Hillary Uncensored: Banned by the Media

[off piste]

The return of dignity and integrity to the White House?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&q=hillary+uncensored&total=146&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[kernel crash]

If she had an R in front of her name the MSM would be all over the story. When it comes to corruption, Bill and Hill take a back seat to no one. Talk about teflon.

[Slider]

Can you say Swiftboat?

First, they make the case that the mainstream media is complicit in some sort of coverup, then present lots of news coverage.

Next, they claim Hillary was "directly involved" and the tape is some sort of smoking gun. What she says is she got briefed, thanks them for what THEY are doing, and mentions no tasks related to planning or anything else. That's why everyone that gave input on the film says there's no evidence she had a role. The tape offers nothing to contradict that at all.

Lotsa smoke, no fire.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Hey where there's smoke there's fire.

[bullitfreerider]

The return of dignity and integrity to the White House?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&q=hillary+uncensored&total=146&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Why do I need to take a shower after watching this. I've called her the anti-Christ since she was "running" with Bill for his first term. Very scary eyes. As a Grip Inc. tune says...."evil eyes do smile".

[Slider]

You seem to have missed the fact that it is all BS. You need to watch more closely.

Slider

[bullitfreerider]

You seem to have missed the fact that it is all BS. You need to watch more closely.

Slider

Hillary and her extreme ilk are a threat to our constitutional republic.
The ultra left has hijacked the Dem party. Their hypocrasy is stunning.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Geraldine Ferraro wants all of you misogynists... especially the Democrats like John edwards, to stop picking on Hillary. :(

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/11/fem-versus-fem.html

[kernel crash]

Hey I got a running mate for Hillary

[Slider]

I guess we need to all vote Republican. I plan to volunteer to ride the first tank into Iran, want to donate more tax money to Haliburton, and think that poor Dick Cheney is misunderstood. He just wants to be nice! That's why he has personally handed out what, half a $trillion?

Damn Pakastanis don't get the whole democracy thing. Time for a stern lecture from W. If anyone can explain the nuances of protecting the voters, he is the man.

So I take it all back. That bitch Hillary is devil-spawn.

Slider

[bullitfreerider]

I guess we need to all vote Republican. I plan to volunteer to ride the first tank into Iran, want to donate more tax money to Haliburton, and think that poor Dick Cheney is misunderstood. He just wants to be nice! That's why he has personally handed out what, half a $trillion?

Damn Pakastanis don't get the whole democracy thing. Time for a stern lecture from W. If anyone can explain the nuances of protecting the voters, he is the man.

So I take it all back. That bitch Hillary is devil-spawn.

Slider

Lots of Pols on both sides of the isle have their fingers in the above.
The issue at hand on this thread is "the anti christ" herself.

[Slider]

In your overheated imagination. Taking your cues from Fox is my guess.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Why is it any time someone expresses a view to the right of the traditional liberal slog, they are accused of taking their marching orders from FOX news or from talk radio. Isn't it possible that others, just as intelligent, have views that do not follow lock step with Rosie O'Donnell and that ilk?

[FriedRys]

Why is it any time someone expresses a view to the right of the traditional liberal slog, they are accused of taking their marching orders from FOX news or from talk radio. Isn't it possible that others, just as intelligent, have views that do not follow lock step with Rosie O'Donnell and that ilk?No. If you ain't liberal, you are just plain ig'nant.

[bullitfreerider]

In your overheated imagination. Taking your cues from Fox is my guess.

Slider

Actually, the greater media sucks. Most of what we read and view have no real substance or truth. I draw my own conclusions and unlike many, don't resort to usual tired party dribble or cliches. At the risk of sounding like Al Gore, I drew my own conclusions about Hillary Clinton when she was a candidates wife.....I was the first to call her "the anti christ". :^)

Unlike many blind voting electorate, what counts for me is the Constitution. Any candidate that doesn't support the constitution and it's amendments doesn't get my support or vote.....on either side. Hillary Clinton is a danger to our Constitution.

[Slider]

Anti-christ? Is that a political classification or a religious one?

All the media is what, lying? So where do you get your info? How are you vetting it?

With your Constitutional grounding, where have you been the last seven years?

Slider

[heckler]

Why is it any time someone expresses a view to the right of the traditional liberal slog, they are accused of taking their marching orders from FOX news or from talk radio. Isn't it possible that others, just as intelligent, ...

I usually stay out of this cross fire but the concept of saying someone jsut as intelligent as FOX news jsut cracks me up! Thanks for making my night! Talk about oxymorons.

[Slider]

No. If you ain't liberal, you are just plain ig'nant.

If you can't reason out your opinions, you are plain ignorant. I can. Can you?

Slider

[FriedRys]

If you can't reason out your opinions, you are plain ignorant. I can. Can you?

SliderIs that some sort of e-challenge? Rumble at the Debate?

[Slider]

Sure. Sounds fun.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I usually stay out of this cross fire but the concept of saying someone jsut as intelligent as FOX news jsut cracks me up! Thanks for making my night! Talk about oxymorons.

Really. Looks like you completely misrepresented my point. My use of the word intelligent was directed at the users of this forum who are just as well read as Slider, but happen to form opinions that are different yet just as relevant.

[bullitfreerider]

Anti-christ? Is that a political classification or a religious one?

