0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 02:38 pm
Advocate wrote:
The conservative haters here were right; I should have referred to all the Rep candidates as being white males. The haters tend to be very literal.

They are right that race and gender should not matter. Unfortunately, it does seem to matter to the right, which fielded not a single woman or minority.

We should be delighted that the Dems have reversed this perverse discrimination.


Romney is a minority......unless mormons are no longer in the minority.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 02:45 pm
Re: woiyo
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
woiyo, what are you implying when you state Obama is not Black?

Are you implying he is a Mulatto?

BBB

"Mulatto" was an official census category until 1930. In the south of the country, mulattos inherited slave status if their mother was a slave, although in Spanish and French-influenced areas of the South prior to the Civil War (particularly New Orleans, Louisiana), a number of mulattos were also free and slave-owning. Although it is commonly used to describe individuals of mixed European and African descent, it originally referred to any hybrid species. In fact, in the United States, "mulatto" was also used as a term for those of mixed white and Native American ancestry during the early census years. Mulatto was also used interchangeably with terms like "turk" leading to further ambiguity when refering to many North Africans and Middle Easterners.


Ask Advocate as it was Advocate who introduced race into the discussion.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 03:23 pm
Advocate wrote:
The conservative haters here were right; I should have referred to all the Rep candidates as being white males. The haters tend to be very literal.


If you didn't know what the phrase "WASP" meant, perhaps you should have looked it up before you posted.

Quote:
They are right that race and gender should not matter. Unfortunately, it does seem to matter to the right, which fielded not a single woman or minority.


Actually, it seems to matter greatly to you, inasmuch as you were the one who raised the issue in the first place.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 03:54 pm
Tico, I knew was "WASP" meant. But I write quickly and expect the readers on A2K to be reasonably intelligent and not literalists.

It seems that all you can contribute is puny nitpicking of what others write. I suggest you contribute a substantive post now and then, provided you are capable of this.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 04:20 pm
The best phrase to use when describing the historical moment is: "for the first time in history the Democratic Party will be the only viable political party who will nominate either a Female-American or an African-American as president."

Leave it at that and let everyone apply their own personal interpretations and prejudices to it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 04:40 pm
Advocate wrote:
Tico, I knew was "WASP" meant. But I write quickly and expect the readers on A2K to be reasonably intelligent and not literalists.


I see the problem ... we expected you to be reasonably intelligent as well. Maybe you should post at a forum where it's acceptable -- nay, encouraged -- for you to just make up your own definitions for terms. Then you won't have to blame the reader when you just make shite up.

If by "literalists" you mean we expect words and terms used in these threads to mean what they actually mean, then yes, I suppose we some of us are.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 05:29 pm
Fake Conservative Coulter To Vote For Fake Liberal Hillary
Neocon lapdog says Clinton is more conservative than McCain

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, Feb 1, 2008

Neo-con lapdog bigmouth Ann Coulter has declared that she will vote for HIllary Clinton should John McCain win the GOP nomination, declaring Clinton to be "more conservative".

"If he's our candidate, then Hillary's going to be our girl," Coulter stated on Hannity and Colmes.

"Because she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism. ... I absolutely believe that. ... I will campaign for her if it's McCain."

"He has led the fight against -- well, as you say, interrogations, I say torture -- at Guantanamo. She hasn't done that."

Hannity injected himself into the conversation by reminding Coulter "He did support the war," to which she snapped back "So did Hillary.

"When George Bush said at the State of the Union Address that the surge is working in Iraq, Obama sat on his hands, Kennedy sat on his hands -- Hillary leapt up and applauded." Coulter continued.

watch the video:
continued
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 10:01 pm
Advocate wrote:
Tico, I knew was "WASP" meant. But I write quickly and expect the readers on A2K to be reasonably intelligent and not literalists.

It seems that all you can contribute is puny nitpicking of what others write. I suggest you contribute a substantive post now and then, provided you are capable of this.


This is actually an amusing post from one who specializes in sweeping, but palpably false, assertions about real issues; and, as well, incessant name-calling and personal attacks against those who demonstrate his errors and the emptiness of his repeated arguments in defense of Israeli oppression.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 10:40 pm
Tico said:

"If by "literalists" you mean we expect words and terms used in these threads to mean what they actually mean, then yes, I suppose we some of us [sic] are."

Wow, some writing!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 10:49 pm
I write quickly.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 10:50 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
I write quickly.


That's nothing. Advocate lies quickly.

Or perhaps I should say his words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, particularly when the distortions are pointed out to him.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I write quickly.


That's nothing. Advocate lies quickly.

