Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton voted for the Patriot Act and she voted for the war in Iraq,

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:48 PM
Original message
Clinton voted for the Patriot Act and she voted for the war in Iraq,
but so many Democrats are blinded by the cult of personality that they will overwhelmingly vote to put this crime family back in office.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/220107... and grab your box of popcorn.
:popcorn:

<snip>Hillary Heralds 30 Year Plus Control Of America By Interlocking Crime Family
Pro-war Clinton candidacy success would mean same mob bosses have ruled U.S. since 1980

<snip>Another Clinton in office would mean America being under the thief dom of either a Bush or a Clinton for a total of at least 32 years, 36 if Hillary is re-elected (many now acknowledge that H.W. Bush pulled the strings as VP during the Reagan era), and they still say anyone can become President! What a pathetic joke!

IMO this is exactly what's going on with the Hillary lovers. It is a cult of personality. This is what gets us into trouble when we vote for whoever looks the best on tv. It goes back to the days of the national tv Kennedy/Nixon debate. Kennedy looked cool and collected and Nixon was sweating. This is when politicians and the media realized that it's how you look and speak that gets you the votes. It doesn't matter if she voted for the war or the patriot act? Maybe to you it doesn't. I guess I am the extreme left of the democratic party. Why are we going to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory by choosing Hillary with all her baggage to run for president? This is exactly what the repukes want and we are playing right into their hands IMO, and I am still entitled to my opinion. We should vote for who will beat the repukes by a wide margin and not have another close call.
Refresh | +13 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
tangerine1700 Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. perfect!
i totally argee with you. people need to stop falling for pretty faces at that podium. America needs someone to help! not just be a fake smile to the people and other nations. America needs to listen to what the candidates are saying! they need to listen well! and vote goddammit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RFKJrNews Donating Member (760 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. We need to check each candidate's voting record with care
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:38 PM by RFKin2008
Because what they say on the campaign trail often directly contradicts how they voted on the issue in Congress.

In the long run, candidate positions may flip-flop and change, but how they voted is the only thing that's permanent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. I guess if Obama had been in the senate
he would have as per usual for all those hard votes....sat it out...his record for sitting out votes is second only to Johnson from South Dakota, the guy who had the medical problem..at least he had an excuse for not voting what was Obama's...so he could rag the other voters for THEIR vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #31
62. This is why I won't vote for Obama ...WTF was he doing when he wasn't there to vote?
I believe that people who get paid the big $$$ better be working for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
54. Hi!
And welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. geesh!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Edwards too. EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Edwards also voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's one of the reasons I am for Kucinich
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:13 PM by L0oniX
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
67. Me too. No more warmongers!
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:41 PM by DesertRat
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
liskddksil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. and apologized for his war vote
and fought for the sunset clause in the Patriot act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:20 PM
Original message
I'm glad he apologized, but it still showed poor judgement
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:26 PM by DesertRat
I will not vote for anyone in the primary who voted to give * authority to invade Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR
and he was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KewlKat Donating Member (867 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Edwards not only voted for the Patriot Act
he helped author it! When the subject came up in debate, he said he didn't know they (the administration) would abuse it. I remember the audience laughing at his response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
liskddksil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. and Edwards pushed hard to get the sunset clause in the Patriot Act
To ensure that provisions could be repealed in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Clinton voted to
"limit the war authority for just one year, after which the President would have had to seek it again; Call for tax increases to pay for the war effort; Force the creation of a report on the possible manipulation of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War."

Edwards voted against this bill.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/05...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. A few half-baked Democrats are always crying about Hillary's "baggage" but never
look upon themselves as a possible drag on the Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Since when is pushing for Kucinich being a drag on the Democratic party?
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:20 PM by L0oniX
What is a drag on the democratic party is people who are for looks and style rather than what can win the presidential race by a good margin and not a close call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Since Kucinich decided he would choose a racist republican VP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. That's just repuke gossip
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Wrong.
Educate yourself. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. I did and what's your excuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Oh you did? Glad you agree with me now. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. far from it
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
45. Here you go ...educate yourself.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/the-buzz-a...