All the media is what, lying? So where do you get your info? How are you vetting it?

With your Constitutional grounding, where have you been the last seven years?

Slider

Wow......so many questions.....but questions really in the form of accusations. This is a predictable form of debate that deflects from the real debate.

As for your first question, my depiction of Hillary Clinton as "the anti-Christ" is a personal observation based on watching her act from the early days of Bill Clinton's candidacy/presidency, right up to her run for the Dem ticket. It is irrelevant as to religious or political basis. I don't feel that way about other powerful Dem Pols. Of course I don't agree with their liberal leanings but at least I see them as up front on their agenda.

Notice the inaccurate "all" reference in the second question.....that of course sets up the third question that is therefor useless, along with the question of vetting. Of course, the last question is not a question, but sarcasm.

I have stated my opinion on Hillary Clinton that she is "the anti-Christ".

My opinion stands. Good luck.

[Slider]

How is she a danger to the Constitution? I mean, we're suspended the damn thing under Bush, and you think she'd be worse somehow. That cleary requires some sort of substantiation.

And the question about the media needs some backup too. We are awash in information, and you need to qualify all sources. I don't think you could even know who Hillary is without having seen her on the news or read about her somewhere. Those are media. So if you don't rely on media, where are you getting your info?

The anti-Christ thing, whatever. Sounds more like sexism to me.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I've never met her but that doesn't mean I don't recognize an empty pants suit when I see one. Her latest gaff on drivers licenses for illegals tells you everything you need to know about her modus operandi. Don't get yourself pinned down on any real issues of substance. Remember the script. Remember the script. When all else fails send out the stooges to distract and divert attention away from Hillary. Throw the blame somewhere else. Quick. Maybe nobody will notice. But they did notice.

[FriedRys]

Sure. Sounds fun.

SliderExercising futility? Sounds pretty boring to me.

[Unbreakable]

How is she a danger to the Constitution? I mean, we're suspended the damn thing under Bush, and you think she'd be worse somehow. That cleary requires some sort of substantiation.

And the question about the media needs some backup too. We are awash in information, and you need to qualify all sources. I don't think you could even know who Hillary is without having seen her on the news or read about her somewhere. Those are media. So if you don't rely on media, where are you getting your info?

The anti-Christ thing, whatever. Sounds more like sexism to me.

Slider
So the Constitution is suspended under Bush? Clearly THAT accusation requires some sort of substantiation. Rather, I think we'll get more of your empty headed liberal buzz phrases passed off as rebuttal.

It is almost skillful how you assert that others on this forum must "qualify their sources" while you offer none for all your vommited opinions that you attempt to pass off as fact.

So, where is your proof that President Bush has suspended the Constitution?

[Slappy]

I'M NOT GONNA DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH A BUNCH OF RACISTS!!!!

Oh sorry...wrong thread...

:p

[Slider]

So the Constitution is suspended under Bush? Clearly THAT accusation requires some sort of substantiation. Rather, I think we'll get more of your empty headed liberal buzz phrases passed off as rebuttal.

It is almost skillful how you assert that others on this forum must "qualify their sources" while you offer none for all your vommited opinions that you attempt to pass off as fact.

So, where is your proof that President Bush has suspended the Constitution?

I'm not sure if the discussion is worth having if you don't even recognize the perversion of the Constitution that we've had over the last seven years. We can start with simple disobedience of laws enacted by Congress, signing statements, torture, domestic spying, and those are really just the tip of the iceberg.

So now let's hear your point on how Clinton is somehow a threat to Constitutional respect at a time when it has never been lower.

Slider

[easilyspooked]

i (heart) the internet

[Unbreakable]

I'm not sure if the discussion is worth having if you don't even recognize the perversion of the Constitution that we've had over the last seven years. We can start with simple disobedience of laws enacted by Congress, signing statements, torture, domestic spying, and those are really just the tip of the iceberg.

So now let's hear your point on how Clinton is somehow a threat to Constitutional respect at a time when it has never been lower.

Slider

Did you offer any proof that President Bush suspended the Constitution?
Because I don't see any proof. When I read your response, it starts out with a high handed remark implying you know more than I, because I do not accept your snivelling accusations that the President is somehow guilty of a crime. If it is your opinion that the President be charged with something (of which you have evidence), perhaps you should seek a higher audience like the Justice Department.
No, I suspect that you like many other high minded liberals are simply festering over the Presidents refusal to allow Congress to foist itself on the Executive Branch of government. We have in The United States what is known as separartion of powers for a reason.

Finally, don't try to dodge my original question by thowing something as irrelevant as Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Suffice it to say she will not be elected president (assuming she wins her party's nomination).

[Slider]

I can offer many examples, but I'll settle on one. Waterboarding is specifically outlawed by Congress. This administration encourages the practice. You can't get a clearer example than that. If you think the president is above the law, you haven't read the Constitution.

And you were the one that said Clinton would be a threat to the Constitution, not me. So who's throwing what regarding that?

Slider

[BG]

All Presidents are a threat to the Constitution.

The Problem With the Constitution

'The Constitution is a riddle that has confounded and delighted politicians and their constituents alike for two hundred years. The thirty-nine individuals that sired this document created an enigma without a hint of clarity. Modeling our entire government after an anachronistic document elicits a deadlocked country that derives ambivalent meanings from it and takes illogical and sometimes abusive actions in the name of these interpretations. Therefore, the ambiguous Constitution should be instrumental in the functioning of our government only up until the point of subjectivity; beyond that point, it should only serve one of its two primary functions: a framework of government, but not a foundation for basic law.'

