Is Hillary Melting Down? - Page 5

So they are to be believed when they are giving him positive evaluations and medals for committing atrocities such as they were doing. Committing atrocities like them makes him a war hero. The liars proved it by giving him what they gave all the other war criminals.

They are to be disbelieved when they say he is lying about atrocities and when they judge him as unfit for command because of alleging such things, separate from his military performance. They are also not to be believed since they are war criminals who committed atrocities and who will lie to cover it up, unless of course they are talking about Kerry being a war hero... at commiting atrocities... or something like that.

When he runs on the medals and declares himself a war hero, we should believe this to be true because those medals were given to him by people committing war crimes who would lie to cover it up and who gave him medals for committing similar actions as this. This would again make him a... um... a very good commander-in-chief?

That is some wonderful twisting there Tonton.

I'm smart enough to know that you have some very strangely politically expedient reasoning.


I think we should rename the thread BRussell is Melting Down. Your refutation amounts to a few disputed facts and then attacking the messenger.

Yes and that is one of several claims in the ad. They also said he lied before the Senate. He was not honest about what happened in Vietnam, etc.


Yes and many of those testifying were found to be fabricating not only the claims, but their ranks, that they served at all, etc. He did much more than testify as well. He joined VVAW and also wrote a book, The New Soldier. All these actions are part of why John Oneill was wandering around debating him in 1971 instead of magically conjuring SwiftBoat Vets out of the air as a dirty trick in 2004 as you believe.


You aren't getting anything from me because you are ranting in a circle with about the medals while failing to address my specific points made about Kerry in other areas. You've ignored the fact that he opted out of active duty in Vietnam to return home become an aide and begin alleging atrocities. You've not addressed it even once. You've not addressed how he made it a central point of his campaign and how pushing back against that and refuting it is not a dirty trick. (Unless you believe as you do that Republicans are just evil and shouldn't be allowed to campaign.) So you aren't getting anything from me. You are hung up about the medals and can't even move beyond it even though every post I have made has attempted to get back to the thread topic, Clinton.


Well I suppose when the heavily partisan and Republican funded Lesbians for Feminist Truth comes forward and alleges such things against Hillary, you will have a point. Since that won't happen I can presume you are full of poop. Hillary is running as the most experienced candidate when clearly she is not. There will be kool-aid drinkers defending her declaring that all that first lady experience amounts to the same thing as elected office and Republicans pointing it out, just as you now point it out, will be knocked as liars committing dirty tricks to keep her out of office.

Hell Clinton has already tossed people from her campaign for making note of Obama doing (or possibly selling) drugs and being Muslim, but even though it came from her campaign and she dismissed the people, it is really REPUBLICAN dirty tricks. Clinton has the most mysterious win in New Hampshire I have ever seen and of course it is REPUBLICAN dirty tricks that made her win via voter fraud.

Keep drinking that kool-aid. Keep getting the wrong thing from me and missing the point. I would say keep losing elections but Hillary is likely too good to do that.

Why do I get the feeling that someone is MIA in another thread they started with respect to the aforementioned lie?

Care to substantiate the above allegation with some FACTS?

Remember, thinking about voting for someone, isn't the same as actually voting for someone!

Are you trying to "Swift Boat" HRC?

It sure looks that way from my POV, ah, where do I sign the affidavit?

And then?

You've got to stop using this combination of underline and bold, brah. You need to go to forum formattingaholics anonymous.

BRussell, I think you're forgetting that Kerry won his first Purple Heart for a "boo-boo" and "without shots".

The actions of these people, and the actions of those who helped spread their lies, are as utterly contemptible today as they were then.

... because it's NOT in my nature to play by other people's rulez!

Also, why have bold, italics, underline, and all the other formatting tools to begin with anyway?

It's called punch, flail away, be my guest, it's all water off a duck's back from my POV, you'll never see me in charm school, ever.

He didn't go to Vietnam though. What's your point? Kerry went and whether if he was in the shit or working a desk job, he still went. More than I can say for Chimpy McFlightsuit or Dick Cheney for that matter.

Don't you love how soldiers and veterans are supposed to be treated with extreme honor and dignity, according to Republicans. Soldier's, as we've learned from the right, are also extremely emotional about criticism and open discussion about war policy.

Unless, of course, you're a f*cking Democratic veteran running for office. Then you're got it coming. And if you won any Purple Hearts, a double f*ck you!!!

2004 has called and wants it's attempt to derail this thread back.

For those of us living in 2008, that right-wing rag, Slate, notes that faulty premise the Clinton campaign is built on. Experience is not one of Hillary's assets it notes and again, anyone who points it out won't be engaging in dirty tricks. Hillary is running on a false premise.


