idea what that means.

Big deal. BIG DEAL? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yes, it's a big deal. She not only voted for it, she argued actively for it. She did "her own research." Then all of a sudden she was tricked by Evil Genius Bush™. Of course, at the same time he is a moron.

And hasn't even apologized or admitted she made a mistake. I mean shit, at least Edwards did that. She literally cannot do it, because she is a goddamned robot ruled by raw political ambition.

Oh, and no...you can't excuse her vote and pin it all on Bush. She was as culpable as him. Nothing you say can change that.

You really think you have something there don't you.:no:

Back then I'm sure Bush had more credibility than he does now.;)

This really isn't that big of a point SDW. A lot of good people voted for the war that now regret it.

But that isn't why you're making such a big deal about it isn it?

I mean none of those others have a real chance to bump the republicans out of the Whithehouse.;)

And how does asking for proof make me a liar?:lol:

I'll have to add that to my list of names you've called people.

SDW2001

09-19-2007, 09:20 PM

You really think you have something there don't you.:no:. Yes, I have you. Dead to fucking rights.

Back then I'm sure Bush had more credibility than he does now.;)

Irrelevant to this discussion. She did her OWN research.

This really isn't that big of a point SDW. A lot of good people voted for the war that now regret it.

Then why doesn't she SAY SHE WAS WRONG? She doesn't. She hasn't. She won't.

But that isn't why you're making such a big deal about it isn it?

I mean none of those others have a real chance to bump the republicans out of the Whithehouse.;)

Actually, I just kinda hate her ;) Also, I really think that until I showed you her vote and what it was on, you really had convinced yourself she didn't enthusiastically vote for war...and argue for it.

And how does asking for proof make me a liar?:lol:

I'll have to add that to my list of names you've called people.

Predictable. It's not name calling when it's absolutely, 100% true. You said:

Ok so she voted for the use of military force. We've been over that SDW.

but before the point was:

Do you have proof that she voted for something other than restarting the weapons inspections again?

After you got owned, you realized you had to switch modes of argument. So you tried to state that the argument wasn't about proof at all. That sir, is a lie.

jimmac

09-20-2007, 09:43 AM

:lol:. Yes, I have you. Dead to fucking rights.

Irrelevant to this discussion. She did her OWN research.

Then why doesn't she SAY SHE WAS WRONG? She doesn't. She hasn't. She won't.

Actually, I just kinda hate her ;) Also, I really think that until I showed you her vote and what it was on, you really had convinced yourself she didn't enthusiastically vote for war...and argue for it.

Predictable. It's not name calling when it's absolutely, 100% true. You said:

but before the point was:

After you got owned, you realized you had to switch modes of argument. So you tried to state that the argument wasn't about proof at all. That sir, is a lie.

You really need to calm down. You sound kinda unhinged or maybe just rabid!

" Actually, I just kinda hate her "

So really anything she did you would condemn.

Sir I mearly asked for proof which you're trying ( desperately I might add ) to blow up into something else.

So you looked up that she voted for the war.

And?

What! A politician didn't admit they were wrong?!!!!

Say it's not true!

I asked a question and you provided an answer.

Does this make Hilary satan, a bad candidate, The same as Bush, the horrible slut person that you're trying sell on everyone?

Uh, no.

No I'm sorry but you really don't have anything so change the f#@*ing broken record.:rolleyes::no:

But thanks for the reference.

As far as owning me believe that if it makes you feel better.

SDW2001

09-21-2007, 08:56 PM

:lol:

You really need to calm down. You sound kinda unhinged or maybe just rabid!

" Actually, I just kinda hate her "

So really anything she did you would condemn.

Apparently you didn't see the " ;) " I posted. And you're telling ME to calm down?

Sir I mearly asked for proof which you're trying ( desperately I might add ) to blow up into something else.

So you looked up that she voted for the war.

And?

Bullshit. This is not some numerical or obscure assertion here jimmac. Your statement clearly implied it was your opinion she did NOT vote for "anything other than weapons inspections." This was beyond ignorant. You were owned. Period.

What! A politician didn't admit they were wrong?!!!!

Say it's not true!

Funny...John Edwards did. John Kerry did. Interesting, no?