The buzz about a Kucinich-Paul ticket? Here's where that came from

The headline on a link at Memeorandum this morning caught our eye: "Kucinich poses 2-way ticket."

It leads to this post at a blog on GoErie.com, the website of the the Erie Times-News. "The race goes on, but one thing that can be said for U.S. Rep. and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, of Ohio, and that is he is always proposing something new," the post reads. "This time he mentioned a possible Democrat-Republican ticket. The Republican he is suggesting, Ron Paul, is a congressman from Texas."

Bryan Preston at the conservative heavyweight blog Hot Air spotted that entry and had this to say this morning: "The blog that posted this doesn't source its claim and I've never heard of the blog before, so I can't vouch for its word one way or the other. But come on. It just makes a warped kind of sense to put these two on a ticket."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #45
79. There was audio of it...go listen...
No way he wriggles his way out of it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. You are right...Kucinich is such a non-factor...
Because of his spectacuarly poor record as an executive and legislator...he definietly isn't a drag...not important enough to be one...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Regurgitating right-wing talking points against a party leader will always be a drag on the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Oh ok follow the leader like a pied piper then ...your choice
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:26 PM by L0oniX
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. Riiight. But regurgitating rw talking points is independent thinking.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
49. Sorry ...I never read anything from the repukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Yeah, you do. They just don't tell you who they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Even if I were to listen to a repuke ...are you saying that everyone of them is an idiot and a liar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #55
70. And not all of them advocate LaRouche's theories, either.
Alex Jones, however....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. I think some of the criticism is more than justified. Hillary biggest weakness is she
talks out of both sides of her mouth. That criticism also goes to Obama, and to a lesser degree Edwards, within the top leading Democrats

What the Democrats MUST do is be more direct

Example: In the debate they were all asked about the Supreme Court, and refreshingly they ALL answered it DIRECTLY. In other words, without ambiguity they ALL said what kind of judges they would appoint, and it wouldn't be in the mold of scalia and thomas, like their republican counterparts

I know not all questions can be answered as simply as that, but quite a few can.

One thing should have been learned from the last 8 years, if a person has a position no matter how bad, compared to a person who has a wavering position, most people will lean with the one who has the position verses the one who cannot articulate it



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Well, that's just naive.
Especially since Hillary Clinton knows she can't even laugh without being attacked. Of course, if you also know that, it makes you disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. Funny ...IMO it was her laugh I thought was disingenuous
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. I think the post was being sarcastic, and I agree with you, the laugh was as phony as it comes /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
74. No. I was NOT being sarcastic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. None of us at DU our disingenuous, we just have different points of view /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. Now the Clintons are a "Crime family?"
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:20 PM by niceypoo
Isnt that what the republicans were saying all through the 90s? The, "Clinton Mafia," is what I believe they (in their warped paranoia) called it. I suppose now you will start crying about Vincent Foster and Juanita Broaddrick?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Clinton was very right leaning and weakened the democratic party by his actions
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:24 PM by L0oniX
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Yeah, she's the spit of Scalia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. It is funny that the critics only look at one or two issues, but never the whole person
That is the problem with Americans in general, they have lost ability for critical thinking

and believe it or not I am not a big Clinton fan, but I also can think, and Clinton is no right winger



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #39
66. Hey, I'm voting for Edwards.
But I know propagandistic smears when I see them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. Hey, that is who I am voting for in the primaries also. He is the most straight on the issues
If you took what I said as a smear, it wasn't meant to be. Most Americans DO NOT HAVE CRITICAL THINKING

look at the last 8 years, hell, look at the last poll, people think progress is getting made in Iraq

I saw the same same shit during Viet Nam, and it wasn't until 60 thousand Americans, plus over a million IndoChinese, (which most Americans could care less about), were dead, that we decided to get out, and then it was nixon who did it, which is amazing considering what he did in Chile





