Hillary Clinton letters

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

If libs think the war against lawlessness is not worthy for some reason, then why is it they support Hillary Clinton, who voted for it, and continues to support it.

There is certainly something here that I don't understand, or that you won't acknowledge.

There's PLENTY you don't understand about political perspectives that are not your own - your posts continue to reveal that.

Why do you assume all "libs" support Clinton?

[timkona]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

I certainly don't think ALL the left supports Clinton. It's early still. Obama got some traction. Heck, Edwards still in it too. I'd say Clinton certainly has the most "favorable" attitude toward the war. (Don't know if favorable is the right word here.) Hot times on the political trail are just ahead, I'm sure.

Progressive? Is that a word O'Reilly uses sometimes?

[cynsaligia]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

A Republican in Democrat's clothing. I'm cracking up. Goof ball libs honestly think she is the best choice.

Just goes to show you the fundamentally flawed thinking processes that is the root of liberalism and Democrat Politics. ROFLMFAO

and yet again your comment shows nothing but the flaws in your cognitive and reading comprehension skills, if all you got from the article is that hillary is a "republican in democrat's clothing." if that's not what you meant to say, tk, then you need to develop better writing skills before you go on another one of your multitudinous "oops, let me clumsily backpedal with my foot in my mouth" or "darnit...let me hide & not respond for a while so maybe they'll forget i brainlessly shot my mouth off again" moments.

Okay Ericncyn, as I bite the hook cuz the bait looks too yummy, answer me this.

If libs think the war against lawlessness is not worthy for some reason, then why is it they support Hillary Clinton, who voted for it, and continues to support it.

There is certainly something here that I don't understand, or that you won't acknowledge.

for the love of baby jesus, tim! (sorry, mr. ogata...had to borrow that one from you).

contrary to your announcement that you're "biting the hook cuz the bait looks too yummy" you attempt, once again, to slither away and avoid the plainly stated issue. in actuality, you didn't bite because the bait looks good. you responded because i called you out on your figurative intellectual manhood, and if you didn't respond you'd only be confirming your flaccidity (which you did anyway, because of the lack of quality in your response).

in this thread, it's not for me or anyone else to answer "if the 'libs' (your poorly conceived definition of such, at least) think the war against lawlessness blahblahblahdittyblah.". stick to what this thread is about. you're the one who called hill, based on the letters she wrote when she was in college, a "republican in democrat's clothing." (this, ironically, coming from a self-labeled "republicrat.") stick to THAT remark, since you brought it up. provide us, for once, with some thoughtful discourse on why you think what you said is true. i've seen you, many times, attempt to extricate your neck from nooses of your own making by shooting off your mouth and making additional flippant, tangential remarks aimed at obfuscating the matter at hand and rustling the hackles of anyone who doesn't eat what you say whole. that is, if you don't backpedal or do your best impression of a turtle. either way, it leaves quite a few of us--true republicans, true democrats, true independants, ethnically proud and of no desire for the homogeniety you preach--believing that it's your own thinking that is self-congratulatory, small-minded, and yes, "fundamentally flawed."

are you just not capable of explaining yourself in a way that might shed light on your thinking process without us having to make psychic and read what you meant to say versus what you actually said? come on, tim. it's really not that hard. anyone can make wisecracks, namecall, and scoff at other people's opinions when they don't agree with your own. BUT CAN YOU BACK IT UP IN A LOGICALLY SOUND MANNER? you've said elsewhere on HT that a college degree is superfluous. but even a college freshman a in remedial critical writing class can express themselves more wholly and cohesively than you. here's a little bit of encouragement: HTers are generally pretty smart and open-minded. we don't have to agree with you to find your reasoning sensible.

so--let's see it, tim. unless you enjoy ROTFLYAO, all the while running your tongue through your toes.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

[1stwahine]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

Add my hands too!

You go girl!

Auntie Lynn

[cynsaligia]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

Add my hands too!

You go girl!

Auntie Lynn

i'll be a little arrogantly presumptuous and assume the applause is for me. thank you both.

if i'm wrong...oops, make A moment.

but let's save the applause for tk if he somehow manages to do for once what he's never done in all his 1,489 posts to date.

