fayfreethinkers.com

Betsy wrote:It's moot now, anyway.

DOUG
I don't think media bias is a moot point, especially since they continue to do it, as in that biased and misleading Hillary-basing article that you cited. It's full of lies and distortions, so it is surely not moot to try to correct the media bias.

And it sure doesn't help heal Democratic wounds to get on here and basically say, "Oh, Hillary is a lying, mean, sack-of shit-bitch. But that's moot. Let's agree that she's a bitch and move on!"

Dar wrote

Question for Barbara (I'm pretty sure she has given this the smack down before). The article states: "...Clinton’s “experience” included her decision to vote in favor of invading Iraq,..."

Did Hillary "vote in favor of invading Iraq?"

Smackdown? Hardly! Barbara and I got into this one, to my great exasperation. It was not a vote "to invade Iraq". It was a vote to give Bush all of the broadest possible military authority to do whatever the hell he wanted to do. Most politically intelligent folks knew exactly what that meant, and what it was likely to lead to then. I remember very vividly. I remember when Hillary voted for it and I vowed to do whatever I could to make her pay for that vote because she was either:
A: Incredibly naive in not knowing what most every other anti-war democrat knew and was saying, and patently ignorant of history for someone who wants to be either a Senator or President considering the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, that that broadly worded resolution would give the President legal authority and cover to invade Iraq, which everyone at the time expected to come. OR
B: She was simply playing the game then, looking ahead to running for President, sacrificing principles for electibility at a time when it took very real courage to stand up to Bush and war. OR
C: She just really did want the war with Iraq.

Those are the possibilities: Stupid, Waffly, or Hawk. I think I documented them quite well in our previous debate, and can easily do so again. All of them, as you all know, negated her as a viable choice for me to support as President.

But here we are back at this again. My this just won't go away will it?

Tony wrote:But here we are back at this again. My this just won't go away will it?

DOUG
No, it won't. Because Obama's claim to expertise in homeland security/foreign policy is that he did not vote "for the war" like Clinton--even though he could not have voted that way even if he wanted to.

So Clinton is bad because she voted the way the majority of people wanted her to, and Obama is an expert because he didn't do something he was unable to do. That's politics.

DOUG
No, it won't. Because Obama's claim to expertise in homeland security/foreign policy is that he did not vote "for the war" like Clinton--even though he could not have voted that way even if he wanted to.

So Clinton is bad because she voted the way the majority of people wanted her to, and Obama is an expert because he didn't do something he was unable to do. That's politics.

It is a sick and exhausting game isn't it?

Abraham Lincoln didn't have much experience in homeland security, or much else when he was elected. I think he handled the Civil War well enough, minus suspending the writ of habeus corpus, mind you.

These games, these silly political games. It's all theater of the absurd! It makes me tired.

Doug, you are being really emotional about this. We should talk about it later when you've had more time to calm down a little.

Darrel, to answer your question re: "war with Iraq" - NOBODY voted for war with Iraq. That wasn't the question. If it had been, and passed (which it wouldn't have) then we would be occupying Iraq after a legal war rather than an illegal attack and invasion. What Hillary and the rest of the Dems (and the sane Rs) voted for in the Authorization to Use Military Force was a law to to force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors in. She explained it at the time of the vote. (Of course, progressives have been explaining what "she really meant" ever since.) She has never apologized for the vote because it did what it was intended to do - force Saddam to allow in weapons inspectors. She has said she'd have voted differently if she'd known that W was going to spin that into supposed authority to attack. The fact that the progressive Dems have been buying into R memes for years is a real problem. If we don't take back the language - well, if we are lucky (and haven't blown up the surface layer of the planet) 21st-century "Allies" will give us back our republic on sword point, as we gave Germany back hers in 1945.

Betsy wrote:Doug, you are being really emotional about this. We should talk about it later when you've had more time to calm down a little.

DOUG
Right. People can't be justifiably outraged about the treatment of Hillary of the actions of the Obama camp. They must be irrational! They just need to calm down.

More patronizing--in the true sense of the term.

doug, i apologize - that was condescending and borne from my frustration of Hillary supporters who just will not admit to ANYTHING negative about her. I felt so guilty about my comment I even dreamed about apologizing to you about it, because I know it was rude. So please forgive me.

That said, I still don't get why anyone, even Hillary supporters - and I do like and admire a lot of things about her - won't allow themselves to accept that she's lied and twisted in the wind and lowered her (and Bill's) reputation and legacy with a shoddily run campaign.

Betsy wrote:doug, i apologize - that was condescending and borne from my frustration of Hillary supporters who just will not admit to ANYTHING negative about her. I felt so guilty about my comment I even dreamed about apologizing to you about it, because I know it was rude. So please forgive me.