Or perhaps I should say his words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, particularly when the distortions are pointed out to him.


Geo., coming from you, that is hilarious. You and Tico are a great pair: both morons.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:58 pm
Well given the curious nature of your vocabulary -- in which phrases like "... Israel did not attack Egypt in 1956..", really means, "Israel invaded Gaza and the Suez Peninsula on Oct. 29 1956 without warning, its forces reaching the Suez Canal" and unilaterally seized and refused to give up the Gaza Strip in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions".... not to mention numerous other errors, misstatements of well-known facts, prevarications and stupid errors like McCain & Romney are WASPS .... and so on ad nauseum, ....

I guess that means you believe Tico and I are geniuses.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:35 am
Butrflynet wrote:
The best phrase to use when describing the historical moment is: "for the first time in history the Democratic Party will be the only viable political party who will nominate either a Female-American or an African-American as president."

Leave it at that and let everyone apply their own personal interpretations and prejudices to it.


We are down to two candidates who have both stated they think women should be forced to register for Selective Service (the military draft).

A historical moment indeed, but not in a good way.

I think there's a good chance that neither of them will get the nomination (but not because of their support for forcing women into the draft) .

The Dems have a very good chance of failing to nominate on the first ballot and going into a brokered convention.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:37 am
real life wrote:

A historical moment indeed, but not in a good way.


Sorry RL, the only YEC running doesn't have a chance.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:44 am
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

A historical moment indeed, but not in a good way.


Sorry RL, the only YEC running doesn't have a chance.


yuk yuk yuk

In case you missed it, I believe that education should be handled at the local level, not the federal.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:32 am
RL:

Quote:
I think there's a good chance that neither of them will get the nomination (but not because of their support for forcing women into the draft) .


Pray tell, who then oh oracle?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 09:41 am
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 09:46 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Well given the curious nature of your vocabulary -- in which phrases like "... Israel did not attack Egypt in 1956..", really means, "Israel invaded Gaza and the Suez Peninsula on Oct. 29 1956 without warning, its forces reaching the Suez Canal" and unilaterally seized and refused to give up the Gaza Strip in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions".... not to mention numerous other errors, misstatements of well-known facts, prevarications and stupid errors like McCain & Romney are WASPS .... and so on ad nauseum, ....

I guess that means you believe Tico and I are geniuses.


George, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Gaza's links to Egypt go back to 1948, when it annexed the strip - then part of British-ruled Mandatory Palestine - after the war with Israel, with its population swollen by newly-arrived refugees. Israel occupied it for a few months after the 1956 Suez war but Egyptian rule was restored until the next round in 1967.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Mon 4 Feb, 2008 07:00 am
Quote:
Hillary Clinton Again Lies about Iraq
By Stephen Zunes
03/02/08 "ICH" -- -- In Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton lied again about Iraq.

At the forum in Los Angeles, Hillary Clinton declared, "We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors."

That statement was totally false. The bombing campaign had been planned for months and the inspectors were not thrown out. They were ordered out by President Bill Clinton in anticipation of the four-day U.S.-led bombing campaign.

The chronology, which is on the public record, is as follows:

In early 1998, the Clinton Administration began to raise concerns about Iraq's refusal to allow inspectors of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) to visit so-called "presidential sites," a liberally-defined series of buildings and grounds across the country that Iraq claimed were used by government officials. Even though subsequent evidence has revealed that the Iraqis had nothing to hide, since all proscribed weapons and weapons material had long since been eliminated, Saddam Hussein held firm. Given that a number of prominent American political leaders from both parties had called openly for assassinating him, however, the Iraqi leader's reluctance to allow Americans into presidential palaces may have been a result of concerns that such access would make him and other top officials personally vulnerable. Furthermore, the Iraqis had complained that, despite a stated policy of avoiding staffing UNSCOM with experts from "intelligence providing states," there was a disproportionate number of Americans involved in the inspections, who would deliberately prolong the process and could potentially provide information to the U.S. military. The Iraqi dictator also reportedly had an obsessive compulsive disorder which led him to order that his palaces be kept meticulously clean and made him particularly reluctant to allow large groups of foreigners to move about his homes.

The Clinton administration's insistence upon raising this issue at that time was rather suspect: Such Iraqi restrictions on these "presidential sites" had existed since the beginning of the sanctions regime nearly seven years earlier without any concerns publically expressed by United Nations officials. Yet suddenly, in January 1998, the Clinton administration decided that it had become an intolerable violation of UN Security Council resolution 687, which called upon Iraq to verify its disarmament, and warned Iraq that the United States - despite the lack of Security Council approval as required - would engage in a sustained bombing campaign against their country if the Iraqis did not allow these inspections of presidential palaces to go ahead. By February, a large-scale U.S. military assault seemed likely. However, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was able to broker a deal late that month that opened the presidential palaces to UN inspectors, but with an additional diplomatic presence in recognition of the sites' special status.