[glossyp]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

So, I'm interested in what HC means by "progressive". Early advocates of the progressive political movement were a mixed bag - Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt to mention a few. Teddy was a big proponent of extending America's dominance in the Western Hemisphere, establishing national parks and conserving the environment. Woodrow Wilson reluctantly took us into WWI (a case of what could be called a "pre-emptive action" as American soil was not directly attacked), imposed the income tax (which was supposed to be removed) and pushed through two pieces of legislation which if followed today might find numerous Americans jailed for treason and/or sedition (Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918). FDR brought us out of the Great Depression with significant expansion of social programs through the New Deal which included the single biggest government-imposed fiscal albatross hanging around the necks of our youngest citizens, social security. Traditional progressives were pro-union, pro-government regulation (they brought us prohibition) and most were well-educated white protestants. Sounds like Hillary, no?
An moderately interesting essay on the subject of modern progressives can be found here.

[Miulang]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

Hillary is aligning herself with the Democratic Leadership Council, which is a bunch of Democratic "moderates". They call themselves "New Democrats".(wiki definition).

The DLC is

is a non-profit corporation that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. Moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders founded the DLC in response to the landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale during the 1984 Presidential election. The founders believed the United States Democratic Party needed to shift to the right of center to remain viable during the Reagan era. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy.

The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats.

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

Hillary is aligning herself with the Democratic Leadership Council, which is a bunch of Democratic "moderates". They call themselves "New Democrats".

a/k/a "Republican Lite." Give up traditional Democratic Party values, forget representing the under-represented voices of America, sell your soul in order to get elected, because our system doesn't allow you a voice unless you are in office.

That's why the Democratic Party is a huge disappointment to me - and why I'm not in the Clinton camp.

[Miulang]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

a/k/a "Republican Lite." Give up traditional Democratic Party values, forget representing the under-represented voices of America, sell your soul in order to get elected, because our system doesn't allow you a voice unless you are in office.

That's why the Democratic Party is a huge disappointment to me - and why I'm not in the Clinton camp.

And that's also why many Americans are of the belief that there really is only one party: the "Republicrats", as TK so fondly refers to himself. With the exception of the radicals at the extreme ends of the spectrum, both Republicans and Dems are all moving toward the center, so there's really hardly any difference between the two parties right now.

Miulang

[timkona]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

Backpedaling is nearly impossible when the floor is covered in slippery drool.

I was merely trying to point out that Clinton is the candidate who is most likely to pursue the course in Iraq, and many on the Dem side simply choose to ignore that fact. The left hates the war, and loves the candidate most likely to continue it.

[cynsaligia]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

I was merely trying to point out that Clinton is the candidate who is most likely to pursue the course in Iraq, and many on the Dem side simply choose to ignore that fact. The left hates the war, and loves the candidate most likely to continue it.

if that's what you were trying to point out, then you flat out failed.

that is, if my psychic powers are correct in surmising that when you say, "pursue the course" you mean "pursue the current Bush Administration course." cause you didn't make that clear.

working on above-described assumption, it turns out (surprise, surprise) you are flat out wrong.

let me make it simple for you and outline below what can be easily found on the internet about various presidential candidate views on iraq. took me all of three minutes on google to find this but we know you're pressed for time and can't bother yourself with something called...RESEARCH.

i'll even be nice and bold the most pertinent parts for you. let's look at some democratic presidential candidates first:

Joe Biden (Democrat): Voted for use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Opposed Bush plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Proposes plan for Iraq that includes establishing three regions within the country, engaging Iraq's neighbors, and drawing-down troops by the end of 2007.

Chris Dodd (Democrat): Voted for use of military force in Iraq, but says his vote was based on inaccurate information provided to Congress. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Says Americans would be safer if U.S. never invaded. Proposed plan for Iraq that includes phased redeployment of troops over a 12-18 month period and improved recruitment and training of Iraqi security forces.

John Edwards (Democrat): Voted for use of military force in Iraq, but now says that was a "mistake." Supported war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Opposed Bush plan to send additional American troops to Iraq.

Bill Richardson (Democrat): Calls on Congress to de-authorize the Iraq war. Supports withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2007 and redeploying them to Afghanistan and other international terrorism hotspots. Opposed Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most troops by March 2008. Opposed Bush plan to send additional American troops to Iraq. Voted against authorizing the first Gulf War in 1991.

