The smartest woman in the world huh

[real american]

I read this on another board I'm on.

DICK MORRIS' ANALYSIS OF BILL CLINTON'S BIO ABOUT HILLARY-----
BILL CLINTON LEAVES TRUTH OUT OF HILLARY'S BIOGRAPHY---- Check out Bill Clinton's syrupy five minute ad for Hillary. He introduces the commercial by saying that he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary's background. Bill's version of her biography is about as reliable as if it appeared in Bravda! So, since I, Dick Morris, was there for most of Bill's presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I need to make a few corrections;

Bill says: Hillary never
wanted to run for public office, but she did want to work at public service.

The facts are: When Clinton was considering not running for another term as Governor of Arkansas in 1990, Hillary said she would run if he didn't. She and Bill even had me take two surveys to assess her chances of winning. The conclusion was that she couldn't win because people would just see her as a seat warmer for when Bill came back licking his wounds after losing for president. So she didn't run. Bill did and won. There is no question she had her eye on public office, as opposed to service, longggg ago.

Bill says: In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.

The facts are: Hillary's main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children's rights project for poor kids.

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.

The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General and made partner only after he was elected governor.

Bill says: President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill's support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter's choice to be chairman.

Bill says: She served on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital.

The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-mart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices as a Wal-Mart board member.

Bill says: Hillary didn't succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994, but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.

The facts are: Hillary had not hing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I, Bill Morris, helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals' tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: Hillary was the face of America all over the world.

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

Bill says: Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children's and women's issues.

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One, set up a national park in Puerto Rico . A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer's or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 9-11 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that's you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.

1. She wants to close GITMO & move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.

2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qeada phone calls to/from the USA .

3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qeada cells & supporters in the USA .

5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists, even though such tactics might save American lives. I can't think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror. But, I can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens our country & makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us........She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.

She is a disaster for all Americans.

[rikzilla]

Bah!

Hillary is just hard-@ssed enough to make a very good POTUS. Sure she panders to the extreme left, but I'd be willing to bet that if she wins the White House her biggest loony supporters would become her mortal enemies within a week. Moonbats have no patience, and little sense. Hillary is a realist.

-z

[Pyrts]

Oh. I thought this was about Marylin Vos Savant, who is acknowledged by some as the smartest woman in the world. Instead it's Hillary bashing.

Thanks, but I'm voting for her anyway. And I agree that there's a group of (generally conservative males) people that would vote for a man with the same policies and agendas and so forth that Hillary has, but won't vote for a woman.

[fuelair]

Please do not assume that fecal matter on any board bears resemblance to the truth. Occasionally it might but beware most of the time.

And if you want to talk about souless slime in politics, you need look no further than the Shrub festering putridly in the (now) Slime House in D.C.

[real american]

Please do not assume that fecal matter on any board bears resemblance to the truth. Occasionally it might but beware most of the time.

And if you want to talk about souless slime in politics, you need look no further than the Shrub festering putridly in the (now) Slime House in D.C.

I am not saying Bush is the best president we had neither was LBJ.

[real american]

Oh. I thought this was about Marylin Vos Savant, who is acknowledged by some as the smartest woman in the world. Instead it's Hillary bashing.

Thanks, but I'm voting for her anyway. And I agree that there's a group of (generally conservative males) people that would vote for a man with the same policies and agendas and so forth that Hillary has, but won't vote for a woman.

Yes your probably right, but I don't think like that. A women could and one day will be president. However, I don't think Hillary is right for the job.

[Cleon]

I am not saying Bush is the best president we had neither was LBJ.

But what about Millard Fillmore, eh? Eh?!?!

[real american]

But what about Millard Fillmore, eh? Eh?!?!

Sorry, I do not know anything about him so i can't make that judgement

[Caspian88]

If we're going to talk about the worst presidents ever, I don't see how you can rate Bush when he still has a year left in his term. Now, if you want to claim that he's on track for being on that list, that's fine, and I could very well agree (although I would still be reluctant to make that claim, as I do think some perspective is needed - time, really), but it's hard to rate a president against his peers when he's still active. For all we know, tomorrow he could successfully and eternally bring about world peace, or he could start a nuclear war with the Russians (which could also bring about world peace...).

Personally, I'd probably rate James Buchanan as the worst president ever, at least at this moment.

As for Hillary, if I remember correctly, Morris was reputed to have a rather impressive feud with her (heard this on talk radio, so I don't really know how true it is), and if true, it would certainly not help me trust Morris' evaluation all that much. Plus, I don't think that last little section is going to really attract people, especially those here, to his opinion. Anyway, unless it turns out that Hillary eats aborted human fetuses spread like butter on toasted slices of puppies for breakfast, she'll be the Democratic nominee and probably the 44th POTUS.

[sgf8]

Anyway, unless it turns out that Hillary eats aborted human fetuses spread like butter on toasted slices of puppies for breakfast, she'll be the Democratic nominee and probably the 44th POTUS.

That's not soooo bad. Now if it were toasted kittens....that's another story.

Susan

[sgf8]

But what about Millard Fillmore, eh? Eh?!?!

Well....according to my "Presidents for Dummies" book

Fillmore was the one who made the compromise of 1850 that fueled the civil war. He was also really racist, opposing immigration, anti-catholic, anti-black, anti-jewish and so on...

I agree with Caspian, you have to add time to any discussion of ranking. Also you must not view people from our 21st century eyes, even Fillmore (who sounds awful) was a man of his time. Probably most men in power shared his views, and I my book it does not mention him eating kittens or puppies anywhere.

Susan

[tek]

Ironically, those are the best 5 reasons I have seen to vote for Clinton yet.

[timhau]

So, since I, Dick Morris, was there

...

I, Bill Morris, helped ...

So, are you Bill or Dick? Or Bill's... no, let's not go there.

[fuelair]

I am not saying Bush is the best president we had neither was LBJ.

In all fairness, Bush is -even for analysts who are not politically motivated- considered the worst (or tied for worst with a couple of others) US president ever. They are kinder than I am.

[Vorticity]

Watch this space:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/playbyplay.asp

[Vorticity]

A quick Google search reveals that, at the very least, this piece does not appear anywhere on Morris' web site: http://www.dickmorris.com/

[JoeEllison]

There's something bizarre and almost insane about right-wing blathering about how "liberal" Hillary Clinton is supposed to be. It shows a very clear, very serious detachment from objective reality.

[Upchurch]

There's something bizarre and almost insane about right-wing blathering about how "liberal" Hillary Clinton is supposed to be. It shows a very clear, very serious detachment from objective reality.

Remember when John Kerry and John Edwards were the two most liberal senators in congress?

[Vorticity]

I thought they were the first and fourth most liberal?

[Upchurch]

I thought they were the first and fourth most liberal?

Oh, maybe. It's all silliness.

[JoeEllison]

Remember when John Kerry and John Edwards were the two most liberal senators in congress?