The chilling conclusion...

Slate is right of course. To me it feels like both parties have not been grooming candidates to run for president.

Hillary basically has no experience. She worked in a private law firm when her husband was governor. Then she was first lady and botched health care. They she was chauffeured to New York where she couldn't lose. She did good work in the Senate but ... didn't set the place on fire. Now her husband's supporters are putting her up for president. "HIllary smile, Hillary wave, Hillary cry."


Contrast that with Obama. Pounded nails in the community and then went to state legislature. From there he ran and won the Senate in his home state without the aid of his ex-president husband. Illinois is not an easy state to win in. His senate record is lacking because he's running too soon. He should go be governor for 8 years and then BOOM President Obama!

Richardson has way more experience than Hillary.

McCain would rip her apart too. His shady past isn't as detrimental as Hillary's is. Better hope Huckabee wins the nomination.

Right. And George W. was the bastion of experience before taking the job. LOL

Exactly. Look where we are now! If Gore and Kerry weren't such bad candidates we'd be in a better spot now.

The fellow soldiers associated with George W. Bush, Karl Rove and other connections?

Ok, I'm not trying to start up another swiftboat argument. The evidence shows that after the elections, it didn't matter to you or the public anymore whether the soldiers associated with this smear campaign recanted or were revealed to whom they really stood for. this is not in defense of Kerry either, he would not have made any difference if he was elected anyway. Just get the record straight.


His governorship? His executive experience? You are very funny sometimes.

Look I'll try one more time.

The difference here is one of these guys is actually the president.
Who I think should be scrutinized closer than anyone since he controls so much power.

I think it's safe to say now that Kerry will never be president after much character assassination so it's a moot point.

Things will be different this time around as much of Bush's little mistakes are coming to the surface with greater frequency. Now I'm sure you'll say " What are you talking about? " " I don't understand " or " Bush isn't running this time ". That's ok because the rest of the world does understand.

It doesn't matter that Obama has no executive experience or that you think Ms. Clinton is the devil. The fact of the matter is that this time the republicans have made their own bed for many years and now will have to sleep in it. At the head of this is Mr. Bush himself.

The next president will not be a republican. And that's just the way it is.

And if you want someone to blame I suggest you look in the mirror. Because you reflect the same attitude that got them where they are today.

So it really doesn't matter if you, someone else on this forum, or on Fox News tries digging up some controversy about a democratic candidate. In this particular case the future is already written.

I don't mean this to offend. It's just the way things are.

Also it's really ok to have your opinions. It's a free country and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's just when we get a leader who has them that controls so much of our future it then becomes serious business.

These are just the facts.

I've read and watched the antics from several characters on this forum ( excusing what we've had that passes for a president ) for many years and now that it's almost over I felt compelled to say this.

Now you can accuse me of rambling or whatever and we can return to our regular debate now in progress.

Agreed, but you do know that Obama has a real degree from Harvard, right? I want Obama to go be governor of Illinois. I want the Dem's to start thinking NOW! about who they want to run in 20012 or 20016.


Please don't try to defend George. It's just makes you look bad, I mean worse.

... but GWB didn't know a bloody thing. Sod 'executive experience.' Do you think Obama can name the president of India or Pakistan, SDW? And while I'm at it, big up GWB's love of the democratic process.

Remember this interview in 1999 with a US TV interview called Hiller?

Bush: "The new Pakistani General, he's just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub- continent."

Hiller: "And you can name him?"

Bush: "General. I can name the general."

Hiller: "And it's . . ?

Bush: "General."

Hiller: "And the Prime Minister of India?"

Bush: "The new Prime Minister of India is - (pause) No."

To which George W. Bush retorted with a question to Andy Hiller:

Bush: "Can you name the Foreign Minister of Mexico?"

Hiller: "No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for President."

I hate how clueless my fellow republicans are.

Kerry volunteered from a safe berth in a DD to a 50 foot long boat that gets shot at from close range. I don't give a shit why he volunteered...that's still a lot more than what Bush or Cheney did. Serve in a war zone while a war is going on.

It's like not going to Iraq today.

His fellow soldiers hated Kerry for his vietnam protest actions (which were pretty damned stupid but that's not what they were dinging him on). I know a lot of military folks and they're human as the rest of us and the swiftboaters are scum. Of course they (as a group) will now be remembered, not for the dangerous duties the performed in Vietnam but for political smear campaigns. Swiftboating is now a commonly used term to describe a hateful smear job.

I suppose that's good enough for karmic balance except it harms all the other folks that had served on swift boats.

