|
Post by thaddius on Mar 29, 2006 18:23:23 GMT -5
Hillary would draw out a lot of people to vote against her. She is really sickening, nothing more than a demagogue that used her husband's power to position herself well. If she really had any backbone, she would have divorced Bill when he had his affair; instead of doing so, she decided to stay with him to feed off of his political connections. So for a woman to have backbone, she's got to divorce her husband when he cheats? She can't be forgiving? Mrs. Clinton has shown plenty of backbone just by facing off against her critics and running for a political office. God, what the hell does the fact that a woman's husband slept with an intern matter? I seriously doubt that his affair with Monica was his first. Its one thing being forgiving, but Hillary is just using bill as a way to use some of his political power. There is another distinction, Marriage is one of the most sacred vows (may be most, but I'm rusty on my Christianity) and violating that should result in an ending of such vows.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Mar 29, 2006 19:42:19 GMT -5
So for a woman to have backbone, she's got to divorce her husband when he cheats? She can't be forgiving? Mrs. Clinton has shown plenty of backbone just by facing off against her critics and running for a political office. God, what the hell does the fact that a woman's husband slept with an intern matter? I seriously doubt that his affair with Monica was his first. Its one thing being forgiving, but Hillary is just using bill as a way to use some of his political power. There is another distinction, Marriage is one of the most sacred vows (may be most, but I'm rusty on my Christianity) and violating that should result in an ending of such vows. Wow... So much speculation... So little evidence... So untrue.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Mar 29, 2006 21:42:13 GMT -5
I seriously doubt that his affair with Monica was his first. Its one thing being forgiving, but Hillary is just using bill as a way to use some of his political power. There is another distinction, Marriage is one of the most sacred vows (may be most, but I'm rusty on my Christianity) and violating that should result in an ending of such vows. Wow... So much speculation... So little evidence... So untrue. What more can one do when examining a person's motives? Care to give a better assessment of the situation? Seemed like you were rather quick to do it with a certain leader named Bush. And I quote myself: "Seriously, when you're risking over 100,000 lives on a premptive strike, you had better be sure your information is correct. Bush wasn't, so either he's a lier or just plain stupid."
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Mar 29, 2006 22:13:10 GMT -5
What more can one do when examining a person's motives? Care to give a better assessment of the situation? Seemed like you were rather quick to do it with a certain leader named Bush. You see, it is this little thing called facts. Before I made that statement about Bush, I thought about them. I thought about the war in Iraq, and about how we went in there primarily as a premptive strike against WMD. Now, we find out that Iraq never had those weapons. All of these are facts. They lead to three different conclusions: 1. Our information was wrong. 2. Bush Lied. 3. Bush is stupid. Now, we look at the first one of those conclusions, since it is the only one that doesn't make Bush look bad. What can we draw from it? Well, if the information was wrong, it must be based on some level of speculation. (example: 2+2=4, but (~2)+(~2) doesn't always equal 4). This leads us to the idea that the information used to war in Iraq was either based on speculation, lies, or stupidity. So how do I shorten it to the two conclusions seen in my statement? Well, I considered that it is common sense that someone that risks thousands of lives over speculation is umm, not the sharpest tool in the shed. Therefore, I reached my conclusion. As you will note, instead of directly attacking the other side, and attempting to call them a hypocrite, I perfer to attack the other side's logic. Perhaps you should try this someday, it is loads of fun. So, what's your explanation for statements that I have rightly labeled as speculation? Or are you going to force me to explain some past logic to you again? Anyways, have a cookie...
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Mar 29, 2006 23:21:18 GMT -5
Demagogue- Noun- an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=demagogue""When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation..." - Hillary Clinton, January 16, 2006. It is important to note that this comment was made on Martian Luther King day, in Harlem, in a event sponsored by Al Sharpton. I think that it is fact that she is a Demagogue. Whilst you did use some logic in addressing Bush, you are not able to prove anything beyond speculation. Do you know what he knew before invasion? I am not saying that there are WMD in Iraq, is it possible to prove that there were not any there at the time of invasion? Even still, they may be there, but just undiscovered, after all oil was not discovered in the UAE until the 1960's and they have the world's 6th largest reserves. It truly seems that what you have is little more than speculation. On that same token, one could say that Hillary Clinton running under the name Clinton for office is doing exactly what I said, using her husband's name and clout to win the election. Oh by the way, it is false to say that Iraq never had these weapons, as they did and used them on the Kurds in 1989.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on Mar 29, 2006 23:47:39 GMT -5
They used chemical weapons, not nuclear missiles, or dirty bombs. I guess it depends on what you classify as WMD.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Mar 30, 2006 1:09:58 GMT -5
Demagogue- Noun- an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=demagogue""When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation..." - Hillary Clinton, January 16, 2006. It is important to note that this comment was made on Martian Luther King day, in Harlem, in a event sponsored by Al Sharpton. I think that it is fact that she is a Demagogue. Whilst you did use some logic in addressing Bush, you are not able to prove anything beyond speculation. Do you know what he knew before invasion? I am not saying that there are WMD in Iraq, is it possible to prove that there were not any there at the time of invasion? Even still, they may be there, but just undiscovered, after all oil was not discovered in the UAE until the 1960's and they have the world's 6th largest reserves. It truly seems that what you have is little more than speculation. Wow, you can take a quote out of context! If you want to play that way, you can call every President in US History a demagogue. As for the WMD being hidden, if such a thing as that happened, it is the largest intelligence failure in the history of the United States. We have enough technology and man power to prevent that. Who's in charge of the CIA and NSA? Well, President George Bush.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Mar 30, 2006 17:52:53 GMT -5
Wow, you can take a quote out of context! If you want to play that way, you can call every President in US History a demagogue. In what way is that out of context. On a celebration of one of the leaders of the civil rights movement, in a almost all black neighborhood, she compares the United States Congress to a plantation. How on earth is that not demagoguery.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on Mar 30, 2006 20:30:07 GMT -5
The largest intelligence failure in American history was electing Warren Harding.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Mar 30, 2006 21:54:47 GMT -5
In what way is that out of context. On a celebration of one of the leaders of the civil rights movement, in a almost all black neighborhood, she compares the United States Congress to a plantation. How on earth is that not demagoguery. Thaddius, basically I'm saying that what you're calling 'demagoguery' is actually just regular politics. I could call George Bush a demagoge for appealing to the passions and prejudices of evangelical christians. Call her a demagoge if you wish, but do not apply different standards of judgement for her than you do others, got it. Also, I am still waiting on any sort of evidence backing up your claims that 'She is really sickening, nothing more than a demagogue that used her husband's power to position herself well. If she really had any backbone, she would have divorced Bill when he had his affair; instead of doing so, she decided to stay with him to feed off of his political connections.' Have a cookie, and a political science book...
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Mar 31, 2006 1:05:27 GMT -5
Can't we all just agree that all poloticians are equally corrupt and seperated from the public and that the richest one is going to be president?
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on Apr 1, 2006 13:48:14 GMT -5
Ross Perot didn't win, Masta B. And the Demagogue is a boss in Guild Wars. ;D
|
|
|
Post by lulu on May 9, 2006 3:54:14 GMT -5
I'll be voting democratic, just like I did last election.
|
|