You mean when the right-wing idiots cherry-picked the data to make a false point against their betters? There were so many instances, it is hard to remember details... but I remember that one vaguely Across his entire career, Edwards was ranked #24, and Kerry was something like #11. Instead of using the actual data, the right wing used partial data from a single year, when they were running for president and missed many or most of the votes used to calculate the scores.

[BPSCG]

You mean when the right-wing idiots cherry-picked the data to make a false point against their betters? There were so many instances, it is hard to remember details... but I remember that one vaguely Across his entire career, Edwards was ranked #24, and Kerry was something like #11. Instead of using the actual data, the right wing used partial data from a single year, when they were running for president and missed many or most of the votes used to calculate the scores.Here's Americans for Democratic Action's "cherry-picking." ADA is (their words) "America's most experienced independent liberal lobbying organization."


Since ADA's founding in 1947, the Annual Voting Records have served as the standard measure of political liberalism. Combining 20 key votes on a wide range of social and economic issues, both domestic and international, the Liberal (LQ) provides a basic overall picture of an elected official's political position.

Each year, ADA's Legislative Committee selects 20 votes it considers the most important during that session. ADA's National Board and/or National Executive Committee approves those votes. Each member receives 5 points if he/she voted with ADA, and does not receive 5 points if he/she voted against us or was absent. The total possible is 100.
In 2006, Clinton scored 95; eleven other senators scored 100
In 2005, she scored 100.
In 2004, she scored 95.
In 2003, she scored 95.
In 2002, she scored 95.
In 2001, her first year in the Senate, she scored 95.

She may not be the most liberal senator around, but only a complete left-wingnut would complain she's not leftist enough. Keep in mind, this is a well-respected liberal organization that says these are her scores - not "right-wing idiots," as you so courteously described them.

Now, if you have some statistics that prove she is in fact not this liberal, by all means, trot them out.

[Nancarrow]

Never ceases to amaze this Brit, how the word 'liberal' is so frequently used as a pejorative in the US. The US, fer chrissakes.

I'm also confused about how 'left-wing' and 'liberal' became equivalent terms, but that's another issue.

One of these days, political discourse is going to be raised above the level of attempting to assign a single-bit-value to each person or issue. That day doesn't seem to have arrived yet.

[Nancarrow]

Oh, maybe. It's all silliness.

Some people seem to take it seriously. :con2:

[JoeEllison]

She may not be the most liberal senator around, but only a complete left-wingnut would complain she's not leftist enough.
Oh please, give me a goddamned break.

[fishbob]

I read this on another board I'm on.
. . . . .

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that's you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror. . . . . .


I can't stand it anymore.
The time has come.


Real American - you just totally rippped off REO Speedwagon.

[jsfisher]

In all fairness, Bush is -even for analysts who are not politically motivated- considered the worst (or tied for worst with a couple of others) US president ever. They are kinder than I am.

I'm curious as to what rankings you are referring. All the ones I've seen put George W. Bush just a little below average, often with Bill Clinton only a single step above him.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents) has a representative summary of what I've observed.

[Darth Rotor]

Oh please, give me a goddamned break.

Joe, this place has one rule:

No Mercy. :D

DR

[Upchurch]

Joe, this place has one rule:

No Mercy. :D
DR is right, but we'll let it slide just this once.

[JoeEllison]

Some group gives Democrats points for voting against Republican stupidity, and for whatever watered-down crap they can get passed, and call it "liberal"? Voting against the idiocy coming out of the Republican party doesn't make you automatically liberal, and neither does passing things that far-right morons oppose.

[BPSCG]

Oh please, give me a goddamned break.No.

You made the claim that "right-wing idiots cherry-picked the data to make a false point against their betters" (I'd be curious to know who you think "their betters" are), and backed up that claim up with nothing more than some vague recollection that you couldn't or wouldn't trouble yourself to look up, post, and link to.

Then when I come up with actual data, covering Senator Clinton's entire career, you cry for me to give you a goddamned break.

If you wish to counter what I've posted, quit your crying and trot out the evidence that proves she is in fact not as liberal as her six-year voting record says she is. Otherwise, man up and concede the field.

[JoeEllison]

No.

You made the claim that "right-wing idiots cherry-picked the data to make a false point against their betters" (I'd be curious to know who you think "their betters" are), and backed up that claim up with nothing more than some vague recollection that you couldn't or wouldn't trouble yourself to look up, post, and link to.

Then when I come up with actual data, covering Senator Clinton's entire career, you cry for me to give you a goddamned break.

If you wish to counter what I've posted, quit your crying and trot out the evidence that proves she is in fact not as liberal as her six-year voting record says she is. Otherwise, man up and concede the field.

Your "evidence" is nonsense, as I've spelled out. The group you brought up cherry picks specific votes that they think are representative, that don't cover ANYONE'S entire career, and make a dishonest claim of "liberalism" based on it.

Just because I didn't link doesn't mean I didn't look it up. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407080003
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071504.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2004/07/29/3259/

"Man up"? Chum, you have no idea. Get off your computer once in a while, and get back some perspective.

[JoeEllison]

I think the real question is "why does nearly everyone, left and right and center, allow these sorts of very blatant misrepresentations to stand unanswered?"

I guess it must help Clinton to allow some fools to believe she is liberal, even though she's on the DLC plan of centrism and anti-populism. If gives the idiot right a convenient boogeyman for them to project their insecurities and personal demons onto.

What is everyone else's excuse?

[BPSCG]

Your "evidence" is nonsense, as I've spelled out. The group you brought up cherry picks specific votes that they think are representative, that don't cover ANYONE'S entire career, and make a dishonest claim of "liberalism" based on it.As I said (this is the third time), if you have some statistics that prove she is in fact not this liberal, by all means, trot them out.

Otherwise, you're just making a lot of noise.

[Michael Redman]

As far as I know, Dick Morris is neither illiterate nor ignorant. So, since he obviously did not write that poorly crafted blather, what is the point of posting it?

[real american]

with that all said, who here would vote for hillary clinton?

[sgf8]

Hillary Clinton has my vote because I don't like anyone better. She isn't my perfect candidate I would not contribute money, but I will vote for her.

As noted earlier, Caspian88 said, she probably will be the next President. I would have to agree.

Susan

[Upchurch]

I'm not voting for Clinton, but not because I have anything against her personally.

There are people in this country, older than real american even, who have never known anything other than a "President Bush" or "President Clinton". I'm opposed on principle to the most powerful public office in the country being passed back and forth between two families.

Given that there are other qualified candidates in the field, I see no reason to risk starting (or perpetuating) a pair of twin Presidential dynasties.

eta: That being said, if Clinton gets the nod on the Democratic side and the Republicans put up another idiot, I will vote for Clinton.

[Michael Redman]

George, Bill, George, Hillary, Jeb, Chelsea?

[JoeEllison]

As I said (this is the third time), if you have some statistics that prove she is in fact not this liberal, by all means, trot them out.

Otherwise, you're just making a lot of noise.