[Slider]

If it is a framework, the checks and balances make up the frame. The President is pissing on them.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Oh, for christ's sake, all friggin' President attempt to usurp the Constitution to some regard. The Democrat supporters always deny or spin away their guy, and the Republicans likewise. Enough with the, "You prove it"... "No, YOU prove it" slapfighting.

George Bush is THE SINGLE WORST President in the history of our country. This comes from a conservative minded independent, folks. And quite honestly, I don't know how anybody can honestly view it in any other way without looking like a complete rumpswab. There.

As for Clinton, well, I don't see how she can possibly be worse. That said, she is hardly much better. She stands for nothing. This was typical of her husband when he ran, and she's pulling the same crap. His big advantage was that he had looks and charisma with which to fool the electorate. And it worked. She has none of that. But she does have the same sit-on-the-fence-and-let-eveyone-else-enter-the-fray-about-her. She deserves every bit of criticism she gets. And the charges of Sexism... well, hardly surprising coming from the looney left, whether you're an irrelevant Geraldine Ferraro, or your typical internet lefty who always falls back on condescension and namecalling when the going gets rough.

The real question is, will anybody have the balls to vote for the only candidate out there worth our vote. The only candidate that is not afraid of speaking on what he believes and feels, not what the polls or political advisers tell him. You know about whom I refer. And if you don't, he's a diminutive Congressman from Texas (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) and has nothing in common with George Bush other than the "R" next to his name. He's make some surprising news with his fund raising. And I'll be voting in my first Republican primary ever, just to cast this vote. And I guarantee you this... he scares the bejeezus out of everybody running against him, for if he can continue his rise to prominence, he will change politics... for the better. Now, can you truly say that about any Democrat candidate? Yea, right. The only reason those like Slider support her at all is because she is the front runner. The second Al Gore enters the fray and cuts into her lead, they'll all flock to him. But at least he stands for something.

[Slider]

It is a constant battle, no doubt. And Presidents will push as far as Congress and the Judiciary lets them. That is what checks and balances are all about.

But what got us here was a prediction that Hillary would be a threat to the Constitution. It is all relative. And Bush is, hands down, the worst. Ever.

Treason, torture, graft, domestic spying, rigging the Judiciary, pick one. Don't like those? There are lots more to choose from.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

It is a constant battle, no doubt. And Presidents will push as far as Congress and the Judiciary lets them. That is what checks and balances are all about.

But what got us here was a prediction that Hillary would be a threat to the Constitution. It is all relative. And Bush is, hands down, the worst. Ever.

Treason, torture, graft, domestic spying, rigging the Judiciary, pick one. Don't like those? There are lots more to choose from.

Slider
I'm sorry...what's the name of the special prosecutor investigating all these allegations?

[Slider]

Like I said, it ain't a discussion worth having. Willful blindness is how I see it.

You DO remember the resignation of the Attorney General, right?

Slider

[Unbreakable]

I'm so glad you're able to finally admit that willful blindness is how YOU see things. Had Congress felt the President broke any laws, a special prosecutor would have been appointed.

As for the former Attorney General's resignation, since his prosecution didn't move forward, one can only assume innocence, since he wasn't convicted of any crime (let alone tried).

With your admission, you are now on your way to a full recovery. I recommend you leave the snivelling and whining to Congressional Democrats.

[kernel crash]

I can offer many examples, but I'll settle on one. Waterboarding is specifically outlawed by Congress. This administration encourages the practice. You can't get a clearer example than that. Slider

I'm not saying water boarding would make for a pleasant experience but I would prefer that to say, having limbs broken, having fingers cut off, having my neck sliced and diced, having blowtorches turned on me, being forced to watch Bill and Hillary having sex. Hey water boarding doesn't look so bad after all does it. Scares the sh!t out of you but leaves no permanent damage.

[Slider]

I'm so glad you're able to finally admit that willful blindness is how YOU see things. Had Congress felt the President broke any laws, a special prosecutor would have been appointed.

As for the former Attorney General's resignation, since his prosecution didn't move forward, one can only assume innocence, since he wasn't convicted of any crime (let alone tried).

With your admission, you are now on your way to a full recovery. I recommend you leave the snivelling and whining to Congressional Democrats.

Political realities mean that Congress does a lot less on some things, and a lot more on others, than it should and needs to do. Lack of prosecution means nothing at all regarding guilt or innocence, especially when the President cowardly hides behind fabriacated national security issues and denies the necessary information even to security-cleared members of the legislature. That obstruction, and clear contempt of Congress, is a big part of what we are talking about here.

Objecting to what the scumbag is trying to do isn't sniveling. It is patriotism, a necessary part of democracy, and something that you need to think about a lot more closely.

Slider

[Slider]

I'm not saying water boarding would make for a pleasant experience but I would prefer that to say, having limbs broken, having fingers cut off, having my neck sliced and diced, having blowtorches turned on me, being forced to watch Bill and Hillary having sex. Hey water boarding doesn't look so bad after all does it. Scares the sh!t out of you but leaves no permanent damage.

