Hillary Clinton IS a monster.

[W10 Chubb]

You know - I have no idea why every one seems to have a stick up their arse about this - but boy is it good reading.

Democrats fighting democrats - fucking love it!

Win win ! What a result!

 

[Nishin]

LOL! It's Cloverfield Clinton!

Lovecraft actually ...

[/off topic]

 

[Spiff]

See, Ohio? That's why you suck.

 

[snapcat]

And the Ohio delegation has made their point ....

Folks, you think we can all post here without calling one state stupid or giving each other the finger?

 

[ShortBoy]

Hillary has a different face for every state - except for the irrelevant states. She tells Ohio NAFTA is a problem which needs to be overhauled and tells Texas NAFTA is good and it only needs a couple minor adjustments.

 

[LukeatDuke]

I've read a lot of comments here from Obama supporters giving Clinton supporters crap because they support her at all costs. Why aren't any of the Obama supporters willing to admit that in the case of this thread the original post is inaccurate. Her campaign did not meet with the Canadian officials and make assurances like Obama's campaign did. The Canadian government has even confirmed it.

 

[iman]

^Because the Obama people think that there is nothing that their candidate does that they can't blame on Clinton. It's an ongoing pattern.

 

[lancelva]

Hillary has a different face for every state - except for the irrelevant states. She tells Ohio NAFTA is a problem which needs to be overhauled and tells Texas NAFTA is good and it only needs a couple minor adjustments.

As usual, you are misleading people about Senator Clinton's position. Here is what she said:

You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the administration. But when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic.

I've said it was flawed. I said that it worked in some parts of our country, and I've seen the results in Texas. I was in Laredo in the last couple of days. It's the largest inland port in America now. So, clearly, some parts of our country have been benefited.

But what I have seen, where I represent upstate New York, I've seen the factories close and move. I've talked to so many people whose children have left because they don't have a good shot.

I've had to negotiate to try to keep factories open -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not -- because the companies got tax benefits to actually move to another country.

So what I have said is that we need to have a plan to fix NAFTA. I would immediately have a trade time-out. And I would take that time to try to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we'll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement.

We will do everything we can to make it enforceable, which it is not now.

We will stop the kind of constant sniping at our protections for our workers that can come from foreign companies because they have the authority to try to sue to overturn what we do to keep our workers safe.

This is a big issue in Ohio, and I have laid out my criticism; but, in addition, my plan for actually fixing NAFTA.

Again, I have received a lot of incoming criticism from Senator Obama. And the Cleveland Plain Dealer examined Senator Obama's attacks on me regarding NAFTA and said they were erroneous.

So I would hope that, again, we could get to a debate about what the real issues are and where we stand, because we do need to fix NAFTA. It is not working. It was, unfortunately, heavily disadvantaging many of our industries, particularly manufacturing. I have a record of standing up for that, of chairing the Manufacturing Caucus in the Senate, and I will take a tough position on these trade agreements. [...]

I will say, we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it. And we renegotiate it on terms that are favorable to all of America.

But let's be fair here, Tim. There are lots of parts of New York that have benefited, just like there are lots of parts of Texas that have benefited. The problem is in places like upstate New York, places like Youngstown, Toledo and others throughout Ohio that have not benefited. And if you look at what I've been saying, it has been consistent. [...]

But, you know, Tim, when you look at what the Cleveland "Plain Dealer" said when they examined the kind of criticism that Senator Obama was making of me, it's not me saying it. They said it was erroneous. And it was erroneous because it didn't look at the entire picture, both of what I said and what I've done. But let's talk about what we're going to do.

It is not enough just to criticize NAFTA, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forth a very specific plan about what I would do. And it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards. [...]

Not side agreements, but core agreements. That we will enhance the enforcement mechanism, and that we will have a very clear view of how we're going to review NAFTA going forward to make sure it works. And we're going to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers.

I would also say that you can go back and look at from the very beginning. I think David Gergen was on TV today remembering that I was very skeptical about it.

It has worked in some parts of America. It has not worked in Ohio. It has not worked in upstate New York. And since I've been in the Senate, neither of us voted on this. That wasn't something either of us got to cast an independent vote on.

Since I have been in the Senate, I have worked to try to ameliorate the impact of these trade agreements.

What was Obama's response?

I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right

 

[snapcat]

When I do or say somthing crude I get threaten with being kicked off, called names and all that and have my post deleted, but when others do it they still remain.

There are no deleted posts in this thread. If you have questions about some other thread let me know and I'll do my best to answer your questions.

 

[White-Teeth]

Shafted, your frenetic anger and irrational hate really negate anything productive you have to say.

 

[syntax]

As usual, you are misleading people about Senator Clinton's position. Here is what she said:

"You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the administration."

This is an absolute lie. She took a very public position IN SUPPORT of NAFTA over and over again. From David Sirota's post:

The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html

 

[lancelva]

Nothing you quote contradicts anything she has said before. It's been beneficial in some parts of the country but not in other parts. We need to renogiate NAFTA to combat these problems. And Obama said he agreed with her.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer had this to say about the Obama attacks that you are repeating:

Clinton's position on trade policy is a particular point of contention in Ohio, where a Barack Obama mailer erroneously quoted her calling the North American Free Trade Agreement a "boon" to the U.S. economy.

Clinton did praise NAFTA after its enactment during her husband's administration in 1993, but aides and biographers say she had personal misgivings about it.

Since her election to the Senate, she has called for a moratorium on trade agreements, voted in the Senate against the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005, backed legislation imposing trade sanctions on Chinese exports and said NAFTA needs to be revised.