Actually, the only "noise" here is the statistics used to "prove liberalism". If you insist on using meaningless and fundamentally flawed statistics to make your point, there's nothing further to discuss here.

[JoeEllison]

I'm not voting for Clinton, but not because I have anything against her personally.

There are people in this country, older than real american even, who have never known anything other than a "President Bush" or "President Clinton". I'm opposed on principle to the most powerful public office in the country being passed back and forth between two families.

Given that there are other qualified candidates in the field, I see no reason to risk starting (or perpetuating) a pair of twin Presidential dynasties.

eta: That being said, if Clinton gets the nod on the Democratic side and the Republicans put up another idiot, I will vote for Clinton.
I'm with you... I'd prefer someone else(like possibly an actual liberal!), but if your choice is another Clinton or more Bush under a different name, the choice is pretty clear.

[Upchurch]

George, Bill, George, Hillary, Jeb, Chelsea?
Jenna/Barbara in '24!
Chelsea's Spouse in '32!
Barbara/Jenna in '40!


No, thanks.

[BPSCG]

Actually, the only "noise" here is the statistics used to "prove liberalism". If you insist on using meaningless and fundamentally flawed statistics to make your point, there's nothing further to discuss here.Translation: "I can't prove what you say is wrong, but it is, and that's all I'm gonna say."

[Mashuna]

with that all said, who here would vote for hillary clinton?

There's no way I'd vote for her. I hear you have to be a real American to do that.

[ConspiRaider]

with that all said, who here would vote for hillary clinton?
I would, you tremendously silly right winger!

I'd have voted for Al Gore first choice but he ain't runnin'.

Probably - Hillary is going to get my vote. Already contributed to her campaign, she seems reasonable enough, kind of moderate, and it could be as good a team in the White House (Hillary / Bill) as it was with the Roosevelts (Franklin / Eleanor). You'd have to study a bit of American history to realize just how great an impact Eleanor Roosevelt had on the 4 terms (elected) of FDR. She was a colossal influence, and positive. A major leaguer.

So unless Hillary really screws up (won't happen) then I'll pull the blue lever for her.

And isn't it about son-of-a-bitching time we had a female President? Of COURSE it is. What's this crap about 43 straight white guys, all of them WASPS except for one Catholic? What the living hell is up with THAT?

[JoeEllison]

Translation: "I can't prove what you say is wrong, but it is, and that's all I'm gonna say."

Nope... but if it makes you feel better to lie, knock yourself out.

[Tailgater]

Your "evidence" is nonsense, as I've spelled out. The group you brought up cherry picks specific votes that they think are representative, that don't cover ANYONE'S entire career, and make a dishonest claim of "liberalism" based on it.

Just because I didn't link doesn't mean I didn't look it up. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407080003
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071504.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2004/07/29/3259/

"Man up"? Chum, you have no idea. Get off your computer once in a while, and get back some perspective.

Unless I missed it, I didn't see the group in question (ADA), or read anything about Hillary Clinton. Those links are for debunking conservative rankings of Kerry and Edwards.

Why are liberals offended about Kerry and Edwards ranking high in the first place? Is it because those two are not liked by left-wingers or are they embarassed for how left-wing they are? Doesn't make sense to be upset about % points. I would think people would be more upset if they cherry-picked stats to make them look like they slept with right-wingers. Why not embrace being accused of voting party line?

If you were running for office in the Democratic party (especially in the primaries), would you rather
A:be accused of voting too liberal?
B:be accused of crossing party lines often?

Same with Republicans. Notice in the primaries how everyone tries to be the most conservative.

[JoeEllison]

Unless I missed it, I didn't see the group in question (ADA), or read anything about Hillary Clinton. Those links are for debunking conservative rankings of Kerry and Edwards.

Why are liberals offended about Kerry and Edwards ranking high in the first place? Is it because those two are not liked by left-wingers or are they embarassed for how left-wing they are? Doesn't make sense to be upset about % points. I would think people would be more upset if they cherry-picked stats to make them look like they slept with right-wingers. Why not embrace being accused of voting party line?

If you were running for office in the Democratic party (especially in the primaries), would you rather
A:be accused of voting too liberal?
B:be accused of crossing party lines often?

Same with Republicans. Notice in the primaries how everyone tries to be the most conservative.I don't know about "liberals". I think everyone should be offended when the media spreads obvious lies. As I've said before, I don't so much mind if people disagree with a politician for things they actually say, do, and/or believe. When they base their opinions on blatant lies and dishonest misrepresentations, that's a problem for democracy.

[BPSCG]

Nope... but if it makes you feel better to lie, knock yourself out.Heh. I've provided evidence that Clinton votes liberal, and you provide not the tiniest scrap of evidence to support your claim that it's "meaningless and fundamentally flawed."

Go ahead, call me a liar again.

[BPSCG]

I don't know about "liberals". I think everyone should be offended when the media spreads obvious lies. As I've said before, I don't so much mind if people disagree with a politician for things they actually say, do, and/or believe. When they base their opinions on blatant lies and dishonest misrepresentations, that's a problem for democracy.I agree. Honest misrepresentations are much preferable to dishonest ones. :p

[JoeEllison]

Heh. I've provided evidence that Clinton votes liberal, and you provide not the tiniest scrap of evidence to support your claim that it's "meaningless and fundamentally flawed."

Go ahead, call me a liar again.

I'll wait for you to lie again. :D

I reject your "evidence" as meaningless. Do you at least understand that part?

[BPSCG]

I reject your "evidence" as meaningless. That is a foolish statement. It is part of her voting record; to reject it as "meaningless" is to say that voting records have no relevance to helping one determine which way a politician's political compass points, which is plainly ridiculous.

If you said you thought it is not representative of her true political positions, that might be a valid criticism, if you could show that she has cast other, more significant votes that more accurately describe her leanings. You do understand the basis of statistical sampling, don't you? If you think these votes are not a valid statistical sample - which you evidently don't - then the onus is upon you to demonstrate why not, instead of simply repeating ad nauseum that they aren't. What you are doing is the rhetorical equivalent of plugging your ears and going, "la la la I can't hear you la la la..."

[ConspiRaider]

Never ceases to amaze this Brit, how the word 'liberal' is so frequently used as a pejorative in the US. The US, fer chrissakes.

I'm also confused about how 'left-wing' and 'liberal' became equivalent terms, but that's another issue.

One of these days, political discourse is going to be raised above the level of attempting to assign a single-bit-value to each person or issue. That day doesn't seem to have arrived yet.
Good stuff. I don't blame you for being amazed, or appalled. To be called liberal (generous) is in fact a very high compliment. When I croak, if people say in reminiscence, "Yeah that Raidey, he may have been silly but he sure was generous!", then I'll know I can rest pretty easily.

Yet in this country, in the mouths of right wingers - the word liberal has been corrupted to mean anything but good. That is how skilled they, the right-wing hate spewers, are. It doesn't help that they occupy the top media positions either. Tens of millions of Americans blindly believe them.