Let's call it water sliding, and assume it involves lots of fun. If it was outlawed, it would still be illegal. No matter what the President thinks about it.

Slider

[off piste]

Yep, kind of like Illegal Aliens. No matter how you spin it, they're still illegal.

[Slider]

Except if the President is breaking laws and undermining the Constitution, stopping it is a lot more important than stemming the flow of laborers that harvest our food. But let's not get sidetracked here. That is another conversation.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I can't help but let out a tiny chuckle every time a lefty talks of patriotism. It's a word you certainly didn't hear much of when... uh oh, here I go bringing up that name again. They hate that. But hey, it's relevant in that his wife is running for the office, and sorry, but "patriot" is the last thing that comes to mind no matter which Clinton we're talking about. So you might want to be careful when evoking that idea.

That's not to say that what Slider says about Bush here is not without merit. Why anybody continues to pathetically defend his piss-poor record is mystifying.

[Unbreakable]

Do not mistake the questioning of half-baked accusations, as defending the accused. To the uninformed, Slider's attempts to pass his opinion as fact might sound legitimate. When called to task however a different picture comes to light.

[off piste]

“What George Bush does is plant questions and exclude people from events, and I don’t think that’s what Democrats want to see,” Mr. Edwards said in Iowa.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

November 12, 2007

Clinton Aides Prompted Queries at Events

By PATRICK HEALY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/patrick_d_healy/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
At two campaign events in Iowa (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/iowa/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) this year, aides to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) encouraged audience members to ask her specific questions, a tactic that drew criticism from an opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination and led her yesterday to promise that it would not happen again.
Mrs. Clinton, speaking to reporters in Iowa, said she was unaware that her aides had ever planted questions.
“It was news to me,” said Mrs. Clinton, of New York, “and neither I nor my campaign approve of that, and it will certainly not be tolerated.”
Staff members have been told to avoid doing so in the future, advisers said.
Planting questions with audience members, while not unheard of in political campaigns, is generally avoided because of the embarrassing image it suggests when the tactic becomes public: that a candidate is uncomfortable facing tough questions or campaigning in unpredictable settings.
Iowa’s presidential caucuses are less than two months away, and Mrs. Clinton is in a tight race there with Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Illinois and John Edwards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/john_edwards/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a former senator from North Carolina.
Political analysts said that while planting questions is not the worst sin of a campaign operation, the practice could reinforce negative opinions about Mrs. Clinton.
“The problem for Hillary Clinton is the whole spin that’s going to happen — that she and her campaign are manipulative and scheming and that she is essentially trying to bend the rules to maintain her lead in the polls,” said Steffen W. Schmidt, a political science professor at Iowa State University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/iowa_state_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org).
The practice came to light late last week when a student at Grinnell College in Iowa, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, told her campus newspaper (http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/questions.html) that a Clinton aide had asked her to pose a question to Mrs. Clinton about global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).
The request came during an event Tuesday in Newton, Iowa, where Mrs. Clinton outlined her plan to create five million jobs in renewable energy sectors.
In a question-and-answer session with the audience, Mrs. Clinton called on several people with raised hands; some of them asked friendly questions about policy, and one man pressed her on trade issues.
At one point Mrs. Clinton called on Ms. Gallo-Chasanoff, who asked for the senator’s ideas for combating global warming.
Ms. Gallo-Chasanoff did not return phone messages over the weekend seeking comment. But the Grinnell College newspaper reported her as saying that the Clinton aide told her the campaign wanted a question from a college student, and that campaign staff members had prompted Mrs. Clinton to call on her.
A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, denied that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the planted question or that she was directed to call on Ms. Gallo-Chasanoff. But he confirmed that the campaign aide planted the question.
“It’s not something we do; it’s not an official campaign policy,” Mr. Elleithee said yesterday. “But it is now an official campaign policy that we will not do this moving forward.”
One of Mrs. Clinton’s opponents in the Democratic presidential race, Mr. Edwards, used the incident to chide her, telling reporters yesterday that voters at campaign events “expect you to stand in front of them and answer their hard questions, and they expect it to be an honest process.”
“What George Bush does is plant questions and exclude people from events, and I don’t think that’s what Democrats want to see,” Mr. Edwards said in Iowa.
In response, Mr. Elleithee said: “Senator Clinton has taken hundreds of questions here in Iowa and across the country from voters and reporters, and she will continue to. What George Bush does is attack the Democrats and divide the country, and John Edwards’s campaign is resembling that more and more every day.”
Last spring, an Iowa Democrat, Geoffrey Mitchell, said that a different Clinton aide encouraged him to ask Mrs. Clinton about Iraq policy during a campaign event, according to a news account at the time and a report Saturday on Fox News.
Mr. Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday. He is supporting Mr. Obama, according to Fox.
Mr. Elleithee said yesterday that this second instance was not an example of a planted question. Rather, he said, the aide and Mr. Mitchell were loosely familiar with each other and they were talking about Iraq, and the aide suggested that Mr. Mitchell ask a question.
“We often encourage people who have questions about the senator’s policies to ask her questions about them,” Mr. Elleithee said.

[kernel crash]

Why anybody continues to pathetically defend his piss-poor record is mystifying.