I asked a question and you provided an answer.

Yes, one that showed how ignorant you actually are once and for all.

Does this make Hilary satan, a bad candidate, The same as Bush, the horrible slut person that you're trying sell on everyone?

It makes her a flip flopping, intellectually dishonest political whore. I don't know about Satan.

Uh, no.

No I'm sorry but you really don't have anything so change the f#@*ing broken record.:rolleyes::no:

But thanks for the reference.

As far as owning me believe that if it makes you feel better.

Hmm...who is testy now? Seems jimmac doesn't like getting *&*@$%#'ed once and for all. Hmmm?

jimmac

09-22-2007, 10:25 AM

Apparently you didn't see the " ;) " I posted. And you're telling ME to calm down?

Bullshit. This is not some numerical or obscure assertion here jimmac. Your statement clearly implied it was your opinion she did NOT vote for "anything other than weapons inspections." This was beyond ignorant. You were owned. Period.

Funny...John Edwards did. John Kerry did. Interesting, no?

Yes, one that showed how ignorant you actually are once and for all.

It makes her a flip flopping, intellectually dishonest political whore. I don't know about Satan.

Hmm...who is testy now? Seems jimmac doesn't like getting *&*@$%#'ed once and for all. Hmmm?

Ok so you don't really have much left and you're clinging to this lame line of reasoning because.......well it's all you got. Yeah, I can see that.;)

We've already been all over the untruths that Bush spreads so I guess there's really no point in going over that again.;)

As they're taking you away kicking and screaming to the funny farm in a straight jacket you'll be saying over and over again " He was owned! He was owned! ":lol:

jimmac

09-22-2007, 10:29 AM

Clinton votes for war / Bush wants war yada yada yada argument disagree fuss cry call names use bold type font etc. etc.

Left and Right wings of the same freaking bird... When will it sink in?

Fellows

Well that's almost the whole truth.

One wing ( and especially right now ) is a lot worse than the other. And 2 wings are all we've got right now that work. So what are you going to do? Let the right wing take over everything? That would be a flightless bird.

SDW2001

09-22-2007, 11:51 AM

Well that's almost the whole truth.

One wing ( and especially right now ) is a lot worse than the other. And 2 wings are all we've got right now that work. So what are you going to do? Let the right wing take over everything? That would be a flightless bird.

:lol:

jimmac

09-22-2007, 01:53 PM

:lol:

There he is folks! Laughing as they're draging him away!:lol:

Here's a little taste of the future SDW.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/senate.2008/index.html

" Numbers give Democrats edge in 2008 "

From the article :

" It's not only the numbers that are stacking up against Republicans.

"You've got an unpopular war, an unpopular president and an overwhelming desire for change. And in a presidential year, the incumbent president's party defines the status quo," Schneider said.

Also hurting Republican candidates are the scandals involving and investigations into into several of their colleagues. Democrats coined the "culture of corruption" slogan last year, and it was one of the minor factors that helped them wrestle control of the House and Senate from Republicans. They are hoping that strategy works again in 2008.

The recent sex scandal involving Sen. Larry Craig should not hurt the GOP's chances of holding on to that seat in 2008 if the Idaho Republican does resign from office at the end of the month as he has said he will. At the least, though, the controversy over his arrest in a Minneapolis airport restroom and subsequent guilty plea won't help his party.

In most national polls, only around a quarter of Americans think the Democrat-controlled Congress is doing a good job. While that would appear bad news for Democrats, half of those responding to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said the policies of Democrats in Congress would move the country in the right direction while only 34 percent said Bush's policies would. "

;)

SDW2001

09-23-2007, 06:49 PM

There he is folks! Laughing as they're draging him away!:lol:

Here's a little taste of the future SDW.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/senate.2008/index.html

" Numbers give Democrats edge in 2008 "

From the article :

" It's not only the numbers that are stacking up against Republicans.

"You've got an unpopular war, an unpopular president and an overwhelming desire for change. And in a presidential year, the incumbent president's party defines the status quo," Schneider said.

Also hurting Republican candidates are the scandals involving and investigations into into several of their colleagues. Democrats coined the "culture of corruption" slogan last year, and it was one of the minor factors that helped them wrestle control of the House and Senate from Republicans. They are hoping that strategy works again in 2008.