[JoeEllison]

That is a foolish statement. It is part of her voting record; to reject it as "meaningless" is to say that voting records have no relevance to helping one determine which way a politician's political compass points, which is plainly ridiculous.

If you said you thought it is not representative of her true political positions, that might be a valid criticism, if you could show that she has cast other, more significant votes that more accurately describe her leanings. You do understand the basis of statistical sampling, don't you? If you think these votes are not a valid statistical sample - which you evidently don't - then the onus is upon you to demonstrate why not, instead of simply repeating ad nauseum that they aren't. What you are doing is the rhetorical equivalent of plugging your ears and going, "la la la I can't hear you la la la..."
No, that's all you've been doing since you started wasting my time. Feel free to not waste any more of it.

[Cleon]

This thread seems to be heading to a Very Bad Place.

Just as a gentle reminder, please keep the thread on-topic, and remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

[jsfisher]

No, that's all you've been doing since you started wasting my time. Feel free to not waste any more of it.

Your feud with BPSCG aside, what evidence do you offer that Hilliary Clinton is more centric than some have alleged?

[real american]

Hillary Clinton has my vote because I don't like anyone better. She isn't my perfect candidate I would not contribute money, but I will vote for her.

As noted earlier, Caspian88 said, she probably will be the next President. I would have to agree.

Susan

I pray she doesn't get in. Also, did you hear of the US flags falling around Clinton? Its a sign!!! Vets past have voiced their opinion of the commie bitc$ senatrix!!!

Listen my children
And you shall hear

The voice of vets past
warning in your ear

America, we fought
To keep you all free

Turn your back on the Clintons
Please listen to me

[ConspiRaider]

I pray she doesn't get in. Also, did you hear of the US flags falling around Clinton? Its a sign!!! Vets past have voiced their opinion of the commie bitc$ senatrix!!!

Listen my children
And you shall hear

The voice of vets past
warning in your ear

America, we fought
To keep you all free

Turn your back on the Clintons
Please listen to me
Hey I'm a vet and I didn't hear about this.

"Sergeant! Hows come I didn't get the Sena-Trix is for Kids Poem of Doom? It was sent where? Which base? Oh, it's a ward, okay. The section 8 ward? And it didn't fool them either? Thank you Sergeant, carry on!"

[real american]

Hey I'm a vet and I didn't hear about this.

"Sergeant! Hows come I didn't get the Sena-Trix is for Kids Poem of Doom? It was sent where? Which base? Oh, it's a ward, okay. The section 8 ward? And it didn't fool them either? Thank you Sergeant, carry on!"

Oh yes I guess you are an athiest I mean the Vets who have past on and are with god. But anyways,I think that Clinton is not right for the job. Her husband will be running the show from behind the throne.

[shuize]

I don't care for her and I have no plans to vote for her. If she wins, however, it certainly won't be the end of the world.

Not that I won't criticize her when I feel it's appropriate.

[real american]

I don't care for her and I have no plans to vote for her. If she wins, however, it certainly won't be the end of the world.

Not that I won't criticize her when I feel it's appropriate.

To me it won't be the end of the world, the end of America is more like it. But that is my opinion.

[JoeEllison]

To me it won't be the end of the world, the end of America is more like it. But that is my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong. If America survived the anti-American Bush debacle, it will survive a centrist like Hillary Clinton.

[articulett]

Your opinion is wrong. If America survived the anti-American Bush debacle, it will survive a centrist like Hillary Clinton.

RA is a 14 year old kid...

His political opinion along with his right wing religious nuttery has been direction inserted into his brain. He's not old enough to vote, and seems to have problems thinking. I suspect he's more harm to whatever cause he imagines than anything else...

He really is a kid. I thought he was some insane old religious nutter... but he's a brainwashed redneck youth. I think you might be using words that are too big for him.

[JoeEllison]

RA is a 14 year old kid...

His political opinion along with his right wing religious nuttery has been direction inserted into his brain. He's not old enough to vote, and seems to have problems thinking. I suspect he's more harm to whatever cause he imagines than anything else...

He really is a kid. I thought he was some insane old religious nutter... but he's a brainwashed redneck youth. I think you might be using words that are too big for him.

What? I was using "debacle" when I was his age. Also "simulacrum", "malfeasance", and "condign". :cool:

I think he's old enough for more mature concepts than the right-wing has to offer. I should take him under my wing, teach him five dollar words, a love for democracy, and Brazilian Jujitsu.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It really annoys me when people call her a Socialist. She so isn't.

I think I would label her a Communitarian. She has no qualms with government power and tries to use it to promote social goods above all other things. But she is also ever the pragmatist, not holding to a core political or economic ideology but using the most effective means of getting the job at hand done. She is a fan of positive rights, like the right to universal health care, a clean environment, and subsidized education. While Communitarians have left economic views, they are sometimes referred to as the radical center.

I don't think she fits into the Progressive label because she is perfectly fine with social heirarchy.

[bruto]

I pray she doesn't get in. Also, did you hear of the US flags falling around Clinton? Its a sign!!! Vets past have voiced their opinion of the commie bitc$ senatrix!!!

Listen my children
And you shall hear

The voice of vets past
warning in your ear

America, we fought
To keep you all free

Turn your back on the Clintons
Please listen to me

Aside from the silliness of the little verse, and the suggestion that dead vets are rising from their graves to campaign against Hillary, I think it's unfortunate, and significant as well, that you can't make a robust anti-Clinton statement without sexist language and hypebole (only an utter idiot would consider Clinton a communist). There are plenty of real issues for a conservative to raise without that kind of name calling.

That doesn't mean I'm a fan of Hillary. I don't much care for her, though I'd probably vote for her over most of the opposition.

[ConspiRaider]

I was using "debacle" when I was his age. Also "simulacrum", "malfeasance", and "condign". :cool:

(bolding mine)

You were using those at age 14? You must have been a jock or something, all the girls went for jocks. But it's good to see that even at age 14, you had the sense to practice safe sex! :)

[Michael Redman]

Oh yes I guess you are an athiest I mean the Vets who have past on and are with god. But anyways,I think that Clinton is not right for the job. Her husband will be running the show from behind the throne.I believe that if she came out and said that, she would win in a landslide.

[real american]

RA is a 14 year old kid...

His political opinion along with his right wing religious nuttery has been direction inserted into his brain. He's not old enough to vote, and seems to have problems thinking. I suspect he's more harm to whatever cause he imagines than anything else...

He really is a kid. I thought he was some insane old religious nutter... but he's a brainwashed redneck youth. I think you might be using words that are too big for him.

Will you just shut-up? Yes I'm 14, BFD! Who cares?! You seem to be obsessed with my age.