That said, I still don't get why anyone, even Hillary supporters - and I do like and admire a lot of things about her - won't allow themselves to accept that she's lied and twisted in the wind and lowered her (and Bill's) reputation and legacy with a shoddily run campaign.

DOUG
I accept your apology. And I'm sorry that I don't know why she's an ignorant little shit. Gee, I don't know why we Hillary folk just can't get over it and love the Obama campaign. Maybe we are just ignorant, debased, shoddy little shits too!

okay, that was kind of hostile and unnecessary, and not what I said.

Betsy wrote:okay, that was kind of hostile and unnecessary, and not what I said.

OK. Sorry. But the more you insist that we move on, the more the wheels seem to spin.

Doug, I don't know you and am definately an outside observer.

How you feel about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or others does not justify your more than childish behaviour and that totally uncalled for attack you just made on Betsy, whom I also do not know. This is especially true in light of her heartfelt apology.

No matter your age, you have a lot of growing up to do. I am not basing that statement on just this one post or thread but, indeed, on a multitude of posts I checked out on this forum while considering joining this group.

Unfortunately, freethinking does not mean open-mindedness; nor is intellectualism synonymous with wisdom; nor is a well thought out point of view equal to maturity.

I really was looking forward to coming to the upcoming June meeting of the Fayetteville Freethinkers but honestly, if this is the caliber of the people involved, methinks I shall stay home.

Signed,
Very Disappointed

I swear on the great flying spaghetti monster I had nothing to do with the previous post and have no idea who wrote it.

But, thanks, anonymous.

Doug, you're reminding me of one of those fundamentalists you hate so much, who simply refuses to look at facts and when you try to point them out, he either yells a bunch of nonsense or cries and runs away. Go ahead and idol worship Hillary if that's what you want to do, I don't care.

Anonymous wrote:Doug, I don't know you and am definately an outside observer.

How you feel about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or others does not justify your more than childish behaviour and that totally uncalled for attack you just made on Betsy, whom I also do not know. This is especially true in light of her heartfelt apology.

No matter your age, you have a lot of growing up to do. I am not basing that statement on just this one post or thread but, indeed, on a multitude of posts I checked out on this forum while considering joining this group.

Unfortunately, freethinking does not mean open-mindedness; nor is intellectualism synonymous with wisdom; nor is a well thought out point of view equal to maturity.

I really was looking forward to coming to the upcoming June meeting of the Fayetteville Freethinkers but honestly, if this is the caliber of the people involved, methinks I shall stay home.

Signed,
Very Disappointed

DOUG
Gosh, how could I have been so rude AFTER someone has already apologized BUT THEN says:

That said, I still don't get why anyone, even Hillary supporters - and I do like and admire a lot of things about her - won't allow themselves to accept that she's lied and twisted in the wind and lowered her (and Bill's) reputation and legacy with a shoddily run campaign.

Answer: That's giving with one hand and taking back with the other. That is basically saying that she is horrible and one can't understand why her supporters don't accept that and then move on. But as Darrel has already pointed out, as I have too, Hillary supporters do not believe that she has "lowered" herself or lied or twisted in the wind. We reject the false characterizations of that hit piece that appeared in the newspaper and to which Betsy referred.

Why does reconciliation among Democrats REQUIRE that Hillary supporters first affirm that she is a lying, disgraced bitch? Is that the path to reconciliation? Is that how Obama wants to bring people together?

Tony wrote:Dar wrote

Question for Barbara (I'm pretty sure she has given this the smack down before). The article states: "...Clinton’s “experience” included her decision to vote in favor of invading Iraq,..."

Did Hillary "vote in favor of invading Iraq?"

TONY
Smackdown? Hardly! Barbara and I got into this one, to my great exasperation. It was not a vote "to invade Iraq".

DAR
Correct. So it was not a vote to invade Iraq, and also not a "vote in favor of invading Iraq" as the article Betsy linked, said. So it wouldn't be accurate to say "Hillary voted in favor of invading Iraq" would it?

Those are the possibilities: Stupid, Waffly, or Hawk.

DAR
So we have three simplistic boxes to put her in. A neat stack of three false choices. A politician trilemma.

I think I documented them quite well in our previous debate, and can easily do so again.

DAR
I think Barbara gave a very good summary above. She is so concise. The answer to the following question is no:

Did Hillary "vote in favor of invading Iraq?"

Nor did she even have the option of voting in favor of invading Iraq.

This is just one clear example of how the article Betsy linked was misleading and passing along a popular myth-conception. One that far left progressives and right-wingers are most interested in keeping alive.

All of them, as you all know, negated her as a viable choice for me to support as President.

DAR
Do let us me when Obama makes his inevitable unforgivable boo boo and you have to switch to someone unelectable like Bob Barr (who else is running?). I'll make sure and give my eyes a good roll.

D.