Look again. I really don't see much of anybody trying to defend his piss poor record. He's basically a one trick pony, terrorism, that doesn't hold up much as he leaves the open borders at home unsecured. He can't be gone soon enough for my taste but I don't like what waiting in the wing. Strap yourself in. It's going to get real bumpy from here on out.

[Slider]

Do not mistake the questioning of half-baked accusations, as defending the accused. To the uninformed, Slider's attempts to pass his opinion as fact might sound legitimate. When called to task however a different picture comes to light.

Let's go into to any opinion that you may question. We can start with treason, and I have a lot to say on that one. Then we can move to blatantly illegal domestic spying. Again, try me on that one. We can stroll through signing statements and torture any time that you like. But that would still only touch the surface. Pick one. Any one. Let's air it out.

These aren't opinions that these things happened and are happening under Bush, they're facts.

Slider

[Slappy]

Oh christ, is this the beginning of another 200 page thread where you ramble endlessly on those very subjects? Cuz we've already been thru one of those. I think it consisted mostly of Slider copying and pasting missives,then lecturing us all on how anyone not in absolute lockstep with him was not only an enemy of democracy but also an idiot (and racist of course, just for good measure). I'm pretty sure he and his hench-libs managed to trace the underlying reasons for everything from the amount of rainfall in a specific weather event to mine collapses directly to the desk of the president (only this president, of course).

You can get a chuckle out of it here:
http://www.nemba.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13337

[off piste]

:har:

Hench-libs

:D

[ride in maine]

:har:

Hench-libs

:D

SO Lifes abitch lets just elect one

[Slider]

C'mon. You gotta admit that Unbreakable was asking for it. I am definitely willing and able to oblige. Fish in a barrel.

But what got us here was the statement that Hillary was somehow a threat to the Constitution. Nothing on that so far, so it became a matter of comparison. Again, fish in a barrel.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

That's right...But now I'm all done asking you to substantiate your accusations. Every time anyone tries to elicit some of the myriad of "facts" behind those accusations of criminal activity, you respond with one of your two stock replies: "If you can't understand what I'm saying, there's no point blah blah blah"... OR "I could go on and on about all these 'crimes' blah blah blah ", but you never provide anything except regurgitation of the editorialized content available at the newstand.

If you want to engage in debate, you have to have something significant to say. Then perhaps a rebuttal.

If you wish, go back to your most previous post in this thread, and point out the substantiation (not just a repetition of your inane accusations).

BTW, I did not respond because Slappy's reply put it so eloquently that I saw no need.

Yet you continue to respond with nothing.

[Slider]

You say I am the one not substantiating my statements, but what got us here by default was your statement about some vague Constitutional threat from Hillary. With nothing else to go on, it became a question of how anyone could possibly be worse than Bush.

I can, and do, defend every post I make. Follow Slappy's link back as far as you want. The only nothing here comes from you.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

You say I am the one not substantiating my statements, but what got us here by default was your statement about some vague Constitutional threat from Hillary. With nothing else to go on, it became a question of how anyone could possibly be worse than Bush.

I can, and do, defend every post I make. Follow Slappy's link back as far as you want. The only nothing here comes from you.

Slider

First, I NEVER said Hillary was a threat to the constitution. Find that post in this thread and I will apologize. Second, what got us here my question to you (see below):
------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Slider
How is she a danger to the Constitution? I mean, we're suspended the damn thing under Bush, and you think she'd be worse somehow. That cleary requires some sort of substantiation.

And the question about the media needs some backup too. We are awash in information, and you need to qualify all sources. I don't think you could even know who Hillary is without having seen her on the news or read about her somewhere. Those are media. So if you don't rely on media, where are you getting your info?

The anti-Christ thing, whatever. Sounds more like sexism to me.

Slider
So the Constitution is suspended under Bush? Clearly THAT accusation requires some sort of substantiation. Rather, I think we'll get more of your empty headed liberal buzz phrases passed off as rebuttal.

It is almost skillful how you assert that others on this forum must "qualify their sources" while you offer none for all your vomited opinions that you attempt to pass off as fact.

So, where is your proof that President Bush has suspended the Constitution?
-------------------------------
You offered NO defense of your statement that the president suspended the Constitution. Instead, you gave one of your two stock responses, which doesn't even come close to defending your post. Like I said, if you want to engage in meaningful debate you have to make a point based on facts. You never do. When I called you on it you tried to change the subject with more of the same inane drivel.



BTW, while we have one of your previous posts in plain view, perhaps you can defend your requirement (see above) that others qualify their sources while you never do.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Look again. I really don't see much of anybody trying to defend his piss poor record. He's basically a one trick pony, terrorism, that doesn't hold up much as he leaves the open borders at home unsecured. He can't be gone soon enough for my taste but I don't like what waiting in the wing. Strap yourself in. It's going to get real bumpy from here on out.

Maybe it just seems that way with people trying to hard in taking their stabs at Slider and his repetitive rants. It sometimes looks as though people are defending Bush simply to rebut the typical liberal slant. You ought to try and read through any Huffington Post thread. It's a frothing-at-the-mouth liberal feeding frenzy over there. Between them and the anti-establishment, comspiracy whackos, it's a real trip.

[Slider]

First, the Hillary thing was Bullitfreerider, not Unbreakable. Apologies.