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
76. They have also lost their abillity to actually read the point of the op.
Funny how a lot of us here jump on the criminal part of the quote and not my opinion about why we vote for whoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #76
88. you are right. I got somewhat confused also. However, it does demonstrate
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 11:20 PM by still_one
how sensitive and or defensive we get depending whether we are for or against a certain candidate

voters can be pretty superficial

Unfortunately, I don't think that will change very soon

You original post brought up some interesting observations that I wasn't even thinking about


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. So when he appointed Ginsberg and Souter to the Supreme Court, was that "very" right wing?
When Clinton prevented the slaughter in Serbia, was that very right wing? (funny the right wingers were sure calling him something else when he did that)

I guess the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban which he signed were also right wing

His involvement with the peace process in Northern Ireland, and setting up negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians was right wing also. Just because the subsequent president DID NOT TAKE OVER where Clinton left off, is not his fault. They could have done the same thing with North Korea, but instead wasted 6 and a half years, then did exactly what Clinton was leading up to

and of course his work with HIV is as right wing as they come

I AM AWARE of his position on NAFTA, the communications act of the 90s, but to paint him as "very right leaning", is inaccurate in a major way



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. ask the poor if being kicked off the welfare roles was democratic
The clintons care nothing of the poor
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. Please, have you ever heard of Teach America? Clinton is a HUGE advocate of helping 3rd world
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:51 PM by still_one
countries. At the very least his work in Africa with the aids epidemic reflects this

Ask the poor. OK, go to Harlem, see what they think of Bill Clinton

You are trying to paint Clinton with one brush, and it can't be done

Incidently, I am not a fan of the Clintons, and do not want Hillary to be our nominee, but they are not as heartless as you portray
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. The way he was able to eliminate the deficit was by dissolving the welfare system of that time
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:00 PM by L0oniX
or basically did it on the backs of the poor of this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #53
64. Reagan was the cause of the huge deficiet, and the start of destroying the welfare system
That was one of reagans big campaign issues, i.e. welfare moms

He increased military spending on worthless projects, gave tax cuts to the richest, and his supply sided economics caused the deficiet to ballon

It started to reduce under Clinton because of the internet boom, and a lot people were put back to work

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Welfare_+_...

"$125 million for new Fathers Work grants will help approximately 40,000 low-income non-custodial parents (mainly fathers) work, pay child support, and reconnect with their children.

On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, fulfilling his longtime commitment to end welfare as we know it. As the President said upon signing, ... this legislation provides an historic opportunity to end welfare as we know it and transform our broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of work, responsibility, and family.
The law contains strong work requirements, performance bonuses to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs and reducing illegitimacy, state maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement, and supports for families moving from welfare to work -- including increased funding for child care. In May 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidance on how states and local governments can use welfare block grant funds to help families move from welfare to work."

Frankly, I don't like to be put into the position of defending the Clintons, because I don't like them. The Communication act of the 90's, NAFTA, and the trade agreements negotiated in favor of corporations over the working people, are as bad as they come. I just don't consider him a "right winger"

A right wing policy is what we have been going through for the past 8 years. 95% of the republican congress are right wingers.

I see a difference





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #37
75. Uh, so where did the poor go?
Did they die of starvation? Are they all sleeping in the streets? You may find you are not as informed as you think on that subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. Yea well I help feed some of them every Saturday and you are welcome to come eat with them and us.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:40 PM by L0oniX
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. How many?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #86
97. Last week it was 69 people. This week it was 29.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #35
50. Souter wasn't appointed by Clinton. Just votes as if he were.
He's a big surprise to Bush I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. Thank you for the correction, should have been breyer. That was a pretty good screw up on my part
We just don't see eye to eye on this. I think you are much to harsh on the Clintons

I don't like them, but on most social issues they are progressive. There is a reason the right wing hates them





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. I'm too harsh on the Clintons? Yikes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. Harsh in reference to the term "right wingers" Right wingers are this administration
not harsh because you criticize them, they deserve it, but harsh because they are not right wingers