The recent sex scandal involving Sen. Larry Craig should not hurt the GOP's chances of holding on to that seat in 2008 if the Idaho Republican does resign from office at the end of the month as he has said he will. At the least, though, the controversy over his arrest in a Minneapolis airport restroom and subsequent guilty plea won't help his party.

In most national polls, only around a quarter of Americans think the Democrat-controlled Congress is doing a good job. While that would appear bad news for Democrats, half of those responding to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said the policies of Democrats in Congress would move the country in the right direction while only 34 percent said Bush's policies would. "

;)

Excellent try, jimmac. But I'm afraid we're not moving on:

Question: Did you know that Hillary Clinton voted for "something other than weapons inspections" before you asked me for "proof" that she did? A yes or no answer will suffice. In fact, only a yes or no will do.

jimmac

09-23-2007, 07:58 PM

Excellent try, jimmac. But I'm afraid we're not moving on:

Question: Did you know that Hillary Clinton voted for "something other than weapons inspections" before you asked me for "proof" that she did? A yes or no answer will suffice. In fact, only a yes or no will do.

I wanted confirmation. You did the work for me.

Thanks.

SDW I really don't care what you want to make out of this.

Bush is still going down.

Bush is still guilty of all the things I've said about him.

You've still been wrong about a great many things.

I believe there's an excellent chance that Hilary will be the next president.

I believe that we will at the very least have a greatly reduced role in Iraq ( like she said today on " Meet The Press " ).

She also said in reply to the voting question that she did vote for military action in Iraq but would not do so today after what she now knows.

So there you go.

Northgate

09-23-2007, 08:05 PM

jimmac

09-24-2007, 09:44 AM

midwinter

09-24-2007, 10:33 AM

trumptman

09-24-2007, 11:05 AM

I find it utterly amazing that we have two threads side by side. In one thread you have the usual Republican suspects turning red face and nearly spitting in anger over a pun in a newspaper ad. And these very same folks are in this forum shrugging their shoulders and using the "precedent" excuse for Boehner's remarks.

Wow. :no::no:

Really I see that quite differently. I see two threads where in one the Democratic suspects are turning red in the face over a war casualty rate that is likely the lowest ever recorded for the type and length of engagement we have undertaken.

In the second thread I see Democrats shrugging off clear attacks on military personnel made at discount rates to a PAC. Even if they don't believe it an attack or think it a free speech matter, they should still express concern over subsidized political speech which represents a political contribution and demands, by their own reasoning, a quip pro quo return later on. If they didn't believe this then we wouldn't have the need to keep out big money.

Oh, no. See, it makes perfect sense. See, everything Democrats do is wrong, anti-American, and anti-troop. Except Joe Lieberman. Except when he's the VP candidate. In contrast, everything Republicans do is noble, good, pro-America, and pro-troop.

See? It's simple. That's how Pat Peale

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/169_bandaid.jpg

and many, many others at the Republican National Convention can wear a purple heart band-aid mocking the three purple hearts of John Kerry's as not being significant enough to merit respect. You see, when Kerry earned those purple hearts, he was a Democrat, which means that he earned those purple hearts in order to destroy America.

You know Mid, you've pulled that picture out a few times and I'm going to have to call you on it.

National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp)

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.

That is the incident that the convention banda-aids address. You also make it sound like an action instead of a reaction. Kerry opened his convention speech with the words, "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty," while saluting.

The reality is he had baseless grounds for most of his atrocity claims. The reality is he tried to run as both a war hero and a war demonstrator at the same time. The reality is that when you stab enough of your fellow military members in the back to advance yourself, they are going to show up when you are going for the golden ring.

Nick

midwinter

09-24-2007, 11:14 AM

That is the incident that the convention banda-aids address. You also make it sound like an action instead of a reaction. Kerry opened his convention speech with the words, "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty," while saluting.

Putting aside the fact that Kerry ran a shitty campaign, I make nothing sound like anything here other than that a man had purple hearts and the delegates at the RNC had the temerity to mock him by wearing a band-aid—while claiming to support troops.