Bush threat to the Constitution, todays big three:

1. Signing statements. Simply illegal ignorance of established laws.
2. Domestic spying. Specifically outlawed.
3. Waterboarding. Illegal.

Again, I can go on with lots more examples. Which one would you like to delve into first?

Lawbreaking by the President is, in itself, a threat to the Constitution. When it is done blatantly, with no regard for the rule of law, it is a threat to democracy.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Bush threat to the Constitution, todays big three:

1. Signing statements. Simply illegal ignorance of established laws.
2. Domestic spying. Specifically outlawed.
3. Waterboarding. Illegal.

Slider

Signing statements have been going on forever. Clinton had plenty during his administration.

Domestic spying, you'll never know how long something like this has been going on unless someone spills the beans. We know J Edgar Hoover, Nixon and probably a few others. By the way, this domestic spying thing is blown way out of proportion. It only happens, allegedly, when one of the 2 parties involves is coming from a foreign country. Maybe Pakistan. If you call your Aunt in Iowa, nobody listening.

Waterboarding. Has Bush actually waterboarded anybody or is it going on in foreign jails? In other words is it happening on American soil? I doubt it. I've seen more kids swallow water at water parks than I'll bet goes on in those jails.

[Slider]

Signing statements have been going on forever. Clinton had plenty during his administration.

Domestic spying, you'll never know how long something like this has been going on unless someone spills the beans. We know J Edgar Hoover, Nixon and probably a few others. By the way, this domestic spying thing is blown way out of proportion. It only happens, allegedly, when one of the 2 parties involves is coming from a foreign country. Maybe Pakistan. If you call your Aunt in Iowa, nobody listening.

Waterboarding. Has Bush actually waterboarded anybody or is it going on in foreign jails? In other words is it happening on American soil? I doubt it. I've seen more kids swallow water at water parks than I'll bet goes on in those jails.

Signing staements have been judiciously used in the past when there were genuine vagaries regarding the constitutionality of a law. Under Bush for the first time ever, he is claiming, essentially, that he can usurp any power he wants if he makes a vague national security claim. That's where the threat lies.

Domestic spying - you must have missed the NSA's request for commercial phone records. Tip o the proverbial iceberg, illegal, and advocated by the Administration.

What soil waterboarding happens on matters not at all. It is illegal.

So which laws ARE binding for the President? Can he decide?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/15/clinton_says_she_would_not_back_drivers_license_pl an/

No driver's licenses for illegals? Wow. How are they supposed to get to the lettuce fields or the assembly plants?

She's more conservative than many Republicans on this issue. Has to be killing Slider.

[off piste]

More on this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/hillsdl.html

After two weeks, can Clinton stop the slide?

Hillary Clinton, who was both for and against giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants two weeks ago, came out against them again last night. Her latest decision came on the same day that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer met in Washington with his state's congressional delegation (minus Clinton) and announced that he was abandoning his controversial plan to issue licenses to illegal immigrants.
"As president," the senator said, "I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration, including border security and fixing our broken system."
This was likely a vain attempt to take the volatile license issue off the discussion table heading into tonight's 5 p.m. Pacific CNN debate in Nevada, where her opponents -- primarily Barack Obama and John Edwards -- must continue to chip away at her standing. According to a new CNN poll, she holds a 51% to 23% to 11% edge over Obama and Edwards in Nevada. The Times' Scott Martelle examines campaigning for that state's caucuses (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-nevada15nov15,0,1160194.story) here on this website and in Thursday's print editions.
Two weeks ago in the last Democratic debate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21528787/), Clinton was doing her usual steady job as the front-runner until the last few minutes, when she stumbled over two issues (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/debate-item.html) -- her support for/opposition to the driver's licenses and whether she would open her first lady document files, which she says provided the experience that qualifies her to be president but won't allow anyone to see.
Moderator Tim Russert first asked her if giving licenses to illegals made a lot of sense, and ....

Clinton appeared to endorse the idea, explaining Spitzer's thinking and blaming the Bush administration for a lack of comprehensive immigration reform.
Then, when Chris Dodd said he opposed the plan, Clinton needlessly interjected, "I just want to add I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Gov. Spitzer is trying to do ..."
Russert then sought to clarify: "I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"
Clinton: "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."
O.K., now do you understand her position?
Her opponents didn't either, and pounced on classic Clinton wanting it both ways. The next day her campaign manager in a fundraising appeal sought to portray it as six guys "piling on." Clinton then told the women at her alma mater that her schooling there prepared her to play in the all-boys president's club. And then Bill Clinton weighed in, suggesting the criticism equaled the Swift boat smearing of John Kerry.
Then a 19-year-old Iowa college sophomore innocently revealed she'd been given a planted question to ask at a Clinton forum in Iowa (video of the planted question here (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/11/12/clinton.planned.question.cnn); a longer interview video of the student here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)). And the Clinton campaign had to admit (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/plants.html) to the rigging.
So it's been a tough two weeks off-message for the senator. And it's shown in the polls, with Clinton's once mammoth lead dwindling like a Slim-Fast diet, despite her fat bank account and bounteous endorsements.
So, tonight is a big opportunity for Clinton to regain her momentum or for Obama and Edwards to throw her further off-stride in the last seven weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Indications are they won't go easy on her. After Clinton's Wednesday statement on licenses, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, said, "When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it's easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them."
-- Andrew Malcolm

[off piste]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15dems.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1195362000&en=be84a7a2e1b150cc&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Yesterday, in an attempt to neutralize one possible threat at the debate, her campaign announced that Mrs. Clinton would not support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants as president. It is the latest formulation of her position, which has shifted since it became a tripping point in the last televised debate on Oct. 30.