[real american]

Talk about a Cast of Characters
Democratic Convention Agenda :
7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Non religious prayer and worship. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding -- Barney Frank Presiding.
8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally. Cindy Sheehan -- Susan Sarandon.
OOOOOps too late....
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender -- French President Jacques Chirac.
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund.
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay. Sean Penn.
9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton.
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented with Truth in Broadcasting award by Michael Moore.
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:00 P.M. How George bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers -- Howard Dean & Rosie O'Donnell
10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahnadinejad.
11:00 PM. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents Internet.
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War criminals -- John Kerry.
11:30 P.M. Coronation of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home

[Terry]

what the heck is that supposed to be? Trenchant social commentary it ain't... humor, don't think so... really, WTF?

ETA: I see its just another copy/paste job. Sigh.

[Cleon]

what the heck is that supposed to be? Trenchant social commentary it ain't... humor, don't think so... really, WTF?

Google it. It's spam.

[articulett]

Will you just shut-up? Yes I'm 14, BFD! Who cares?! You seem to be obsessed with my age.

You seem obsessed with Hilary Clinton hatred and assorted propaganda that would make you seem insane if not for your age. It's just sad what has been done to you. It's sad when the only people supporting a certain political position are either mentally aberrant or brainwashed children. You make me embarrassed for America; I want others to know it's brainwashing, not fixable via dialogue (since your vocabulary and logic is very limited), and not representative of Americans at all. Plus maybe people will be nicer or ignore you if they realize what you are. Most adults don't really want to engage in conversations with 14-year-old "know it alls" with poor, spelling, grammar, and an inflated sense of self importance; I'm sure you won't want to engage them once you become an adult. They sound like ... you. You ought to stick to conversations with others of your education/I.Q and experience level if you don't want to be fodder for the amusement of those who are much smarter than you.

[fishbob]

Cleon:

Getting this from Amercan Lite (whatever happened to REO Speedwagon American??) is not quite so bad.
What is scary is that I get sent this kind of stuff from people old enough to know better.

[articulett]

what the heck is that supposed to be? Trenchant social commentary it ain't... humor, don't think so... really, WTF?

ETA: I see its just another copy/paste job. Sigh.

He really is 14.

He really can't spell or write and so must cut and paste the things that somehow manage to sound profound to him.

He really is severely brainwashed. If you want to know how Hitler persuaded a nation of Nazi youth, study this kid for what has been done to him. He propagates some really creepy, dishonest, ultra-right wing propaganda...much of it aimed directly at kids in Jesus Camp style. I think the adults in such cases should be arrested. It's truly sick, scary, and sad.

In another link he posted a "swift boat kids for truth" link that was wildly inaccurate and offensive.

That's the thing about the "faith is good" meme. Once people by into that, then you can just shovel crap directly into their head as part of that "faith".

[BPSCG]

He really is severely brainwashed. If you want to know how Hitler persuaded a nation of Nazi youth, study this kid for what has been done to him.

He propagates some really creepy, dishonest, ultra-right wing propaganda...much of it aimed directly at kids in Jesus Camp style. I think the adults in such cases should be arrested. It's truly sick, scary, and sad.Wow. Talk about Nazi-style tactics.

[ConspiRaider]

Wow. Talk about Nazi-style tactics.
That's it? Best you can do? You didn't pick up on the spirit of articulett's post whatsoever?

[jsfisher]

That's it? Best you can do? You didn't pick up on the spirit of articulett's post whatsoever?

I think he did.

[Dorian Gray]

Oh yes I guess you are an athiest I mean the Vets who have past on and are with god. But anyways,I think that Clinton is not right for the job. Her husband will be running the show from behind the throne.So when Bill was president, Hillary ran the show behind the scenes, but if Hillary is president, Bill will be running it behind the scenes?

That position sounds really dumb.

[Dorian Gray]

That is a foolish statement. It is part of her voting record; to reject it as "meaningless" is to say that voting records have no relevance to helping one determine which way a politician's political compass points, which is plainly ridiculous.

If you said you thought it is not representative of her true political positions, that might be a valid criticism, if you could show that she has cast other, more significant votes that more accurately describe her leanings. You do understand the basis of statistical sampling, don't you? If you think these votes are not a valid statistical sample - which you evidently don't - then the onus is upon you to demonstrate why not, instead of simply repeating ad nauseum that they aren't. What you are doing is the rhetorical equivalent of plugging your ears and going, "la la la I can't hear you la la la..."
First, BPSCG, you didn't provide any links to your statistics, so on that measure, you guys are EQUAL.

Second, the site and data works like this (for the 2006 Senate record, in this case, and I'm sure it's close to this for the other years and the House):
1) We (the ADA) define what is liberal and what isn't.
2) We choose 20 issues out of over 255.
3) We decide what the liberal response should be.
4) We give ratings to all the senators based on whether they agreed with us or not.
5) Whoever agrees with us the most is the most liberal.

So here are the flaws.
1) They are not the arbiters of the definition of liberalism
2) The issues were not selected randomly. In fact:
We tried to select votes which display sharp liberal/conservative contrasts. And surprise, the liberal quotient fell along party lines. Who would have thought?
3) They are not the arbiters of what the liberal response should be.
4) Based on 1-3, this is a bit of predetermination.
5) Based on 1-4, this is a crock.
Finally:
This Voting Record should be viewed as merely one factor in evaluating the legislative performance of Members of Congress. It does not measure constituent services, work in committees, the failure of Congress to deal with some major issues, or the degree of leadership exhibited by the Member. These judgments cannot be expressed in percentages alone and require careful scrutiny.

The best way to determine this so-called Liberal Quotient would be to base it on the votes for ALL of the issues, no? Why take a sample when all the votes are a matter of public record? It skews the results when you choose only polarizing issues, don't you think?

So, BPSCG, what you have here is a case where the ADA has chosen issues on which there is really only one decision a Democrat would tend to make, and that is why, if you'll notice your own support data, only 3 Democrats scored lower than 75%, and only 5 Republicans scored over 25%.

In other words, unless you follow your own admonition and base YOUR opinion on all the issues, the most you can "prove" is that the ADA has said Hillary is liberal based on arbitrarily cherry-picked data. If that is your claim, then I have no problem. If your position is that you agree with the ADA, then your position is a moron.

You made the claim that Hillary was a huge liberal, so the burden of proof is on you. So far, your data just doesn't support that. You've got some work to do.

Disclaimer: I'm not voting for Hillary.
Disclaimer 2: Hillary might be the most liberal Senator in Congress, for all I care, just not because of what the ADA says.

[bruto]

Oh yes I guess you are an athiest I mean the Vets who have past on and are with god. But anyways,I think that Clinton is not right for the job. Her husband will be running the show from behind the throne.I'd rather have Bill Clinton as the eminence grise than Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

[JoeEllison]

The best way to determine this so-called Liberal Quotient would be to base it on the votes for ALL of the issues, no?
Actually, that fails too, although not as badly. The problem is, sometimes people vote against things because they don't go far enough. So, someone could vote against a bill for not being liberal or conservative enough, and it would count as a point against them even though they are being more liberal or conservative than their fellows.

[jsfisher]

Actually, that fails too, although not as badly. The problem is, sometimes people vote against things because they don't go far enough. So, someone could vote against a bill for not being liberal or conservative enough, and it would count as a point against them even though they are being more liberal or conservative than their fellows.