The reality is he had baseless grounds for most of his atrocity claims. The reality is he tried to run as both a war hero and a war demonstrator at the same time. The reality is that when you stab enough of your fellow military members in the back to advance yourself, they are going to show up when you are going for the golden ring.

The reality is that that was a description of one of his THREE purple hearts. But for you guys, they weren't the RIGHT kind of purple hearts. Republicans, apparently, get special purple hearts. And they certainly get passes when they mock decorated members of the military at an event where they are screaming about how much the love their troops—just look at all those yellow ribbon magnets on their SUVs!

This isn't about Kerry's campaign, Nick. This is about the delegates who had no problem whatsoever mocking a purple heart. Period.

trumptman

09-24-2007, 11:54 AM

Putting aside the fact that Kerry ran a shitty campaign, I make nothing sound like anything here other than that a man had purple hearts and the delegates at the RNC had the temerity to mock him by wearing a band-aid—while claiming to support troops.

It isn't okay to put it aside. These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The reality is that Kerry was portraying himself as a war hero and those he served with, who commanded him, and who treated him felt the need to set the facts straight. The RNC mocked him in no fashion other than demonstrating the exact treatment of one of his purple hearts. There was no extra hyperbole. They wore exactly what he wore.

Also Kerry condemned the troops and their actions and has done so multiple times. He accused them of atrocities and then wonders why someone might note the very short length of his tour due to band-aid purple hearts. Again these are reactions. We have to consider them in the context of the action. You can't just say, ignore what Kerry did and just look at the reaction.

The reality is that that was a description of one of his THREE purple hearts. But for you guys, they weren't the RIGHT kind of purple hearts. Republicans, apparently, get special purple hearts. And they certainly get passes when they mock decorated members of the military at an event where they are screaming about how much the love their troops—just look at all those yellow ribbon magnets on their SUVs!

This isn't about Kerry's campaign, Nick. This is about the delegates who had no problem whatsoever mocking a purple heart. Period.

They were the right kind of purple hearts to get Kerry out of Vietnam and back to the shores of the United States where he could condemn and accuse his fellow soldiers of all manner of crimes. The people who came after Kerry had been following him around and pointing out the true history against his spin and party has nothing to do with that. When you can find 20+ year old video responses of the same man answering to the same Kerry claims, it isn't just about Republicans, Bush and that election.

Also again, reaction, you make it sound as if the Democrats, for two election cycles had not been digging into Bush's National Guard service and attempting to make it into something. You reap what you sow. You claim someone is an idiot, expect the "idiot" to go pull your own test scores and grade and when he does, you had better hope you scored high than the man you are declaring to be an idiot. Call someone a coward who escaped duty, you had better hope you don't have lengthy video of you taken where you called soldiers basically evil criminals, where you somehow got out of active duty in four months in part because of a piece of metal with a band-aid on it.

It is sort of like how when you save the planet from the confines of your super-mansion with three, thirty inch Apple displays and traveling around in gulf jets to $25,000 per person speaking engagements, someone might question the truthiness of your claims.

This isn't about Kerry's campaign, Nick. This is about the delegates who had no problem whatsoever mocking a purple heart. Period.

So where are the purple heart band-aids now that Kerry isn't around? You claim it was generalized instead of personalized. Shouldn't the purple heart band-aids still be showing up? I still see the yellow ribbon magnets on the SUV's so where are the purple heart band-aids?

Nick

Northgate

09-24-2007, 01:27 PM

Democrats had every right to dig into Bush's abysmal TANG records. Particularly the mysteriously missing ones.

You can't run an ENTIRE campaign on "national security" and not have your credentials examined.

In your opinion Kerry got what he deserved and Bush got railroaded. And because of the Swift Boat Thugs we had a nation "discussion" about Kerry's record.

Too bad we didn't have a discussion about Bush's. Instead we had a discussion about Dan Rather.

trumptman

09-24-2007, 02:13 PM

addabox

09-24-2007, 05:25 PM

Oh, no. See, it makes perfect sense. See, everything Democrats do is wrong, anti-American, and anti-troop. Except Joe Lieberman. Except when he's the VP candidate. In contrast, everything Republicans do is noble, good, pro-America, and pro-troop.