Barb wrote

Darrel, to answer your question re: "war with Iraq" - NOBODY voted for war with Iraq. That wasn't the question. If it had been, and passed (which it wouldn't have) then we would be occupying Iraq after a legal war rather than an illegal attack and invasion. What Hillary and the rest of the Dems (and the sane Rs) voted for in the Authorization to Use Military Force was a law to to force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors in. She explained it at the time of the vote. (Of course, progressives have been explaining what "she really meant" ever since.) She has never apologized for the vote because it did what it was intended to do - force Saddam to allow in weapons inspectors. She has said she'd have voted differently if she'd known that W was going to spin that into supposed authority to attack. The fact that the progressive Dems have been buying into R memes for years is a real problem. If we don't take back the language - well, if we are lucky (and haven't blown up the surface layer of the planet) 21st-century "Allies" will give us back our republic on sword point, as we gave Germany back hers in 1945.

Horse Hockey! I knew at the time what all necessary force meant. Perhaps because I'm a History grad student and have seen that language mean Vietnam. Perhaps really stupid Senators should learn some history. Perhaps some freethinkers should as well. It doesn't matter what the people who gave Bush what he asked for said they meant by the vote, it matters what he did with what he asked for. AND it matters whether or not people saw the danger at the time or whether or not Bush really pulled a fast one. I knew what the force authorization bill was likely to mean. So did half the fucking Congress, many of whom had the insight, intelligence, and the guts to vote against it, ESPECIALLY after a Democratic bill was defeated which would have mandated that Bush get more explicit authorization to invade or use further military force. A little fact the true Hillary believers on here have yet to address. If any evidence is needed that others at the time were much smarter than Hillary in arguing that the bill so vaguely worded would mean invasion and war if Bush decided he wanted it, I have, can, and will provide a veritable mountain of evidence for you to try and wiggle out of.
Why, oh why, can you not admit that Hillary did something stupid and/or wrong in voting for the force authorization bill? Or ANYTHING for that matter.
Darrel, get ready to roll your eyes: I'm pissed at Obama for sacrificing principle to win by opting out of federal funds when he said he wouldn't. It's that whole honesty thing. See I actually expect it, even from politicians. I know its silly. Perhaps I'll outgrow it. Or turn into a true believer like some other folks I know and never admit my god (or goddess) can or could ever do wrong!
Forgive the dig, or the push back after the 'rolling eyes' comment, but it seems you can only find such worship in the church or the Fayetteville Freethinkers.

Hmmm. After slightly calmer reflection: Here we all are again, on the same side, killing each other. McCain has this one in the bag by all indications. I'll have to go back to writing myself in for Pres. Or maybe find out which candidate would bug Darrel the most and vote for him ). But really I'm holding out hope that Doug and I start the disgruntled cynics of America Party and sweep into office!

Tony wrote:
Why, oh why, can you not admit that Hillary did something stupid and/or wrong in voting for the force authorization bill? Or ANYTHING for that matter.

DAR
All you have to do is ask. I always would have and certainly will gladly admit that Hillary did something stupid and wrong when she voted for that bill. And I was really, really pissed that she avoided admitting it was a mistake too. Then I got over it. I don't go and shoot myself, my interests, in the foot by pretending there are options other than choosing fallible politicians who when examined under the never resting public microscope are found to exaggerate, make mistakes, change their minds and generally be full of themselves. That just makes them like them a lot like the citizens they represent.

McCain has this one in the bag by all indications.

DAR
You must be watching different indications than I am.

Well, not by all indications, just my gut feeling. I still fear its going to be a racism based massacre, and that those of us on the left are still so angry with each other that it will give the Presidency to the GOP even when they lose big in the congressional races. Hope I'm wrong.

I disagree - if the election were held today, I think the democrats would win by a landslide. Who knows what can happen between now and November, but unless something dramatic and unforeseen happens with Obama, I'm hoping the time will be spent exposing all of McCain's warts to the world so all those people who think he's a "straight talker" will get educated.

Betsy - Hillary and Obama did a bang-up job of pushing us in that direction today with their rally in Unity, NH. I'm afraid Tony's right in a sense - not that McCain will necessarily win, but that it's going to be a whole lot harder than it should be because of the racism still so entrenched in America.

And to you and Tony - I didn't say I agreed with Hillary on the AUMF vote, I didn't. But when someone tells me why they did something, even if I don't agree with them, I give them the courtesy of believing what they said. She believed/said a stick was needed to force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors in and that was the stick available. If I wanted her to apologize for anything it would be the PATRIOT Act (at least I think she voted for it, most of the Senate did) - THAT shreded the Constitution and handed W the powers that allowed him to get and do what he did with the AUMF. But even if W used the AUMF to attack Iraq, it still isn't/wasn't a declaration of war. Nobody voted for war because that wasn't what the legislation was. As long as we keep calling it that, we are still playing into the Rs hands.