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. You seriously have me confused with someone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. Sorry, have a good evening /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #69
81. Dude ...you really need to look at what my opinion is which was the point of the op
You seemed to have focused on the criminal part of the linked info which was not part of my point. Look before you leap next time ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheModernTerrorist Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
84. Clinton WAS an amazing world leader
unfortunately, much of his national policy did not hit those high marks. Yes, there were great things done, esp. on the world stage. But hell, even Nixon created the EPA, and he's a P.O.S. Our leaders are not infallible; no one is. BUT, we can ensure that we give our government and country someone who will help push positive legislation through, and will stand up for what is RIGHT, not pander to those whose pockets they are indebted to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
19. and she also voted for the Iran War resolution. Personally I believe she lacks good judgement
There are very few questions she answers directly, and that is wrong.

Her reasoning for voting for the IWR was because she was misguided by bush. If we take that answer at face value, then why would she vote for the Iran War Resolution?

Yes, I know her reasoning is because she wanted to show Iran we meant business, at the same time double-talking that we must have a dialog. If you are going to negotiate with someone, does it make sense to threaten them in public before the negotiation?

From a practical point of view, she polarizes the left wing of the party, and I believe unites the right wing of the republicans

but IF she is the Democratic nominee, she will get my vote without hesitation, and the reason is THE SUPREME COURT

As much as many here on DU like to say the court is already lost, or they have gone corporate, they are wrong

One thing every Democratic candidate has said, including Clinton, is that they would appoint judges who believe in the right to privacy.

That covers, illegal wiretaps and Roe V. Wade

All the Democratic candidates have also made it clear that they will appoint judges who support civil rights.

EVERY republican candidate, except ron paul, has said they will appoint judges in the mold of scalia and thomas. These are federalist society judges, and that is much worse than a judge who may lean toward corporations

Please note, that Bill Clinton would be classified as a corporate favoring president, and yet he appointed Ginsberg and Souter, who have been the strongest advocates on the court for individuals and civil rights

After what has occurred the last 8 years there should be no problem for the Democrats to win in 2008, however the election is extremely close, which is a signal that the Democrats had better get their message out loud and clear, no nuances or games. Answers like I voted for the Iran war resolution to send a message is bull shit.

It is about as credible as when Kerry decided to go hunting during the 2004 campaign to show he was a "gun" guy

The leading Democratic candidates have got to stop be phoney, and be themselves. People can see right into that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. Crime family???
The Clintons are so clean that $100 million couldn't find an indictable offense...until Bill unzipped.

This is a retooling of the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton meme. This is the talking point that makes Hillary identical with Bush.

It has yet to be true.

It is the ugliest possible smear. It is fear mongering worthy of Karl Rove, yes it is.

The fact is that Mrs. Clinton's "dirty" laundry has been hanging on a public line, blowing in the breeze, exposed to the sunshine, FOR YEARS.

And the pretense that false, clinging mud will NOT be thrown at a Democratic MALE candidate? Ask Kerry and Gore, the war hero and the good guy. Ask them.

Once again, 72 million Dems. 55 million Reps. 42 million independents. We need 13 million independents and NOT ONE REPUBLICAN. THEY need 30 MILLION INDEPENDENTS (who are just soooo in love with them right now).

IT IS A FILTHY LIE TO SAY THAT ANY REPUBLICAN VOTE MATTERS TO THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN THIS ELECTION.

Or were you suggesting that Democrats would pull the lever en mass for Republicans? Because the candidate we chose by vote would be unacceptable to us? Or because those of us who didn't vote for her are incapable of forgetting our differences and rallying around the candidate of OUR party?

That's a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. This post just made my weekend
Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Did Hillary Clinton Attend Bilderberg Conference?
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:17 PM by L0oniX
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/150606cli...

