Clinton/Obama feud - what's your take?

"Can you say Clintonomics"

You keep saying this. It's really, really stupid. Yes, it will be Clintonomics, but only because her last name is "Clinton." She's nothing like Bill. And she won't have Rubin in her cabinet.

Please. Stop saying this. You have no idea how idiotic it sounds.
 
Topspin said:
digital your a pussy, I like the 8yrs of Clintonomics and want 8 more. I have been for Hillary since she announced despite looking like my ex's older sister I stomach the bad looks.
Click to expand...

Wow topper, real good expression of how thoughtful you are in terms of policy.
 
Topspin said:
I've been pro Hillary longer than digitaldork has been posting here.

1. We need a female president - all woman will benefit in the long run

2. who doubts woman will produce less wars.

3. Can you say Clintonomics- She may be better and smarter than Bill on the economy. She's got Myrell Lynch's CEO backing her.
Click to expand...

Top, I've been around these sites since before you even showed your face. I'm not basing my judgement on you based on how long you've supported Hillary, its your reasoning for supporting her that gives me that impression (IE. She's the frontruner and you like 'Clintonomics' that she doesn't even follow)
 
yes she'll be more pro business, high tech and alt energy than bill.
Clinonomics II will be Bill's on steroids.
If I'm wrong you'll have your amo, I say the sleeping giant is about to awake.:clink:
 
DigitalDave said:
"The antagonism between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has erupted into open conflict after the former First Lady accused her Democratic rival of being "irresponsible and frankly naive" in agreeing to meet the "world's worst dictators"."
Click to expand...
In reality, it is very responsible and, frankly, brilliant.
 
Damocles said:
I think that Hillary's answer was better and more realistic. No conditions on any dialogue? That sounded like a noob answer, appearance matters on the world stage.
Click to expand...
Obama didn't say he would engage in dialogue, with those leaders, did he? So where is that from? The purpose of the meeting could be anything from continuation of previous conversation to using the symbolism as an indication of a serious openess to developing a relationship.

Hillary's approach reminds me of sixth grade boys and girls talking through proxies - "Umm, Jimmy, do you like Amy? Uhh-huh. Is that like like or just like?" "She'll only go out with you if Jason takes Jenn." Whatever.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Obama didn't say he would engage in dialogue, with those leaders, did he? So where is that from? The purpose of the meeting could be anything from continuation of previous conversation to using the symbolism as an indication of a serious openess to developing a relationship.

Hillary's approach reminds me of sixth grade boys and girls talking through proxies - "Umm, Jimmy, do you like Amy? Uhh-huh. Is that like like or just like?" "She'll only go out with you if Jason takes Jenn." Whatever.
Click to expand...
The question and answer asked if he would meet with them with no preconditions. You are adding preconditions to it then saying, "He would do it this way!" That was not what his answer was.

Hillary's answer was clearly more thought out and showed a political maturity far more impressive than Obama's whose answer showed his lack of experience in that arena.
 
Damocles said:
The question and answer asked if he would meet with them with no preconditions. You are adding preconditions to it then saying, "He would do it this way!" That was not what his answer was.

Hillary's answer was clearly more thought out and showed a political maturity far more impressive than Obama's whose answer showed his lack of experience in that arena.
Click to expand...
I didn't add preconditions, I just recognized that the purpose of these meetings can vary.
 
A purpose is a precondition. Setting goals are preconditions. Diplomacy begins at a much lower level, then as goals are created and expectations (conditions) are set they move up until leaders can do a face to face with full understanding of the preconditions set for the meetings. Including who might gain/lose, what reaction you may find from others in the international community, and others.

To expect a President to meet without preconditions, and to promise such on the fly is a noob diplomatic mistake. There are deeper considerations than being "not Bush".
 
"using the symbolism as an indication of a serious openess to developing a relationship."

Are you serious with this shit? This is laughable. This is an idiotic word salad, not a policy.
 
Damocles said:
A purpose is a precondition. Setting goals are preconditions. Diplomacy begins at a much lower level, then as goals are created and expectations (conditions) are set they move up until leaders can do a face to face with full understanding of the preconditions set for the meetings. Including who might gain/lose, what reaction you may find from others in the international community, and others.

To expect a President to meet without preconditions, and to promise such on the fly is a noob diplomatic mistake. There are deeper considerations than being "not Bush".
Click to expand...
That's incorrect on the face of it. Agreeing to meet in a certain place on a certain date would be a pre-condition in your definition. maybe they'll just bump into each other at Starbucks....
 
Troglodyte27 said:
That's incorrect on the face of it. Agreeing to meet in a certain place on a certain date would be a pre-condition in your definition. maybe they'll just bump into each other at Starbucks....
Click to expand...
A meeting time would not be a condition, a goal for the meeting would be. "On what will we speak?" That is only the smallest of the preconditions. They get far larger than that as they go along, before the President enters the room there will be a whole huge set of conditions, if not a full agreement already prepared.
 