The disappointment by Clinton administration officials that the bombing campaign would not be able to go ahead as planned was palpable. Clinton did not give up on its search for an excuse to attack Iraq, however.

At the end of October, Iraq imposed new restrictions on UNSCOM as a result of revelations that the United States was indeed illegally using UNSCOM as a vehicle for spying on the Iraqi government. On November 10, in response to pressure from President Clinton, UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler announced his decision to pull UNSCOM out of Iraq without the required authorization from the Security Council. Iraq then reversed itself and agreed to allow the inspectors to resume their activities. The United States, however, was eager to launch military action, particularly by mid-December in order to take advantage of overlapping American military units on rotation in the Persian Gulf, which made it a particularly auspicious time for major air strikes.

According to former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger - now a major advisor for Senator Clinton - met with Butler on November 30, when the UNSCOM director was instructed to provoke Iraq into breaking its agreement to fully cooperate with UNSCOM. Without consulting the UN Security Council as required, Butler announced to the Iraqis that he was nullifying previously agreed-upon modalities dealing with sensitive sites that limited the number of UNSCOM inspectors. He chose the Baath Party headquarters in Baghdad as the site to demand unfettered access, a very unlikely place to store weapons of mass destruction but one very likely to provoke a negative reaction. The Iraqis refused to allow the large group into their party headquarters, but did allow them unrestricted access to a series of sensitive military installations.

At that point, Butler and the Clinton Administration unilaterally ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in order to remove them from the risk of being harmed by the massive U.S. air and missile strikes that were forthcoming. Back in New York, American officials then helped Butler draft a report blaming Iraq exclusively for the impasse in a late night session at the U.S. Mission across from the United Nations headquarters. As the UN Security Council was meeting in an emergency special session on how to implement a unified response to Iraq's non-cooperation, the United States - with support from Great Britain - launched an unauthorized four-day series of sustained air strikes against Iraq in what became known as Operation Desert Fox. In response, Iraq forbade UNSCOM from returning.

Surely Senator Clinton knew all this, since she has emphasized as evidence of her supposed experience in foreign affairs her close consultation with her husband and his national security advisors during these crises. Her claims during the debate, then, that the bombing took place because Saddam Hussein "threw out inspectors" is a boldface lie to rationalize for a four-day bombing campaign that killed hundreds of people, many of whom were innocent civilians, and which gave Saddam Hussein an excuse to refuse to allow inspectors to return to Iraq for the next four years. A number of strategic analysts (including me) publically warned prior to the December 1998 attacks that launching such massive air strikes would result in an end to the UN inspections and would result in reducing Iraqi compliance from 95% to 0%. President Clinton clearly wanted the inspections regime to end, however, presumably because - as Senator Clinton has acknowledged - the administration had shifted U.S. policy from containment of Iraq to regime change. Indeed, the resulting absence of inspectors became the principal rationale for President George W. Bush, Senator Clinton and others to support an invasion of Iraq four years later.

Indeed, in Thursday night's debate, Senator Clinton claims that she voted to authorize war against Iraq in October 2002 because "we needed to put inspectors in." However, this was also a lie, since Saddam Hussein had by that time already agreed for a return of the weapons inspectors. Furthermore, Senator Clinton voted against the substitute Levin amendment, which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process. Instead, Senator Clinton voted for the Republican-sponsored resolution to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing regardless of whether inspectors returned. Indeed, unfettered large-scale weapons inspections had been going on in Iraq for nearly four months at the time the Bush administration launched the March 2003 invasion that Senator Clinton had voted to authorize.

This is part of a longstanding pattern of Senator Hillary Clinton misleading the American public about Iraq in order to justify her militaristic policies. It is important to remember that, back in October 2002, despite widespread and public skepticism expressed by arms control experts over the Bush administration's claims that Iraq had somehow re-armed itself, Senator Clinton was insisting that Iraq's possession of biological and chemical weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed." She also claimed, despite the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iraq's nuclear program had been completely eliminated, that Iraq was "trying to develop nuclear weapons."

This inevitably raises concerns that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will have no qualms about lying once again to the American people in order to justify going to war.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19266.htm

So what are the Clintons? Warhawks not quite as unhinged and incompetent as George Bush?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2022 at 07:03:33