Also, politicians may vote for something, not because of the main part of the legislation itself, but because of riders to the bill and back-room deals for other legislation. God bless pork-barrel politics.

The ADA methodology, at least as explained by the ADA, attempts to filter out this sort of noise by focusing on what it perceives as single-issue indicators.

[BPSCG]

First, BPSCG, you didn't provide any links to your statistics, so on that measure, you guys are EQUAL.You're right, my bad. Link is www.adaction.og (http://www.adaction.og).

Second, the site and data works like this (for the 2006 Senate record, in this case, and I'm sure it's close to this for the other years and the House):
1) We (the ADA) define what is liberal and what isn't.
2) We choose 20 issues out of over 255.
3) We decide what the liberal response should be.
4) We give ratings to all the senators based on whether they agreed with us or not.
5) Whoever agrees with us the most is the most liberal.Why don't you look at the actual votes? You'll see they cover a wide spectrum of issues near and dear to liberal - and conservative - hearts. Iraq, abortion, Supreme Court nominees, flag desecration amendments. Obviously, they believe these votes are a good statistical sample. Do you think these issues are not a good barometer of a politician's leanings?

So here are the flaws.
1) They are not the arbiters of the definition of liberalismOkay, find a better one. Find four or five or fifty more who rank a senator's liberalism (or conservatism). I invited JoeEllison to provide evidence that Clinton is not as liberal as ADA says she is. He couldn't be bothered.

2) The issues were not selected randomly. You're kidding, right? They should have selected votes that passed 96-4? How is that supposed to help determine where on the right-to-left spectrum a senator falls?

3) They are not the arbiters of what the liberal response should be. That objection was addressed above. Who is, then?

The best way to determine this so-called Liberal Quotient would be to base it on the votes for ALL of the issues, no? So you don't believe in sampling, then?

Why take a sample when all the votes are a matter of public record? It skews the results when you choose only polarizing issues, don't you think?No, it highlights the differences. What possible light does a vote of 97-0 (with 3 absents) to consent to the appointment of a deputy assistant undersecretary of agriculture shed on whether a senator is liberal, conservative, or middle-of-the-road?

So, BPSCG, what you have here is a case where the ADA has chosen issues on which there is really only one decision a Democrat would tend to make, and that is why, if you'll notice your own support data, only 3 Democrats scored lower than 75%, and only 5 Republicans scored over 25%.Don't you think that's consistent with the common perception that the Congress is sharply divided, and highly polarized?

In other words, unless you follow your own admonition and base YOUR opinion on all the issues, the most you can "prove" is that the ADA has said Hillary is liberal based on arbitrarily cherry-picked data. Disagree with the emphasized words. Not at all arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if they did what you say they should do - pick votes entirely at random.

You made the claim that Hillary was a huge liberal, Actually, I showed that in 2006, there were 11 senators who voted more liberal than she did. How she would rank in the 120 votes over the entire six years of her first term (is that a significant enough indicator fo you?), I didn't bother to calculate.

so the burden of proof is on you. So far, your data just doesn't support that. You've got some work to do.:biggrin: This is funny, because it reminds me of what the ID advocates do. They let someone else do the real research, do none of their own, then claim the reseach is faulty or proves ID is real.

Disclaimer 2: Hillary might be the most liberal Senator in Congress, for all I care, just not because of what the ADA says.She might be. And she might not be. I'm open to examining evidence to the contrary. But nobody seems to want to provide it.

[ConspiRaider]

She might be. And she might not be. I'm open to examining evidence to the contrary. But nobody seems to want to provide it.
1. Try to convince us all of that her vote in favor of Bill 114, the authorization to use force in Iraq - was "liberal". That's a big vote. Everybody talks about it. Now of course it would not have mattered, since out of 77 yea votes, hers was just one. And last I checked, they only needed HALF the Senate to vote in favor of this. So even if you put her vote on the "nay" side, still have THREE QUARTERS consensus. And yet - that vote CANNOT be considered "liberal". Agree?

2. Her stance on Iran does not appear "liberal", does it?

[real american]

You seem obsessed with Hilary Clinton hatred and assorted propaganda that would make you seem insane if not for your age. It's just sad what has been done to you. It's sad when the only people supporting a certain political position are either mentally aberrant or brainwashed children. You make me embarrassed for America; I want others to know it's brainwashing, not fixable via dialogue (since your vocabulary and logic is very limited), and not representative of Americans at all. Plus maybe people will be nicer or ignore you if they realize what you are. Most adults don't really want to engage in conversations with 14-year-old "know it alls" with poor, spelling, grammar, and an inflated sense of self importance; I'm sure you won't want to engage them once you become an adult. They sound like ... you. You ought to stick to conversations with others of your education/I.Q and experience level if you don't want to be fodder for the amusement of those who are much smarter than you.

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO ME!? Listen hear I happy with who I am. I'm sick of you, all you do is bash my age. I hold respect for all other members of this board but you. I did it once i'm doing it one other time! Articulett, SLAM!!!!

Slam- to stop all comunications with a fellow message board member in any way shape or fourm.

[Hokulele]

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO ME!? Listen hear I happy with who I am. I'm sick of you, all you do is bash my age. I hold respect for all other members of this board but you. I did it once i'm doing it one other time! Articulett, SLAM!!!!

Slam- to stop all comunications with a fellow message board member in any way shape or fourm.


If you stopped responding to her, why are you responding to her?

[jsfisher]

If you stopped responding to her, why are you responding to her?

I think it has something to do with the power of contradiction.

[Hokulele]

I think it has something to do with the power of contradiction.


Huh. I guess this is why I usually just lurk in Politics.

It is entertaining though.

[articulett]

I don't even know what it means. If he says "SLAM" am I supposed to be insulted? Why doesn't he just put me on ignore? I think I must have touched a nerve-- they better work harder on their programming of him-- he still has sensitive areas.

Does anyone else think he's the happy lad he keeps telling us he is? Is there anyone that thinks he's mature, logical, moral, honest, and raised well? Is there anyone who thinks I'm being particularly cruel to him? I've learned not to take the hurt feelings of blowhards very seriously... but I shall listen to those I respect on this matter.

[articulett]

Huh. I guess this is why I usually just lurk in Politics.

It is entertaining though.

I don't usually hang out in politics either... but I find it fascinating to watch a kid who has been this heavily indoctrinated spouting political opinions that he somehow thinks are meaningful or profound. I just wish I could know who said what to turn him into what he is. It's weird. Fascinating. Creepy. We don't have 14 year olds coming here screaming about "repugs" and the evils of the theocratic right-- despite tokenconservatives claims about liberal teachers...