Anyone in the Bilderberg group is a criminal in the organization that seeks to over rule the government that is ..we the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
43. ALEX JONES is your source???????
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:51 PM by aquart
Credibility is not one of those things you really feel a need for, is it? So. Based on the story, nobody saw her, but the head of the hotel bragged, because hotel heads are always so talky about people who arrive secretly, that she was there. To a secret unnamed source. Unconfirmed by anyone else. And the reporting is so shoddy and thin that he has to run it as a smear question and not as a declarative sentence.

Question for you, does Reynolds RELEASE work for that tin foil hat, or do you have to use only the regular version?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #43
65. Did you actually read my opinion at the bottom of the op?
I guess you missed the point I was trying to make which wasn't so much the criminal aspect but the problem with how people choose who they will vote for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
51. Then you can toss out Edwards too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
36. Alex Jones/ infowars
it used to be against DU rules to post articles by him
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. The truth by any source is not acceptable here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Yours and Jones' truth were blown to shreds by poster #25. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Yes I realize some people do not consider the Bilderberg group as being criminals
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #47
56. Here are few other attendees:
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:04 PM by seasonedblue
Bill Clinton
Lloyd Bensten
John Edwards
Bill Richardson
Chris Dodd
Adlai Stevenson
Michael Dukakis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attende...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Thanks much for the partial list.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:08 PM by L0oniX
The Carlyle group is another one that does not represent ...we the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. I left the link,
it's a big list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. sorry ...thanks again
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
61. Albert Einstein wakes from a deep sleep
Posts most significant information ever - but everyone yawns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #61
71. Honey, if it wasn't in a scientific journal vetted by his peers...
Damn straight.

Now go back to sleep in that cute little teapot of yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
77. This is getting old. same shit, different day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
80. More lies. More distortion. More right-wing talking points designed to divide and conquer
The post is BS. There is not one whiff of truth. Not one statement of fact. Lies and distortions that do not help democracy. Repeating lies again and again until the source is hidden and they simply become "Truth" due to the regurgitation is not democracy. It is not truth.

Eat your popcorn. Laugh at the stir you created. Have your fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Again ...read my opinion to see what the point of the op was.
Why do Hillary lovers all knee jerk react and miss the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. I got the "point"
I don't need to read it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
85. bwahahaha!
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 11:12 PM by cali
You may be the extreme left, pookie, but you are using classic right wing nuttery language. "Crime family", dissing Kennedy? Charming, newbie.

I don't support Clinton, Edwards, Biden or Dodd in the primaries because they ALL voted for the war, but you chose to conveniently leave out those facts, cupcake.

And frankly, there's far more of a cult of personality around Kucinich and Edwards than there is around Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. The point is that we vote for whoever looks the best on tv.
I guess you knee jerk reacted and missed the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Actually, I think your post has some interesting and unintentional consequences
We are so polarized for or against a specific candidate, that we don't even listen to the question


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. Thanks ...I watched that JFK/Nixon debate on a bw tv back then...
and I probably could have found a better link source to illustrate my point about following whoever looks cool under pressure. The criminal aspect was not meant to be the core issue but I also responded to those who focused in on that aspect of the link info. Cheers and have a good week end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. no, you are right on. At that time they were saying the women vote favored Kennedy
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 11:41 PM by still_one
because of his looks

bush supposedly choose quail(shooters, (alias cheney's) favorite sport), as VP for that reason

You have a good weekend also, you got me thinking for sure







Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. there's a certain truth to that.
In that case, Clinton isn't high on that list, is she? Edwarda and Obama are both better on TV than she is. Furthermore, her voice is the wrong pitch. And classifying the clinton's as that "crime family" IS right wing baloney- and attempt to equate the Clintons with the bush's in terms of "evil".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. I don't favor anyone involved with groups that subvert the will of the people...
and I believe strongly in ...we the people.

I just see Americans following whoever looks cool which seems to start in school and goes on way after that and permeates society and the work force. Studies show that better looking people with less education get jobs over those who are unattractive but have more education and skills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
91. Gobama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. LOL ...what's that Kerry/Edwards sign doing there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. keynote speech Dem Convention 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
99. yup. scary
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC