PastaJoe Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Not talking honestly about policy = not talking policy. Yet Obama won't man up and confront her face to face about what you allege are dishonest policy statements. I can understand if you disagree with her policies, but what proof do you have that her policy statements are dishonest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I can understand if you disagree with her policies, but what proof do you have that her policy statements are dishonest? For starters...her lips are moving... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 Yet Obama won't man up and confront her face to face about what you allege are dishonest policy statements. I can understand if you disagree with her policies, but what proof do you have that her policy statements are dishonest? She paints herself as pro-gun during the Pennsylvania primary and yet voted "Yea" on a bill to allow firearms to be confiscated during a state of emergency. (Obama voted "Nay") She was for NAFTA, then against it. She was pro bringing jobs to WNY and anti-outsourcing. The first (and only) company she welcomes to WNY? An Indian outsourcing firm. I'm against torture - but also for it: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2...bill___her.html "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home." followed by "We’re going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy. We may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaida in Iraq. " It goes on and on PastaJoe. You can defend her all you like, it just serves to highlight the kool-aid stain circling your mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 She paints herself as pro-gun during the Pennsylvania primary and yet voted "Yea" on a bill to allow firearms to be confiscated during a state of emergency. (Obama voted "Nay") She was for NAFTA, then against it. She was pro bringing jobs to WNY and anti-outsourcing. The first (and only) company she welcomes to WNY? An Indian outsourcing firm. I'm against torture - but also for it: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2...bill___her.html "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home." followed by "We’re going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy. We may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaida in Iraq. " It goes on and on PastaJoe. You can defend her all you like, it just serves to highlight the kool-aid stain circling your mouth. Now who's being dishonest. Anyone can take general statements and twist them out of context, as you have done. She's always been for some gun control, that doesn't make a person anti-gun. On issues like NAFTA and outsourcing, I would be worried if she didn't change her opinions on them after what's happened in the last decade. Changing ones policies to adjust to economic realities is not being dishonest, it's what an elected official is supposed to do. She's always talked about ending combat operations and bringing them home. But even Obama wouldn't leave the embassy undefended. I'll give you points for effort, but not for accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 Now who's being dishonest. Anyone can take general statements and twist them out of context, as you have done. She's always been for some gun control, that doesn't make a person anti-gun. On issues like NAFTA and outsourcing, I would be worried if she didn't change her opinions on them after what's happened in the last decade. Changing ones policies to adjust to economic realities is not being dishonest, it's what an elected official is supposed to do. She's always talked about ending combat operations and bringing them home. But even Obama wouldn't leave the embassy undefended. I'll give you points for effort, but not for accuracy. Dude, she doesn't change her opinions over the course of years, she does it over the course of days. I always suspected she had a d*ck. Now I can clearly see it's firmly planted in your mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Dude, she doesn't change her opinions over the course of years, she does it over the course of days. I always suspected she had a d*ck. Now I can clearly see it's firmly planted in your mouth. Well at least there's still one Democrat candidate left who has the balls to debate the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 Well at least there's still one Democrat candidate left who has the balls to debate the issues. Haven't they had like 17 debates already? How many more do you need to convince you who to vote for, unless you have been living under a rock. Given Clinton's history of being an outright fkin liar, I can't beleive anyone in their right mind would take a word she says at face value. She lies. Every day. (They all do, but she does it way more often and has no regard for the truth) Why you think for a second that any policy she claims to support right now is the one that will be enacted if she is in office is a mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 An infrequent usage of "!@#$" is to describe anyone who's ignorant, inferior, or...well, worthless. A "white !@#$" (which is a term I've heard before, though it's hardly common) is therefore a grammatically acceptible way of describing what would more politely be known as a "hillbilly" or "white trash", perhaps. A "worthless white !@#$", though...rather redundant. At least they didn't say that Hoosiers turn to guns and religion out of bitterness, like Pennsylvanians... Actually Tom, I believe the proper term is "Wigger"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Haven't they had like 17 debates already? How many more do you need to convince you who to vote for, unless you have been living under a rock. Given Clinton's history of being an outright fkin liar, I can't beleive anyone in their right mind would take a word she says at face value. She lies. Every day. (They all do, but she does it way more often and has no regard for the truth) Why you think for a second that any policy she claims to support right now is the one that will be enacted if she is in office is a mystery. They've only had a few debates just between the two of them, new issues come up throughout the campaign (the recent differences on how to provide quick relief for drivers and homeowners), and they've never had a direct debate without moderators who bring up non-policy issues. I just don't see how someone can claim to be the best person for the job yet be unwilling to directly debate their opponent. It might be good politics to try to run out the clock, but it shows a lack of confidence. We'll just have to agree to disagree on our opinions of Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 (CNN) – Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said Friday that movie clips on the Internet which show former administration official and current supporter Mickey Kantor allegedly using a racial slur, and an expletive to refer to Indiana residents, are a “total fabrication.” The footage was drawn from the 1992 documentary ‘The War Room’ — but the actual language used by Kantor is inaudible in both cases. In one clip circulating on the Web, Kantor appears to say to James Carville, “Look at Indiana, wait, wait – look at Indiana. 