Barack Obama (Democrat): Opposed use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Had once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006.

let us now look at some repub candidates' opinions:

Tommy Thompson (Republican): Supports Bush veto of congressional troop withdrawal plan. Proposes dividing Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites into three separate states under national rule and awarding Iraqi citizens with royalties from local oil production. Says the Iraqi government should vote on whether U.S. presence is wanted in Iraq, and that the U.S. should withdraw troops if the answer is no.

Tom Tancredo (Republican): Voted for use of military force in Iraq. Voted against war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Expressed doubts whether Bush plan to send additional American troops to Iraq will help win the war against "radical Islam."

Mitt Romney (Republican): Supported Bush veto of Iraq war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008 at the latest. Opposes troop withdrawal. Supported the President's plan for additional troops in Iraq.

John McCain (Republican): Voted for use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani (Republican): Opposes setting timetable for troop withdrawal. Supported Bush plan to send additional American troops to Iraq. Opposes congressional resolutions criticizing troop increase. Says failure in Iraq will lead to a broader regional conflict.

where does Hillary stand?

Hillary Clinton (Democrat): Voted for use of military force in Iraq, but now says she would have voted differently "if we knew then what we know now." Supports de-authorizing the war. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Opposed Bush plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Supports a phased redeployment and a cap on the number of American troops in Iraq.

so, through the view of the conflict in iraq, which you cling to desperately like a toddler refusing to be weaned from it's mother's teat as some sort of (supposed) shining example of how right you are, i pose the question again...how the heck is hillary a republican in democrat's clothing, exactly?

did you, again, exercise your poor reading comprehension skills when skimming through the op piece by deZengotita that glossyp posted and assume that because he said "Over here, Murtha, over there Hillary. Whither Howard Dean?" that she was in complete opposition to murtha and would, as you claim, "most likely...pursue the course in Iraq?"

Backpedaling is nearly impossible when the floor is covered in slippery drool.

damn right, it's hard to backpedal--which is why most people try their best to avoid having to do it. you, on the other hand, seem to have this inexplicable need to get yourself into such clumsy, unattractive situations. let me point out the sole source of drool you describe as being on the floor: your own mouth, kept open by your foot.

and if the sunglassed smiley you used in your last post is supposed to somehow represent your countenance, i suggest you not only take them off but get your eyes checked asap bcs clearly, you're completely blind as to how much the sloppy buffoon you look.

[Miulang]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

Cyn: You forgot to mention the "dark horse" Presidential candidates who never have and never will ever support our Iraq occupation: Rep. Ron Paul (R), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D), and former Sen. Mike Gravel (D). BTW: If you examine their campaign propaganda, their being anti-war is only one facet of their candidacies. One one other main thing they all have in common is they want the voters to have more power in government.

Or, as a Frenchman noted in "Sicko": "In France, the government fears the people. In America, the people fear the government."

Miulang

[cynsaligia]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

Cyn: You forgot to mention the "dark horse" Presidential candidates who never have and never will ever support our Iraq occupation: Rep. Ron Paul (R), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D), and former Sen. Mike Gravel (D). BTW: If you examine their campaign propaganda, their being anti-war is only one facet of their candidacies. One one other main thing they all have in common is they want the voters to have more power in government.

Or, as a Frenchman noted in "Sicko": "In France, the government fears the people. In America, the people fear the government."

Miulang

no, i didn't forget them, miulang. they weren't necessary to bring up because they're not pertinent to the questionable veracity of tim's assertions. as you said, ron paul, dennis kucinich and mike gravel are "dark horses." the point that tim has yet to prove convincingly is his declaration that hillary is a republican in democrat's clothing, and he's using her view of iraq as faux evidence of that. the fact is, the non-dark-horses of the democratic presidential candidates match up fairly closely to, and the non-dark horses of the republican candidates oppose what hillary believes on this subject.

[glossyp]

Re: Hillary Clinton letters

the fact is, the non-dark-horses of the democratic presidential candidates match up fairly closely to, and the non-dark horses of the republican candidates oppose what hillary believes on this subject.

We just need to wait a few months (and we'll definitely get an addtional one if HC takes the nomination) to have yet another position from her on the war. The question to ask, "Do you believe she believes what she says she believes?"