Damocles said:
A meeting time would not be a condition, a goal for the meeting would be. "On what will we speak?" That is only the smallest of the preconditions. They get far larger than that as they go along, before the President enters the room there will be a whole huge set of conditions, if not a full agreement already prepared.
Click to expand...

but see trog sees the value of getting together as mostly symbolic, indicating a predisposition to entering the preliminary phases of pre consideration considerations.
 
Onceler said:
C'mon; that's ridiculous. This admin, led by Cheney, doesn't even want to START communication.

Of course there is an "end" to it, if it breaks down & we're not getting what we want. To try to portray it the way you just did is what conservatives have been doing for years: The Dems just want to sit down & sing "kum ba yah" with everyone. It's such a lie. Diplomacy has solved more problems than force, by a wide margin.
Click to expand...


No. It's not ridiculous. He admits he sees it as mostly symbolic. I say you have to know what's on the table and what you're willing to do before going in. Like damo said. I guess that's the smart approach. the dumb approach is meeting mad men with your head in your ass.
 
Damocles said:
A meeting time would not be a condition, a goal for the meeting would be. "On what will we speak?" That is only the smallest of the preconditions. They get far larger than that as they go along, before the President enters the room there will be a whole huge set of conditions, if not a full agreement already prepared.
Click to expand...
We have different ideas of what is and is not a precondition.

I'd like to see Obama call up whoever and invite him over for dessert and coffee, maybe go to camp David - Have some bar-b-que, let the dogs out and throw a ball, jump off the rope swing into the creek (or ala LBJ and Brehznev - spend time looking at Jill St. John by the poolside). No political issues discussed, just talk about your family and kids like regular folk.

Gorbachev tells us that he and Reagan had little hope of accomplishing anything together until Reagan broke the ice with a joke, and they started talking to each other like regular folks. All that time, the preconditions had kept them apart. After the friendly relationship began, they started to let go of their preconditions, and good came of it.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
We have different ideas of what is and is not a precondition.

I'd like to see Obama call up whoever and invite him over for dessert and coffee, maybe go to camp David - Have some bar-b-que, let the dogs out and throw a ball, jump off the rope swing into the creek (or ala LBJ and Brehznev - spend time looking at Jill St. John by the poolside). No political issues discussed, just talk about your family and kids like regular folk.

Gorbachev tells us that he and Reagan had little hope of accomplishing anything together until Reagan broke the ice with a joke, and they started talking to each other like regular folks. All that time, the preconditions had kept them apart. After the friendly relationship began, they started to let go of their preconditions, and good came of it.
Click to expand...


Maybe they should get really drunk, hump each other and just turn everything over to jews. I think that's what usually happens anyway.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
We have different ideas of what is and is not a precondition.

I'd like to see Obama call up whoever and invite him over for dessert and coffee, maybe go to camp David - Have some bar-b-que, let the dogs out and throw a ball, jump off the rope swing into the creek (or ala LBJ and Brehznev - spend time looking at Jill St. John by the poolside). No political issues discussed, just talk about your family and kids like regular folk.

Gorbachev tells us that he and Reagan had little hope of accomplishing anything together until Reagan broke the ice with a joke, and they started talking to each other like regular folks. All that time, the preconditions had kept them apart. After the friendly relationship began, they started to let go of their preconditions, and good came of it.
Click to expand...
Right, like a date. You do know that they often describe it as less than the work that took to get them there. Do you honestly believe that Reagan walked into that room with no conditions whatsoever ready to pull out his knock-knock joke book? Making him feel more comfortable with a joke wasn't a sign that there was no precondition on that meeting, and it is pointless to even speak of this with you if you pretend that Reagan called up old Gorbie on the "Tele" to come on over for some Perogi and try one of our famous American hotdogs and maybe a spot of "freedom" fries.

You twist and spin desperately trying to cover the total lack of experience of one of the candidates that leads on good looks alone. He lacks that experience and is at best a VP candidate.

It's like a more modern version of the "Emperor Has No Clothes".
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Thanks for getting my point.
Click to expand...

What is your point? You say it's only symbolic. I'm saying doing things for merely symbolic purposes is brainless and fuckwitted. You don't believe in adhering to thought out national policies. You consider those "limiting preconditions". You're kind of retarded.
 
AssHatZombie said:
What is your point? You say it's only symbolic. I'm saying doing things for merely symbolic purposes is brainless and fuckwitted. You don't believe in adhering to thought out national policies. You consider those "limiting preconditions". You're kind of retarded.
Click to expand...
Well thanks. Two retards in one day, I'm on a roll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top