See? It's simple. That's how Pat Peale

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/169_bandaid.jpg

and many, many others at the Republican National Convention can wear a purple heart band-aid mocking the three purple hearts of John Kerry's as not being significant enough to merit respect. You see, when Kerry earned those purple hearts, he was a Democrat, which means that he earned those purple hearts in order to destroy America.

Conversely, Boehner can refer to the nearly 4000 dead as a "small sacrifice" because he is noble, good, honest, pro-America, and pro-troop.

Try it with me:

Hillary Clinton goes to visit troops in Iraq? Self-aggrandizing political stunt in furtherance of her plan to destroy America and hand over sovereignty to the UN and the liberal French, as soon as the French elect a liberal.

Mitt Romney goes to visit troops in Iraq? Further evidence of his deep and sincere concern for the troopy-woopies.

It fits all sizes!

As Trumpt's subsequent posts make clear, when you point out this pattern the right just insists that it's all objectively true.

The fact that all the current and former military personal who are Democrats just happen to be traitors is just a testament to the potent horribleness of liberalism, as is the fact that they only ever field candidates that are sort of fags (or, in Hillary's case, a castrating dyke).

No crudely applied mythology there, certainly, just good old honest facts.

Northgate

09-24-2007, 07:25 PM

I never said Bush got railroaded. I said you reap what you sow. You want to dig into the lives of someone from 40 years ago, it is going to go both ways.

Also I find it ironic that you make the discussion about Dan Rather and his fake news a Republican attack instead of proof that there are no limits to the media aiding and abetting the candidate they desire to see win.

Nick

But it didn't go both ways, did it? It only went one way.

Whether or not CBS got caught with a document that wasn't thoroughly vetted is one thing. But to say the entire story about Bush's records and their disappearance is "fake" because of bad reporting is disingenuous at best.

trumptman

09-24-2007, 08:43 PM

But it didn't go both ways, did it? It only went one way.

Whether or not CBS got caught with a document that wasn't thoroughly vetted is one thing. But to say the entire story about Bush's records and their disappearance is "fake" because of bad reporting is disingenuous at best.

You do know what you call an assertion with no evidence don't you?

CBS didn't get caught with a document that wasn't just thoroughly vetted. It was faked. It wasn't even faked in a clever way. They went along so easily with it because, much as you and Adda like to point out, it fit the narrative they already had in their little minds.

Now let's be fair for a second, suppose Bush actually did go completely AWOL, suppose they had been chasing the story for multiple years and it was the gotcha they so desperately wanted.

How again does this make wearing a band-aid representing the scratch for Purple Heart Kerry received not become a REACTION to years of such actions being put forth on the other side?

This is why I said to Mid, we can't just put it aside. You have one side doggedly pursuing, even to the point of being willing to present faked documents from a dead man, a story for years, while having the candidate himself declare that he is a war hero and "reporting for duty" and geesh out of NOWHERE, you have the other side decide to look into the past of Mr. Kerry himself and use a 527 to publicize their results.

I mean really what sort of forehead slap does it take to realize that one brought about the other.

More incredible is the leftist side hates the fact that such "tactics" were used when it was their modus operandi the entire time. Bush is an idiot. (He grades were similar and his military test scores higher than Kerry) Bush is AWOL. (Kerry used a scratch to get out of Vietnam in four months and then instead of possibly partying for a year, spent his time declaring everyone left behind was committing atrocities.)

Oh yeah and on the topic of the thread, we can note the words "small price" but ignore Obama saying that a little genocide is a good thing.

Nick

SDW2001

09-24-2007, 08:51 PM

I wanted confirmation. You did the work for me.

Thanks.

You didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not know she voted for "something other than weapons inspections." Yes or no. None of this "I wanted confirmation" shit. Yes or no. You either knew or you didn't.

SDW I really don't care what you want to make out of this.

I don't believe you.

Bush is still going down.

I cannot possibly imagine what that means.

Bush is still guilty of all the things I've said about him.

Translation: "I was right because I say I am right just like I've always said I'm right. Always."

You've still been wrong about a great many things.