Gee, and you cite.............................................. ...................................nothing, again. \

Speaking of "swiftboating" John McCain will have to deal with these veterans.

Vietnam Veterans Against McCain


Always wondered why McCain blocked those classified documents. Whatever the case, he's going to have to answer these people.

I do have a job, being your librarian. "Widely accepted"? Find it. I'm not going to be your teacher.


First it wasn't my intension to divert the subject. Only that there is an election going on, and when a candidate rises up to prominence they will be attacked from all sides and many voters out there as gullible as you will be swayed by them, the media and all the other blogospheres, true or false.

I personally don't believe this groups allegations. The fact is that there is a POW/MIA lobby in the U.S. that does not like McCain because he has not kowtowed to their idea that there are hundreds of American POWs still in Vietnamese custody. To discredit him, they have taken to this very unseemly personal attack claiming things that have been disproved repeatedly. I'm hardly a McCain fanboy, but it is dishonest to repeatedly attack him on this issue when there are no facts to support these charges.

But many people will believe them. If they don't seek out and know the truth.

Well, you went to their website, good for you. Why not open up your bookmarks and cite some of your views. If you don't, you really don't have reason to respond to anything here.

Stick a fork in it SDW. It's done to a turn.

Interesting. Is this a glimpse into the inner mis-workings of a conservative mind? Or is SDW just daft?

Lesson for the day boys and girls:

Correlation (Party nominees who lose an election often don't come back to win the same office later) does not equal causation (...because...).

Idiots all around.

There is an equally if not more widely accepted notion that GWB was one of the worst governors Texas has had, further damaging the education system, slowing down infrastructure growth and greatly damaging the economy.

I also find the commonly or widely held notion argument to be intellectual weakness at its best. Widely held beliefs are not fact. Just because 2.7 B people believe there is a giant floating unicorn in space doesn't mean there is one.

Well, the larger problem is that that is absolutely not true.

Swear words wouldn't be swear words if people used them freely and frequently.


Ok. I'll make this very simple for you. I order you to always say "And Then?" and to always use absurd and irritating formatting when posting on forums. That is an order, and those are MY rules. OK? OK? AND THEN?

You'll have to point me in some direction here. I. can't. find. squat.


Sure, you are a good example of this. Not everything, you are knowledgeable in many other subjects. But as far as defending Bush/this administration, you are a loser. Not unless you can defend your claims. Which you don't.


I'm not defending Kerry, I'm defending truth. The Swifties were influenced by the Bush party to slander another soldier by a candidate who's own military record (and the fact he never set foot in Vietnam) is dubious to say the least.

facts smacts...

Heh. Just through 1920 there are eleven examples of people who ran for president losing only to be elected later.

Well, you really ought to do your own homework, since you made the claim, but I'll get you started.

Adams "ran" against Washington in 1792 and lost only to win in 1796.
Monroe "beat" JQA in 1820 and JQA wins in 1824 against Jackson, who wins in 1828.
Buchanan loses to Pierce in 1852 only to win in 1856.
Cleveland lost to Harrison in 1888 only to win in 1892. (interesting replay of 2000)
TR lost fo McKinley only to win in 1904.
FDR (the veep candidate) lost to Harding in 1920.

I haven't run all the way up through the present, but remember that Nixon lost to JFK in 1960.

WooHoo! Fail.


Bush has far, far faaaaaaaar outweighed any president in history as far as failure. He makes Nixon and Clinton juvenile delinquents. If there is any president to hate, it's this one.


Bush's boots never touched Vietnamese soil nor did he fly his ass over it either. End of story.

Oh and speaking of Wiki...


du·bi·ous
Pronunciation: \\ˈdü-bē-əs also dyü-\\
Function: adjective
1: giving rise to uncertainty: as a: of doubtful promise or outcome <a dubious plan> b: questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality <the practice is of dubious legality>
2: unsettled in opinion : doubtful <I was dubious about the plan>

Yeah. You're right. If you limit the scope of the inquiry and exclude a bunch of stuff, it totally fits with your claim. But whatever, dude. I got no horse in this race.

So by your logic Pete Wilson was one of the best governors California has ever had...

A history lesson:

Pete Wilson at one point had the worst approval ratings in the governorship of California in history. He then pushed for a law, which he knew was unconstitutional and could not possibly pass, that appealed to the anti-Mexican voting block. He "won reelection by a landslide". The law he was pushing for was declared unconstitutional, of course. He then went on to kill California's economy.

George W. Bush, facing reelection, appeals to the Texan "good ol' boy" crowd and gets reelected, because good Texas boys like to play cowboys and Indians and good Texas girls support their man.

Reelection != success.