Bernie's In

That's saying their are inconvenient to the peace process, not illegal.

their = there

Thanks. Actually, it sould read "they".

Yes. You were asking for her position. I googled her position and posted it to the board.

She's obviously not a fan of the settlements, though.

Perhaps you are right they have not quite said they were illegal, wish Obama would. I do support Obama as I have said, but there are issues where I have clear disagreements with him One is where he did not support detainees to sue or get some kind of legal retribution for torture because he said he wants to go forward no backwards. To my mind that made no sense as well as being wrong. Another is he has went farther than most presidents which is why Israel does not support him, but he doesn't ever go far enough.

In 2011 he did say the settlements should go back to the 1967 borders but then he said, perhaps agreed upon swaps.

Here

I am heartened Hillary at least recognizes the settlements are a problem. In end, despite rhetoric, all three democrats are about on the same page when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Also, when trying to be diplomatic you don't necessarily want to tell piss off the people you need to have agree to terms.

Hillary's position is more diplomatic, which makes sense since she spent several years as the nations chief diplomat.

Unless Bernie thinks his political revolution is going to spread to the entire globe, I think he'd do best being a little more diplomatic in foreign affairs.

I actually asked if her position was different from Bernie's. But never mind.

I would consider McCain/Kennedy a major civil rights bill. Mostly related to Latinos, though.

And the direct quote from Hillary answered your question.

WTF is wrong with you? Honestly.


Let me simplify this:

You: Bernie likes the color red. I wonder if Clinton also likes the color red.
Me: "I like the color blue." - quote from HRC

Should I have said - "Actually Olivier, HRC does have a different favorite color than Bernie. She actually prefers blue, as evidenced by this direct quote from her."

You are by FAR the most frustrating person to converse with on this website.

I think the Obama administration has officially been on the same wavelength than previous US administrations on this issue: ie that the settlements are illegal, as per the Geneva conventions and the UN charter. In PRACTICE though, Hillary is significantly more pro-Israel than Obama. Note that Kerry was much more engaged on the issue than H Clinton was before he became secretary of state.

Would you stop nitpicking?... I wanted to know what the difference was and now I know that. End of story. What the heck is wrong with you?

Bill Moyers recommends Thomas Frank's new book "Listen Liberal."
"Frank’s thesis is that today’s Democratic 'liberalism' is nothing like that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman or Lyndon B. Johnson. As Frank sees it, their crusade for 'Molly and the babies' (as LBJ called his working-class constituents) has been supplanted by a crusade — by Barack Obama, the Clintons, by Rahm Emanuel, by Larry Summers, by Deval Patrick — to advance the interests of well-off, well-educated, well-credentialed elites who sport Ivy League degrees, high net worths and vacation houses on Martha’s Vineyard."

Quote roger:

It was an immigration bill. I guess you could say it had civil rights aspects to it, but when you say civil rights you usually mean Americans who have been denied basic rights as a matter of course, like voting or ability to walk into a store and not get thrown out because of their group.

MLK Jr warned about the self-serving incrementalism of duplicitous liberals, and I didn't understand then. The current crop of Democrats brings his message home. So Democrats gave a little service to blacks. They still withhold and tell blacks to sit down when they demand equality.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/presidential-election/article70613117.html

Bernie is gaining on Clinton in California.

Edit: Apologies. I got ahead of myself. He's closing the gap.

Your excitement is causing you to misread important data.

Quote Lash:

Incoherent babbling on your part. Bill Clinton did not advocate punching or roughing up the protestors who came to his speech. He just didn't give them his podium, which is fine. He did, however, give a factual answer to the charges they were shouting out, to the applause of the peaceful crowd.

Bill Clinton had every right to defend his policies to the protestors. The policies which not only stopped the rapid increase in murders which happened in the years before he took office-including murders of black people-but actually decreased the annual murders by over a third while he was in office. When housing developments are daily getting the front door of apartments riddled with semi-automatic fire and babies sitting a few feet on the other side of the door are routinely getting killed by it, somebody has to do something. Well, Clinton and the Congress did something. And the black community at the time was calling for it.

Gee, do facts bother you that much?

Millions of black and white voters, shocked by Clinton's conservative language and views are also babbling incoherently on social media and vowing the very clear message that they will never again vote for Clinton.

Final nail in her coffin.

But the good news is that a lot of Republicans are championing Bill now.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5707cbf4e4b0c4e26a227a34

Liar Hill and Liar Bill. They wouldn't recognize the truth if it bitch-slapped the spit out of their lying mouths.

But I wish it would try...

All those excuses Bill yelled to BLM? Lies.

The Clintons do know the truth when it's placed in front of them. It's just not always politically expedient for them to acknowledge it publicly.