Such as? Tell ya what...I'l get you started: I was wrong that there were WMD in Iraq. I, and most of the world was wrong about that. The difference between you and me is that I can admit when I've been wrong about something.

I believe there's an excellent chance that Hilary will be the next president.

Or, maybe Hillary will win. Hmm. Seriously, I think there is some chance. I wouldn't say "excellent" based in the polling data and her negative numbers.

I believe that we will at the very least have a greatly reduced role in Iraq ( like she said today on " Meet The Press " ).

As in "less of a role than we would have had with a Republican?" You're kidding yourself.

She also said in reply to the voting question that she did vote for military action in Iraq but would not do so today after what she now knows.

So there you go.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

AWESOME! I love that you repeated that ridiculous answer/talking point of hers. Kudos! The fact that you actually find that to be an acceptable answer just cracks me up. It truly does. She has not admitted she was wrong. Yet, she did her own research.

So, what she's saying is that if she realized how wrong she was at the time, she never would have voted that way. I see. I find it truly amazing how good liberals like yourself can just shamelessly revise history without a second thought, to make people like HRC seem like they are not intellectually dishonest, political whores driven by raw and unmitigated political ambition and nothing else.

She voted for it. She argued for it. She supported it. Now she's against it. Except she's not really....just kind of against it...well, sort of in the sense that she would reduce our presence...but not too much...but enough to be effective....and be safe...and tough....and to correct the Mistakes of This Administration™ and This President™. Or something like that.

midwinter

09-24-2007, 09:15 PM

It isn't okay to put it aside. These things don't just happen in a vacuum. The reality is that Kerry was portraying himself as a war hero and those he served with, who commanded him, and who treated him felt the need to set the facts straight.

By mocking the purple heart. Nice of them. Very touching. I say again: his purple heart wasn't good enough for them, and would never be good enough for them, because he's an America-hating democrat who hated the troops even when he was one. And the delegates at the RNC showed their support of the troops by mocking a soldier who'd received a purple heart.

The RNC mocked him in no fashion other than demonstrating the exact treatment of one of his purple hearts. There was no extra hyperbole. They wore exactly what he wore.

I'm sorry? He didn't get a purple heart? He got a band-aid with a purple heart on it? They mocked his purple heart. Period. It wasn't good enough for them. Democrats don't get the right kind of purple hearts, and anyone who doubts that clearly hates the troops.

Also Kerry condemned the troops and their actions and has done so multiple times. He accused them of atrocities and then wonders why someone might note the very short length of his tour due to band-aid purple hearts.

And again. It's not a purple heart. It's not THREE purple hearts. It's "band-aid purple hearts." What's next? severe cut purple hearts? "Oh, he's just got a missing index-finger purple heart. It doesn't really count unless, well, we say it does."

Again these are reactions. We have to consider them in the context of the action. You can't just say, ignore what Kerry did and just look at the reaction.

I'm sorry? Whether or not we mock his purple heart is dependant upon the context? Because, you know, sometimes, it's just totally OK to mock people who got purple hearts. I know I mock WW2 vets all the time if I don't think their wounds were significant enough. I just go to nursing homes and start offering to put band-aids on their boo-boos. Greatest generation, my ass. If they'd have shut up about it, I wouldn't mock them, you see.

They were the right kind of purple hearts to get Kerry out of Vietnam and back to the shores of the United States where he could condemn and accuse his fellow soldiers of all manner of crimes.

I'm sorry? He got some kind of special "go home and attack the troops" purple heart now? Is there a "go home and live a life of quiet desperation" purple heart? Is there a "go home and lose all your money in a gambling addiction" purple heart? Maybe, Nick, just maybe, the RNC should establish a committee to determine whether or not politicians are hurt badly enough to deserve a purple heart? Or maybe the GOP could just give out its own purple hearts?

So where are the purple heart band-aids now that Kerry isn't around?

Did you really just ask that? Jesus, Nick. It was a campaign. I mean, it's notlike anyone still talks about this:

http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/bush_flightsuit.jpg

You claim it was generalized instead of personalized.