In Las Vegas, Chance for Clinton to Undo Damage

By PATRICK HEALY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/patrick_d_healy/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) heads into tonight’s Democratic presidential debate (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/presidential_debates/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in Las Vegas with an opportunity: to try to erase the unflattering image that her chief rivals, and her own mistakes, have helped create.
Yesterday, in an attempt to neutralize one possible threat at the debate, her campaign announced that Mrs. Clinton would not support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants as president. It is the latest formulation of her position, which has shifted since it became a tripping point in the last televised debate on Oct. 30.
Her advisers say they hope the matter will now be off the table, but Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals made clear that they would continue to press the argument they have been making in recent weeks, that she is inconsistent and overly political.
“When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Illinois, a rival in the race for the nomination.
“Wow, this is dizzying,” added Eric Schultz, a spokesman for former Senator John Edwards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/john_edwards/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of North Carolina, another rival.
Mr. Edwards has also given somewhat conflicting statements on the driver’s license issue. “The differences on this are clear: Senator Clinton is opposed to giving driver’s licenses to undocumented people, Senator Obama is for it, and no one knows where Edwards is,” said Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman.
The last debate began a new level of intensity in the Democratic contest. Since then, Mr. Edwards has been pummeling Mrs. Clinton on a host of domestic and foreign issues; Mr. Obama has been slicing more delicately.
But with both attracting the anti-Hillary vote, neither has emerged as the clear alternative to her, political analysts say.
Tonight’s two-hour debate, at 8 on CNN, offers opportunities for all three candidates, but Mrs. Clinton has the most repair work to do. At the last debate, both opponents and the moderator, Tim Russert (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/tim_russert/index.html?inline=nyt-per), challenged her for taking vague or contradictory positions, like on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, a proposal by Gov. Eliot Spitzer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York that was widely criticized and then withdrawn yesterday.
Since then Mrs. Clinton has been buffeted on other fronts, like her Iowa operation’s planting friendly questions with audience members at her events.
Mrs. Clinton spent Tuesday and yesterday off the campaign trail to prepare for tonight, huddling with her team at campaign headquarters yesterday. Advisers said in interviews that Mrs. Clinton had not been prepared for the onslaught at the Oct. 30 debate, and would be far more ready for incoming fire in Las Vegas. She has been preparing to point out inconsistencies in Mr. Edwards’s and Mr. Obama’s positions, and to give yes-or-no answers to convey forthrightness.
Howard Wolfson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/howard_wolfson/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, said the two rivals had been increasingly harsh in their attacks, and predicted that the debate would show Mrs. Clinton’s experience as both a candidate and possible president.
“The last debate we saw both Senator Obama and Senator Edwards abandoning their promises to run positive campaigns, and certainly we are prepared for more of the same Thursday night,” Mr. Wolfson said.
Political analysts say Mrs. Clinton’s two rivals have not been especially ruthless — pointing out differences on Social Security or Iran, for example, rather than trying to stoke the concerns about Mrs. Clinton that some Democrats have had since the 1990s.
“Edwards and Obama are still waltzing around her rather than hitting on doubts about her that would really resonate with voters,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/rutgers_the_state_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org).
“One absolutely devastating accusation that could resonate is that she is gullible — she bought into two false story lines, one from her husband about Monica Lewinsky (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/monica_s_lewinsky/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and one from President Bush about Iraq,” Mr. Baker added.
Linda L. Fowler, a professor of government at Dartmouth College (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/dartmouth_college/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said she was surprised that the rivals have not even managed to dent Mrs. Clinton’s strong lead in opinion polls about which Democratic candidate is prepared to be president.
“The experience of first lady is simply not the same thing as running a complicated organization,” Ms. Fowler said.
The risk for Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals, of course, is that negative attacks on Mrs. Clinton could boomerang against the attacker, as happened to Richard A. Gephardt (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/richard_a_gephardt/index.html?inline=nyt-per) after he lashed into Howard Dean (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/howard_dean/index.html?inline=nyt-per) leading up to the 2004 Iowa caucuses.
Joe Trippi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/joe_trippi/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a senior adviser to Mr. Edwards, said his candidate was not focused on tearing down Mrs. Clinton, but rather on convincing voters that she was part of a political system that Americans should turn against.
David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, also said that his candidate was more determined to be an alternative to “a style of politics that’s inadequate to the time,” rather than an alternative to Mrs. Clinton herself.
Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said yesterday that she could not allow her views to be defined or misconstrued by her opponents.
“The challenge for Senator Clinton is to rise above the attacks because she’s the largest figure on the stage,” said Robert Zimmerman, a public relations specialist and a leading fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton. “And the challenge for her supporters is not to be on the defensive, but to stay on the offensive against the attacks.”

[Slider]

Why does this obsess you guys so much? I mean Rudy, as mayor, wanted NYC to be a haven for illegals, and encouraged them to locate there for their cheap labor. You can't think flip flop without having Romney come to mind. But a single issue relating to licenses has you frothing at the mouth.