And yet we have this neofascist child cutting and pasting all sorts of propaganda, spin about "dims" (all of whom seem smarter than him and his ilk), and invectives... along with some imagined sense of self importance about his contribution to this forum and society--

Doesn't it make you want to find out what they did to make him this way? I hope it's an anomaly... it reminds me of Jesus Camp... Is there any chance this kid won't grow up to be a pompous, self important, hypocritical, bigot? Is this fixable? I know that they all think they know it all at this age... but in politics? Dawkins seems prescient when he said that it is as wrong to label a kid by their parents religious beliefs as it is to label them by their political persuasions. The religious right, seems to tie them both together and proffer them in the same meme infested package.

[ConspiRaider]

I don't even know what it means. If he says "SLAM" am I supposed to be insulted? Why doesn't he just put me on ignore? I think I must have touched a nerve-- they better work harder on their programming of him-- he still has sensitive areas.

Does anyone else think he's the happy lad he keeps telling us he is? Is there anyone that thinks he's mature, logical, moral, honest, and raised well? Is there anyone who thinks I'm being particularly cruel to him?
How do we know this person is actually a 14 year old kid? It could just as easily be a 55 year old right-winger, who is "blundering" into Politics forums and posting rabid propaganda - then hiding behind "poor little 14 year old kidster" me. Remember who we're dealing with: Right wingers. The American variety. They don't come any worse than that.

Whether this is an actual kid, or not - I think you're being TOO kind and so:

UN-SLAM!

[articulett]

He posted his picture on a thread touting Charlie Daniels' views on Darwinism... and when he's not cutting and pasting, his logic, grammar, and spelling are that of a slightly "behind" 14 year old. Plus I teach 14 year olds... I recently had a 14 year old. If RA wasn't a 14 year old, he is such a stellar parody of one that he deserves the slightly lesser trumping than you'd give an actual adult with such crazed viewpoints posting on a skeptics forum. I don't really have any sense of victory in handing a 14 year old his ass... it's too easy. And I wouldn't have engaged him had I known his age at first... so I let others know.

In some ways I just feel sort of sick about what has been done to him. I wish he'd let us know how he came to have his "viewpoints".

[articulett]

Listen hear I happy with who I am....

Slam- to stop all comunications with a fellow message board member in any way shape or fourm.

See, CR--... it's too easy... it's too... sad.

(I "happy with" who I am too... :broomstic)

[ConspiRaider]

See, CR--... it's too easy... it's too... sad.

(I "happy with" who I am too... :broomstic)
:D :D :D

These things must be done d-e-l-i-c-a-t-e-l-y...

[Michael Redman]

You can't judge someone a hard left liberal because of a voting record earned while the Senate was controlled by the modern Republican party. Many moderates, and even real conservatives, would have voted against much of what was up for a vote.

Did she vote for universal healthcare? Did she vote to ban guns? Did she vote for mandatory abortions? No. She never had the opportunity, of course. Would she have? That's the real question. Her voting record doesn't answer that.

[articulett]

I think that no matter what label you gave them, any of the candidates would be better than what we have in office now. Could we do worse? And all the candidates on the left surpass those on the right from what I see--and the majority of Americans seems to, thankfully, agree. I am so sick of fearmongering, dishonesty, divisiveness, bigotry, religious influence, business croneyism, scientific ignorance, jingoism, corruption, and hypocrisy, that I hope these last 8 years will give Americans a reason to unite and choose the most opposite candidate we can find-- the most scientific and skeptical and honest. I do not understand how any rational human being can read RA's cut and paste rants and not conclude that something very wrong is going on in American politics that can only be fixed by uniting to make sure it never happens again.

[Marcus]

Talk about a Cast of Characters
Democratic Convention Agenda :
7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Non religious prayer and worship. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding -- Barney Frank Presiding.
8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally. Cindy Sheehan -- Susan Sarandon.
OOOOOps too late....
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender -- French President Jacques Chirac.
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund.
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay. Sean Penn.
9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton.
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented with Truth in Broadcasting award by Michael Moore.
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:00 P.M. How George bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers -- Howard Dean & Rosie O'Donnell
10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahnadinejad.
11:00 PM. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents Internet.
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War criminals -- John Kerry.
11:30 P.M. Coronation of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home
I'm not particulary interested in engaging with children, either, but this is not spam, just a politically humorous email that has been going around. I think it is funny myself.

[MaGZ]

Back in the 1960's Hillary Clinton along with other radicals were supportive of the Black Panther Party. Should this disqualify her as a presidential candidate?


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3966944c34b9.htm

[Tailgater]

I'm not particulary interested in engaging with children, either, but this is not spam, just a politically humorous email that has been going around. I think it is funny myself.

Same here. I would find a parody of a Republican convention equally as funny. It does belong in the humor forum though.

7:00 Opening prayer for God
7:15 Pledge of allegiance to Reagan
7:15 Bush proposes a toast
7:30 Craig gives anti-gay speech in bathroom
8:00 Bush proposes a toast
8:05 Ceremonial oil rig opening
8:15 Bush recreates scene from Scarface
9:00 Break the Islamic extremist pinnata
9:15 Collection to benefit christian programs
9:30 Unveiling of plan to waterboard prisoners, err detainees in Guantanamo Bay
9:40 Why I love the Military, A short talk by Cheney.
9:45 Bush proposes a toast.
9:50 Fox news presented with Truth in Broadcasting award by Bill Oreilly
9:55 Bush proposes a toast.
10:00 How Saddam brought down the World Trade Center Towers...indirectly
11:00 Bush proposes a toast.
11:05 Cheney addresses the NRA on gun safety
11:15 People against the war are War criminals-Mcain
11:30 Burning statue of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
12:00 Bush proposes a toast.
12:05 Bush says he's ok to drive and his wife says she supports his decision

[Tailgater]

We don't have 14 year olds coming here screaming about "repugs" and the evils of the theocratic right

I guess you don't read too many posts from Ion. Besides, we don't need 14 year olds to do that in this forum.

[Tailgater]

I think that no matter what label you gave them, any of the candidates would be better than what we have in office now. Could we do worse? And all the candidates on the left surpass those on the right from what I see--and the majority of Americans seems to, thankfully, agree. I am so sick of fearmongering, dishonesty, divisiveness, bigotry, religious influence, business croneyism, scientific ignorance, jingoism, corruption, and hypocrisy, that I hope these last 8 years will give Americans a reason to unite and choose the most opposite candidate we can find

See, we don't need 14 year olds for that.:) We have plenty of broad brushes to go around.

ETA:Actually, America is starting to see that the left and right are equally sickening in their own ways, and voting opposite is what got us all here.

[Dorian Gray]

Why don't you look at the actual votes? You'll see they cover a wide spectrum of issues near and dear to liberal - and conservative - hearts. Iraq, abortion, Supreme Court nominees, flag desecration amendments. Obviously, they believe these votes are a good statistical sample. Do you think these issues are not a good barometer of a politician's leanings? You mean, if they pick polarizing issues the results will be polarized? Um, yes, that's my point.