I did? I claimed that you can't mock one soldier's purple heart and then turn around and say "Oh, no. I was totally just mocking his purple heart. I didn't mean to mock anyone else's. Just that one purple heart, and not his other two. Because it wasn't good enough, you see. For my, um, fat ass."

jimmac

09-24-2007, 10:12 PM

You didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not know she voted for "something other than weapons inspections." Yes or no. None of this "I wanted confirmation" shit. Yes or no. You either knew or you didn't.

I don't believe you.

I cannot possibly imagine what that means.

Translation: "I was right because I say I am right just like I've always said I'm right. Always."

Such as? Tell ya what...I'l get you started: I was wrong that there were WMD in Iraq. I, and most of the world was wrong about that. The difference between you and me is that I can admit when I've been wrong about something.

Or, maybe Hillary will win. Hmm. Seriously, I think there is some chance. I wouldn't say "excellent" based in the polling data and her negative numbers.

As in "less of a role than we would have had with a Republican?" You're kidding yourself.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

AWESOME! I love that you repeated that ridiculous answer/talking point of hers. Kudos! The fact that you actually find that to be an acceptable answer just cracks me up. It truly does. She has not admitted she was wrong. Yet, she did her own research.

So, what she's saying is that if she realized how wrong she was at the time, she never would have voted that way. I see. I find it truly amazing how good liberals like yourself can just shamelessly revise history without a second thought, to make people like HRC seem like they are not intellectually dishonest, political whores driven by raw and unmitigated political ambition and nothing else.

She voted for it. She argued for it. She supported it. Now she's against it. Except she's not really....just kind of against it...well, sort of in the sense that she would reduce our presence...but not too much...but enough to be effective....and be safe...and tough....and to correct the Mistakes of This Administration™ and This President™. Or something like that.

You really are starting to sound silly harping on this like you do.

I realize this is all you've got but geez!:no:

By the way has Bush admitted he's wrong?

trumptman

09-24-2007, 11:15 PM

By mocking the purple heart. Nice of them. Very touching. I say again: his purple heart wasn't good enough for them, and would never be good enough for them, because he's an America-hating democrat who hated the troops even when he was one. And the delegates at the RNC showed their support of the troops by mocking a soldier who'd received a purple heart.

Sorry, but when you put yourself in the position to judge others, you better have your own credentials in check before you open your mouth. Kerry felt fit to judge his fellow soldiers, his commander-in-chief and just about anyone and everyone. They pushed back.

I'm sorry? He didn't get a purple heart? He got a band-aid with a purple heart on it? They mocked his purple heart. Period. It wasn't good enough for them. Democrats don't get the right kind of purple hearts, and anyone who doubts that clearly hates the troops.

The people in charge of him and who treated him also mocked his purple heart. One claimed he had gotten worse scratches from trimming his roses.

And again. It's not a purple heart. It's not THREE purple hearts. It's "band-aid purple hearts." What's next? severe cut purple hearts? "Oh, he's just got a missing index-finger purple heart. It doesn't really count unless, well, we say it does."

I'm sure if the RNC begins cutting off their index fingers or severely cutting themselves so they can place band-aids with purple hearts over those wounds, you won't be shedding any tears.

I'm sorry? Whether or not we mock his purple heart is dependant upon the context? Because, you know, sometimes, it's just totally OK to mock people who got purple hearts. I know I mock WW2 vets all the time if I don't think their wounds were significant enough. I just go to nursing homes and start offering to put band-aids on their boo-boos. Greatest generation, my ass. If they'd have shut up about it, I wouldn't mock them, you see.

You're supposed to buy me a drink when you mix the sarcasm that strong.

Yes, context matters. You find me the member of that generation who acted as Kerry did and we can examine how he or she has been treated.

'm sorry? He got some kind of special "go home and attack the troops" purple heart now? Is there a "go home and live a life of quiet desperation" purple heart? Is there a "go home and lose all your money in a gambling addiction" purple heart? Maybe, Nick, just maybe, the RNC should establish a committee to determine whether or not politicians are hurt badly enough to deserve a purple heart? Or maybe the GOP could just give out its own purple hearts?

I find it strange that these damaged and defenseless people you mention are the very ones Kerry exploited to become elected to office. Maybe instead of ranting about purple hearts, you should see the sick irony of that.