Her campaign didn't tell the Canadian government to ignore her anti-NAFTA rhetoric. She didn't send out erroneous maillers about Obama. And she didn't vote for CAFTA.

 

[syntax]

Nothing you quote contradicts anything she has said before.

"You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the administration."

She didn't have a PUBLIC position on NAFTA when she traveled to Davos and around the US and praised it? If she was so against NAFTA, why didn't she just keep her mouth shut instead of PUBLICLY praising it?

 

[tmb1]

Clinton's campaign has said from the start that they give full immunity to anyone who can name a member of Clinton's campaign involved in this.

No name has been provided.

But a memo has surfaced that named Obama's senior advisor who had this interaction with Canada.

No matter how hard Obama supporters try to smear, the truth is still the truth.

Comedian Nickcole everybody!

 

[tmb1]

Not that I expect the truth means anything to Obama supporters, but here it is:




Obama misled voters of Ohio and Texas, just like he lied to voters about having passed nuclear leak legislation, and according to one of his senior foreign policy advisors Obama's misleading voters about his plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Dubya all over again.

Encore! Encore!

Nickcole will be appearing with comedian Rush Limbaugh tonight at the Tropicana. Be sure to bring your wading pants, the shit will be flowing pretty high!

 

[chance1]

I think calling someone a "monster" is not nearly as bad as misrepresenting their positions

"she's a monster" - not so bad

obama fired the woman immediately right?

so he's handling this str8 up

u gotta like obama's ability to deal with adversity

 

[tmb1]

I am gonna follow in the Obama camp foot-steps for a min.

When I do or say somthing crude I get threaten with being kicked off, called names and all that and have my post deleted, but when others do it they still remain.

Also appearing at the Tropicana, comedian musicman-bflat! Just when you thought racism as comedy was outta style.

 

[seamusnewwest]

Not too professional IMHO if they are leaking confidential assessments to the press. Or are you saying that the Canadian government intentionally sought to embarrass Obama to help either Clinton or McCain?

What I took offence to is the suggestion that Canadians can't get it right when it comes to writing a briefing, because initially Obama said that there was no meeting at all, then retreated and said there were no such reassurances given.

It's not clear who leaked the memo, but it wasn't the diplomatic service. It appears that it may have been an official in the office of our Conservative Prime Minister (officially, the Prime Minister's Office) acting on his own, but nothing is for certain yet, so no one knows whether it was political mischief or it was leaked because it's a matter in the national interest. There's an investigation going on, since such a leak would be illegal here.

 

[wtpotus]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/9/11395/45051/59/472856
(with 402 fairly harsh comments and counting)


Hillary Clinton, on the qualifications of John McCain to be President of the United States:

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.​

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.​

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”​

Let us leave aside for the moment the disturbing fact that Clinton is praising the presumptive Republican nominee while simultaneously attacking the Democrat who very well may be his opponent. Let's examine instead the very notion of the "threshold" Clinton presents as a qualification for president.
John McCain served his country in Vietnam. He was captured and was kept as a prisoner of war. He has served on committees in the Senate dealing with foreign policy and military affairs. In short, he has decades of experience with military issues, intelligence issues, and other matters which one may fairly say fall within the "commander in chief" sphere.
But what has been the result of these decades of experience? What does John McCain present today that pushes him past the "commander in chief threshold"?
Is it his joking and singing about bombing Iran? Is it his promise that "there will be more wars"? Is it his belief that the nation's spying apparatus should be turned upon its people?
What proves that McCain has "certainly" crossed the threshold?
His claim that we should remain in Iraq for 100 years? His dishonest accusations that his political opponents want to "wave the white flag of surrender"? Or is it his insistence on sending more troops into a quagmire?
Clinton's "threshold" appears to be more about quantity than quality. McCain has been involved for decades in military or national security affairs, and thus, according to her logic, he apparently crosses the "threshold" to be commander in chief.
This definition of "threshold" though is both troubling and dangerous. Using this definition, Donald Rumsfeld would "certainly" cross the threshold. Colin Powell would "certainly" cross the threshold.
By focusing on the quantity of years in the national security arena rather than on the quality of judgment which has been evidenced during those years, Clinton compacts the most important role of the president into a numbers game which is blind to political philosophy or governing ideology.
Yet it is precisely the use (or abuse) of political philosophy and governing ideology which should be the "threshold" for being commander in chief.
McCain brings decades of "experience" to the table, but he also brings a decades-old "us vs. them" mentality and a loyal belief in the unitary executive. It is this mindset which makes Clinton's assertion that McCain is "certainly" qualified to be commander in chief utterly absurd.
To emphasize the absurdity of her statement: let's remember that McCain's commander in chief philosophy is no different than that of President Bush.
Clinton repeatedly refers to Bush's legacy as a "failed presidency." She calls the president's decision to keep troops in Iraq "the height of irresponsibility." And yet, a man who wholeheartedly embraces both the policies of that "failed presidency" and the irresponsible idea of keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years receives Clinton's stamp of approval.
Had the founders desired years of military-related experience to be a "threshold" for commander in chief, they would have drafted such a requirement into the Constitution. Instead, a 35 year old natural born citizen who has resided here for 14 years can assume that role. And the only "threshold" that exists is gaining the approval of the American people, by proving to them that you have the judgment necessary to fulfill the duties of the office.
It is that threshold that qualifies a person to be commander in chief. It is a threshold of trust. A threshold of judgment. And against that threshold, McCain's record shows that he falls far short.

 

[Lostlover]

She's a two-faced, lying bitch with a house built on sand.
I can't imagine anyone with common sense trusting that woman.

See, Ohio? That's why you suck.

Wait, wait.

She has a vagina. That means gay men and women have to support her regardless of what happens.