Okay, find a better one. Find four or five or fifty more who rank a senator's liberalism (or conservatism). I invited JoeEllison to provide evidence that Clinton is not as liberal as ADA says she is. He couldn't be bothered. First, BPSCG, YOU have to provide evidence that Clinton IS as liberal as ADA says she is, or as liberal as you say she is. Burden of proof. Again, if your claim is that the ADA says she's liberal, no one could argue with that. If your position is that she IS liberal based on what the ADA says, then your position is an idiot.

You're kidding, right? They should have selected votes that passed 96-4? How is that supposed to help determine where on the right-to-left spectrum a senator falls?First of all, isn't the mere fact that someone is a Republican or Democrat somewhat of an indicator of spectrum position? Second, they ranked Democrats against Republicans. Shouldn't they rank Democrats against each other to see who is the most liberal, since this is their goal? And in turn, wouldn't taking into account all the votes on all the issues allow them to compare Democrats to other Democrats to see who is the 'liberalist' of them all?

So you don't believe in sampling, then? RANDOM sampling, yes. This was an arbitrary sample.

No, it highlights the differences. What possible light does a vote of 97-0 (with 3 absents) to consent to the appointment of a deputy assistant undersecretary of agriculture shed on whether a senator is liberal, conservative, or middle-of-the-road? The political spectrum is a sliding scale. Votes on polarizing issues are yea or nay. Therefore, you need to take all the votes into account so you can get a ranking, instead of having an inverted bell curve.

Don't you think that's consistent with the common perception that the Congress is sharply divided, and highly polarized? You mean, manufacturing a sample based on polarizing issues is consistent with the common perception that the Congress is sharply divided, and highly polarized? A little suspect, don't you think? Which is why you have to include all the votes. Man, your position is stupid.

Disagree with the emphasized words. Not at all arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if they did what you say they should do - pick votes entirely at random. WHAT???? It's arbitrary to pick votes at random? Your position has just drunk the kool-aid. Obviously your definition of 'arbitrary' isn't the same as mine - or most dictionaries. Arbitrary: based on preference, bias, prejudice, or convenience rather than on reason or fact.

Choosing these issues arbitrarily is not scientific, and that throws the whole data set into question. Not to mention, your position.

Actually, I showed that in 2006, there were 11 senators who voted more liberal than she did. How she would rank in the 120 votes over the entire six years of her first term (is that a significant enough indicator fo you?), I didn't bother to calculate.

:biggrin: This is funny, because it reminds me of what the ID advocates do. They let someone else do the real research, do none of their own, then claim the reseach is faulty or proves ID is real. This is ironic, since you just said you didn't bother to calculate Hillary's rank.

She might be. And she might not be. I'm open to examining evidence to the contrary. But nobody seems to want to provide it. It's because the "evidence" supporting your position is so utterly biased, questionable and agenda-driven that it serves as its own refutation.

[Madalch]

I don't even know what it means. If he says "SLAM" am I supposed to be insulted? Why doesn't he just put me on ignore?

It's like saying "Plonk" on a usenet forum to announce that you're killfiling someone- it gives you the pretense of having the last word.

Of course, I'm still laughing about his announcement that the ghosts all dead veterans are telling Americans not to vote for whatsername, and actually seeming to believe that we should consider this enough to sway our vote. Even Joyn Edwards and the Claws doesn't claim to hear such determined voices from the other side.

[Dorian Gray]

I recently had a 14 year old. Longest gestation ever, or LeTourneau?

[bruto]

I have to disagree somewhat with Articulett here. I don't doubt that some of the responsibility for RA's poor education and inability to think his way past the most ignorant and transparently ridiculous ideas rests with his environment, but we must also face the real possibility that he's just not terribly bright, and this is nobody's fault.

[real american]

I have to disagree somewhat with Articulett here. I don't doubt that some of the responsibility for RA's poor education and inability to think his way past the most ignorant and transparently ridiculous ideas rests with his environment, but we must also face the real possibility that he's just not terribly bright, and this is nobody's fault.

My ideas are not from my enviorment. I live in a LIBERAL state! That is why I slamed that hag Articulett. You can say what you want about me, but don't say anything about my family, country, or freinds. Nuff Said! And FYI, yes may my spelling be wrong for I type fast, yes. But I am very bright when it comes to histroy and mythology.

[fishbob]

But I am very bright when it comes to histroy and mythology.

Try to not mix 'em up.

[chillzero]

Stop personalising this discussion, and get back on topic please. Remember that you should attack the argument, not the arguer, and this thread is straying from the realms of civility.

[real american]

Seeing as no one else shall be posting I ask that this thread be deleted. Thank You.

[bruto]

Seeing as no one else shall be posting I ask that this thread be deleted. Thank You.

Why would you want it deleted unless you wish to cancel or disavow your own statements?

[real american]

I asked that this thread be deleted for I feel that this debate has died and it will clear up some space.

[nails3jesus0]

Will you just shut-up? Yes I'm 14, BFD! Who cares?! You seem to be obsessed with my age.


I hate to say it because I hated hearing it back in the day- you will understand when you are older.

seriously. 99% of people look back at themselves at 14 (or their teenage years in general) and realize they knew nothing about the world and more likely than not embarassed of what they believed.

[Kestrel]

I hate to say it because I hated hearing it back in the day- you will understand when you are older.

seriously. 99% of people look back at themselves at 14 (or their teenage years in general) and realize they knew nothing about the world and more likely than not embarassed of what they believed.

Can you back that statement up with evidence or is it just based on folklore?

[nails3jesus0]

Can you back that statement up with evidence or is it just based on folklore?


:rolleyes: srsly?

lol. I did decide to try and find something, but could not find any relevant studies. A poll could be made somewhere around here if you want some sort of informal evidence. do you think most people look back on being 14 and considered themselves to be really knowledgeable and wise?

[Mister Agenda]

I usually vote libertarian on principle and as a protest vote, but if she's up against someone like Huckabee and it looks like he'll beat her, I might vote for her to stop him from winning.

[Kestrel]

:rolleyes: srsly?

lol. I did decide to try and find something, but could not find any relevant studies. A poll could be made somewhere around here if you want some sort of informal evidence. do you think most people look back on being 14 and considered themselves to be really knowledgeable and wise?

I guess I was too subtile.

Claiming an argument or statement is invalid because the person presenting that argument is 14 years old is just a variation on the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. The proper way to refute such a statement is by pointing out the logical error or a problem with the evidence.

[bruto]

I guess I was too subtile.

Claiming an argument or statement is invalid because the person presenting that argument is 14 years old is just a variation on the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. The proper way to refute such a statement is by pointing out the logical error or a problem with the evidence.I think there's a real difference between saying that RA's age explains his penchant for wrong statments, which several have done, and saying that the statements themselves are wrong simply because of his age, which I don't think anyone has.

[nails3jesus0]

I guess I was too subtile.

LOL

Claiming an argument or statement is invalid because the person presenting that argument is 14 years old is just a variation on the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. The proper way to refute such a statement is by pointing out the logical error or a problem with the evidence.


please point out where I claimed that, oh yeah wait I didnt.

see brutos explanation. he said it better than I could.