Did you really just ask that? Jesus, Nick. It was a campaign. I mean, it's notlike anyone still talks about this:

I think I see the words "Mission Accomplished" bantered about regularly.

did? I claimed that you can't mock one soldier's purple heart and then turn around and say "Oh, no. I was totally just mocking his purple heart. I didn't mean to mock anyone else's. Just that one purple heart, and not his other two. Because it wasn't good enough, you see. For my, um, fat ass."

Were there other soldiers decrying what happened at the Republican Convention? If you link, I will read.

Nick

jimmac

09-28-2007, 09:54 AM

You didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not know she voted for "something other than weapons inspections." Yes or no. None of this "I wanted confirmation" shit. Yes or no. You either knew or you didn't.

I don't believe you.

I cannot possibly imagine what that means.

Translation: "I was right because I say I am right just like I've always said I'm right. Always."

Such as? Tell ya what...I'l get you started: I was wrong that there were WMD in Iraq. I, and most of the world was wrong about that. The difference between you and me is that I can admit when I've been wrong about something.

Or, maybe Hillary will win. Hmm. Seriously, I think there is some chance. I wouldn't say "excellent" based in the polling data and her negative numbers.

As in "less of a role than we would have had with a Republican?" You're kidding yourself.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

AWESOME! I love that you repeated that ridiculous answer/talking point of hers. Kudos! The fact that you actually find that to be an acceptable answer just cracks me up. It truly does. She has not admitted she was wrong. Yet, she did her own research.

So, what she's saying is that if she realized how wrong she was at the time, she never would have voted that way. I see. I find it truly amazing how good liberals like yourself can just shamelessly revise history without a second thought, to make people like HRC seem like they are not intellectually dishonest, political whores driven by raw and unmitigated political ambition and nothing else.

She voted for it. She argued for it. She supported it. Now she's against it. Except she's not really....just kind of against it...well, sort of in the sense that she would reduce our presence...but not too much...but enough to be effective....and be safe...and tough....and to correct the Mistakes of This Administration™ and This President™. Or something like that.

Well you know about this all I have to say is" Where's the WMD SDW?

That pretty much calls into question sooooooo many things that all of petty attacks toward Hilary Clinton go in the toilet.

But of course you'll never really consider that in a realistic light will you?

However the american voting public will next time.;)

jimmac

09-28-2007, 09:56 AM

You didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not know she voted for "something other than weapons inspections." Yes or no. None of this "I wanted confirmation" shit. Yes or no. You either knew or you didn't.

I don't believe you.

I cannot possibly imagine what that means.

Translation: "I was right because I say I am right just like I've always said I'm right. Always."

Such as? Tell ya what...I'l get you started: I was wrong that there were WMD in Iraq. I, and most of the world was wrong about that. The difference between you and me is that I can admit when I've been wrong about something.

Or, maybe Hillary will win. Hmm. Seriously, I think there is some chance. I wouldn't say "excellent" based in the polling data and her negative numbers.

As in "less of a role than we would have had with a Republican?" You're kidding yourself.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

AWESOME! I love that you repeated that ridiculous answer/talking point of hers. Kudos! The fact that you actually find that to be an acceptable answer just cracks me up. It truly does. She has not admitted she was wrong. Yet, she did her own research.

So, what she's saying is that if she realized how wrong she was at the time, she never would have voted that way. I see. I find it truly amazing how good liberals like yourself can just shamelessly revise history without a second thought, to make people like HRC seem like they are not intellectually dishonest, political whores driven by raw and unmitigated political ambition and nothing else.

She voted for it. She argued for it. She supported it. Now she's against it. Except she's not really....just kind of against it...well, sort of in the sense that she would reduce our presence...but not too much...but enough to be effective....and be safe...and tough....and to correct the Mistakes of This Administration™ and This President™. Or something like that.

Well you know about this all I have to say is" Where's the WMD SDW?

That pretty much calls into question sooooooo many things that all of your petty attacks toward Clinton go in the toilet.

But of course you'll never really consider that in a realistic light will you?

However the american voting public will next time.;)

I'm not always right but I am about this.

Their eyes are open this time and they're tired of the republicans and this stupid war.