Like most of the conservative media, you are really digging for something. I like all that implies!

Slider

[off piste]

Awww, don't worry Slider. You'll be frothing too and tearing her to shreds when Gore jumps in and runs.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Why does this obsess you guys so much? I mean Rudy, as mayor, wanted NYC to be a haven for illegals, and encouraged them to locate there for their cheap labor. You can't think flip flop without having Romney come to mind. But a single issue relating to licenses has you frothing at the mouth.

Like most of the conservative media, you are really digging for something. I like all that implies!

Slider

Nice try at the downplay. First off, the link I cited is from the Boston Globe. So there goes your "conservative media" argument. Secondly, this has less to do with the actual flip-flop than it has to do with Clinton selling out to look like a moderate. She is no moderate. Please.

Then again, she did vote for the war in Iraq. So what does that make her, stupid like anyone else who was suckered in by the preponderance of so-called "evidence"? Naw, if nothing else, Hillary is not stupid. So what is it?

It's a facade, that's what. She's no moderate. She most certainly does not want to deny illegal aliens anything, but she want those independent votes... and unfortunately for her, the fact remains that a majority of the country is against legislation giving more rights to non-citizens that are here illegally. And she can't ignore that. So, I guess she has to play a "racist" in order to become President. And like off-piste says, you'll be right on the anti-Hillary wagon the second Gore throws his hat in.

What I don't get is why Democrats do not support Joe Biden. He has, by far, performed the best in just about every debate. He is easily the smartest, most savvy, and most qualified candidate on that side of the aisle. So what gives?

Ok, I'm being disingenuous. Of course I know why. He's a middle aged white guy (who did not put out a Global Warming documentary). The Dems have had enough of those. So forget that Hillary and Obama have performed less than stellar in each debate and have little executive experience. You have a black and a woman. It's time to break those barriers, even if they aren't qualified. Hell, that's what quotas are all about right? Filling positions regardless of qualifications?

Don't even try and deny that this is the case, Slider. You know that Biden is the best candidate. People just have their minds set on a minority figure.

[Slider]

Lots of news sources have coverd the debates, so you can find a link anywhere you look. Means nothing. The only places you see the license thing playing repeatedly is on the right, intentionally. That's a Rovian tactic, think swiftboating here, where you attack an oponent on whatever weaknesses your own candidate has. Get them defensive, and your own guy's weaknesses isn't so glaring. Bush went AWOL, so let's portray Kerry as a liar and a coward.

Same thing with the license issue. Look back into Rudy as mayor and you get none of the concern about illegal immigration that he now spouts. And you need go no further than Rove to see how concerned the right is about Hillary. He's offering free advice via the media to Obama these days. http://www.cnn.com/linkto/ticker.html

The immigration issue isn't one of my own hot buttons. We need them, and should legalize the lot of them, but a stance one way or the other means little to me in a presidential candidate. The whole idea that they are somehow related to terrorism is just another smokescreen by the Bush camp to cover its own incompetence while mismanaging an important war, and in starting an idiotic one. Illegals are skapegoats, but the ball is rolling and you need to get elected first in order to, say, stop a war or implement national health care. You can't ignore a media frenzy if you want votes.

About experience, you do get the fact that Hillary is a Senator, right? Kinda stacks up well against a governor and a mayor, don't you think?

Slider

[off piste]

“When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Illinois, a rival in the race for the nomination.
“Wow, this is dizzying,” added Eric Schultz, a spokesman for former Senator John Edwards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/john_edwards/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of North Carolina, another rival.
Mr. Edwards has also given somewhat conflicting statements on the driver’s license issue. “The differences on this are clear: Senator Clinton is opposed to giving driver’s licenses to undocumented people, Senator Obama is for it, and no one knows where Edwards is,” said Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman.

Hmmm, unless you're saying Obama and Edwards are righties, it appears that your statement about only the right making a big deal about this is flawed. And on that subject, when you say we're "obsessed" with this subject, seeing as we're only quoting things said by the other democratic candidates themselves, aren't you really saying that the other dems are flawed in their stance on this issue?

[Slider]

Nope. The ball is in play, and there's no ignoring it. Doesn't mean much to me, as I said. And I bet it means less to most Americans than the attention it is getting. That's why no one has called Rudy on his u-turn so far. Might happen sometime, if needed. But for now, we're in the primaries, and you get Dems talking about Dems, and Repubs. doing the same about their side. Wait until after the primaries for the real issues to surface.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

About experience, you do get the fact that Hillary is a Senator, right? Kinda stacks up well against a governor and a mayor, don't you think?

Slider

It's hardly adequate experience on her part considering the only reason she took that office in the first place is because she has been planning on running for the Oval Office from the day her hubby left office. Oh sure, she denied it right up until the day she shocked the world. If she were serious about simply legislating within Congress, she wouldn't have chose to carpetbag her way into New York for the exposure. Oh, I don't deny that her strategy worked to a tee. She obviously has a majority of Democrats suckered in right now. Can't help but notice, though, that you keep sidestepping the Gore comments.

[Slider]

There some meandering for you. So her path is less, what, appropriate? Than whose?

You can try to paint it any color you like. She's a politician, just like everyone else in the race. So what?

If Gore gets some backing, he ought to run. Haven't heard the platform yet.

Slider