42-40. It doesn’t matter if we win. Those people are s—. Excuse me." Kantor today told the Huffington Post that he "was talking about the polling and not the people." The film’s director, D.A. Pennebaker, said in an interview with the Politico that, "he says they must be s—ing in the White House." Another clip drawn from the film features racially derogatory language which was not heard in the original footage, and which Kantor and the filmmaker both said was added later. The Clinton campaign also said Friday that the clip had been “doctored.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 They've only had a few debates just between the two of them, new issues come up throughout the campaign (the recent differences on how to provide quick relief for drivers and homeowners), and they've never had a direct debate without moderators who bring up non-policy issues. I just don't see how someone can claim to be the best person for the job yet be unwilling to directly debate their opponent. It might be good politics to try to run out the clock, but it shows a lack of confidence. We'll just have to agree to disagree on our opinions of Hillary. They've debated 21 times. Hillary is using the GOP tactic of fear and personal attacks, not Obama. Hillary is pandering. Hillary is lying. Hillary has proven that when it comes to politics women CAN be equal to me - because she is every bit as slimy and hypocritical as the rest of them. When I read Joe Conason's book "The Hunting of President" I thought "how awful the hateful things the Clintons were subjected to." Now I see her doing some of the same stuff. That makes her worse than them. I'm only surprised she doesn't have Karl Rove on her payroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Bill Clinton Campaign Chairman and Hillary Clinton '08 Advisor Mickey Kantor tells George Stephanapoulos and James Carville: "Look at Indiana...it doesn't matter if we win. Those people are sh--. How would you like to be a worthless white ni**er?" http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_...ss_White_Ni_ers Even though it's old, I hope this gets some play and is enough to derail her. Do you have a direct link or just the Youtube homepage because the video doesn't actually exist. Call me skeptical but show me the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 They've debated 21 times. Hillary is using the GOP tactic of fear and personal attacks, not Obama. Hillary is pandering. Hillary is lying. Hillary has proven that when it comes to politics women CAN be equal to me - because she is every bit as slimy and hypocritical as the rest of them. When I read Joe Conason's book "The Hunting of President" I thought "how awful the hateful things the Clintons were subjected to." Now I see her doing some of the same stuff. That makes her worse than them. I'm only surprised she doesn't have Karl Rove on her payroll. Keep on thinkin Obama is somehow different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Keep on thinkin Obama is somehow different. Read the book and then talk to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 (CNN) – Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said Friday that movie clips on the Internet which show former administration official and current supporter Mickey Kantor allegedly using a racial slur, and an expletive to refer to Indiana residents, are a “total fabrication.” The footage was drawn from the 1992 documentary ‘The War Room’ — but the actual language used by Kantor is inaudible in both cases. : The Obama smear-machine-if-it-were-another-candidate strikes again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 She paints herself as pro-gun during the Pennsylvania primary and yet voted "Yea" on a bill to allow firearms to be confiscated during a state of emergency. (Obama voted "Nay") It's called taking a responsible moderate position. Even the most ardent gun supporter finds issues on which to vote no, and the most ardent gun-control politician will find positions on which to say guns are acceptable. Or are you saying you cannot be in favor of guns unless you believe they cannot be prohibited under any circumstances? Would a gun control advocate who voted yes to allow collectors to keep guns under lock and key also be a hypocrite? What does that say about Obama's nay vote? Is he for gun control or against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Apparently you didn't watch the debate moderated by former Clinton staffer Stephanopolis. Because Obama was trying to talk about issues, and the fist 45 minutes was "So Senator America-hater, tell us how much less you love America than Senator Clinton?" So shouldn't you reserve your ire for the media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 An infrequent usage of "!@#$" is to describe anyone who's ignorant, inferior, or...well, worthless. A "white !@#$" (which is a term I've heard before, though it's hardly common) is therefore a grammatically acceptible way of describing what would more politely be known as a "hillbilly" or "white trash", perhaps. A "worthless white !@#$", though...rather redundant. At least they didn't say that Hoosiers turn to guns and religion out of bitterness, like Pennsylvanians... there was a checkpoint charlie he didn't crack a smile but it's no laughing party when you've been on the murder mile only takes one itchy trigger one more widow, one less white !@#$ -E. Costello Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 3, 2008 Author Share Posted May 3, 2008 Do you have a direct link or just the Youtube homepage because the video doesn't actually exist. Call me skeptical but show me the evidence. It appears that the clip was pulled - see PastaJoe's post about the Clinton campaign calling foul, saying it was a forgery. I wanted to watch it again myself to see if that was the case, but it looks like it has pretty much been pulled from all of the major news sites. At one point in time it was on Drudge and ABC, but they both have dropped it as well. Keep on thinkin Obama is somehow different. He is in one very crucial way - he is nowhere near dirty as the Clintons. I don't know that point can be made with empirical evidence, but I'm willing to bet most of us think its true. It's called taking a responsible moderate position. Even the most ardent gun supporter finds issues on which to vote no, and the most ardent gun-control politician will find positions on which to say guns are acceptable. Or are you saying you cannot be in favor of guns unless you believe they cannot be prohibited under any circumstances? Would a gun control advocate who voted yes to allow collectors to keep guns under lock and key also be a hypocrite? What does that say about Obama's nay vote? Is he for gun control or against it? Voting to confiscate guns in a state of emergency is not a responsible position, especially in the eyes of those who understand the rationale behind the second amendment. In fact one could quite reasonably argue that a state of emergency is exactly the type of situation for which the 2nd amendment is designed. There is no mention of hunting or collecting in the constitution. So it's either hypocrisy or naivety on her part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 3, 2008 Author Share Posted May 3, 2008 So shouldn't you reserve your ire for the media? Believe me, I have plenty of ire for them as well. But then again, they sell the stojan, and we eat it. Who is to blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts