Hillary/Obama Name Calling

Well, I guess the future polls will give us the answer to whether it hurts her or not. But I am sure Obama is/already has linked Hillary to Bush's strategy on foreign policy. Maybe the country as a whole won't see that as a bad thing, but I really think the Democrats are going to want anything that is opposite of Bush.
 
Damocles said:
I'd be willing to meet with anybody, were I the President, if correct preconditions existed. The question was "without precondition" and that is a far different ball of wax. I would not meet with certain leaders "without precondition", it would be foolish.
Click to expand...

But Obama correctly characterized Hillary as taking the Bush/Cheney approach to foreign politics .. which is absolutely true, not just judging from her answer, but by what she believes.

Clinton favored intervention in Haiti in 1994. She favored intervention in Bosnia in 1995. She favored intervention in Kosovo in 1999. As first lady, Clinton said, "I am very pleased that this president and administration have made democracy one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy." Before the Kosovo war, she phoned Bill from Africa and, she recalled later, "I urged him to bomb."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121601.html

"Democracy" .. that's Bush talking.

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

What is that .. thought control? Either Iran's leadership believe what they're told to believe or they're "pro-terrorist, anti-American"? Could it be their antiAmerican because we, the UK, and the Mossad overthrew their democratically elected government and installed one of the most brutal dicators in human history in brutalize their people with a vicious secret poilce force, SAVAK? What does that make you if you deny we did that?

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

No option, except the option of talking to them.

Again, she's sounding like Bush, and again, the crisis of North Korea was resolved by those who ran away from the Bush cowboy rhetoric, not parroted it.

Hillary is sounding more dangerous everyday and to think that she's going to move further to the right during the general makes my wonder if we aren't getting rid of on dangerous militaristic administration for another.
 
Damocles said:
Direct talks, if you believe that no talks are happening at all with Iran then you haven't been reading the news, or you have only been reading the lefty blogspots.
Click to expand...

Talks are happening with Iran, but not about their nuclear program. Talks are happening about how Iran can help the Bush Administration get its ass out of the frying pan in Iraq .. but even that is tainted as Bush tries to claim that Iraq is supplying those fighting against us.

These kind of talks are analogous to a libertarian caught in a hurricane looking for help from that federally funded FEMA helicopter flying overhead while whining about the federal government .. but still needing to get his ass off the roof.
 
Damocles said:
I too am giving an example. It would be unwise to show legitimacy beyond what we already have. Just as the multi-lateral rather than bi-lateral talks seem to be working with NK, it would be far better to create a condition of far more than one nation meeting.

Setting such conditions are the norm, and meeting without precondition would be unwise.
Click to expand...
I disagree
 
blackascoal said:
But Obama correctly characterized Hillary as taking the Bush/Cheney approach to foreign politics .. which is absolutely true, not just judging from her answer, but by what she believes.

Clinton favored intervention in Haiti in 1994. She favored intervention in Bosnia in 1995. She favored intervention in Kosovo in 1999. As first lady, Clinton said, "I am very pleased that this president and administration have made democracy one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy." Before the Kosovo war, she phoned Bill from Africa and, she recalled later, "I urged him to bomb."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121601.html

"Democracy" .. that's Bush talking.

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

What is that .. thought control? Either Iran's leadership believe what they're told to believe or they're "pro-terrorist, anti-American"? Could it be their antiAmerican because we, the UK, and the Mossad overthrew their democratically elected government and installed one of the most brutal dicators in human history in brutalize their people with a vicious secret poilce force, SAVAK? What does that make you if you deny we did that?

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

No option, except the option of talking to them.

Again, she's sounding like Bush, and again, the crisis of North Korea was resolved by those who ran away from the Bush cowboy rhetoric, not parroted it.

Hillary is sounding more dangerous everyday and to think that she's going to move further to the right during the general makes my wonder if we aren't getting rid of on dangerous militaristic administration for another.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Even Bush is talking to them, as I said earlier you have to ignore the news to not know that talks have surpassed the lower levels and are getting into the higher level talks. You have to only go to blogspots for your news in order to believe that Bush's Admin isn't talking to them, or that your Candidate is the only choice who would. In fact, he is the only choice that would without conditions, and that is not a good thing.
 
blackascoal said:
Talks are happening with Iran, but not about their nuclear program. Talks are happening about how Iran can help the Bush Administration get its ass out of the frying pan in Iraq .. but even that is tainted as Bush tries to claim that Iraq is supplying those fighting against us.

These kind of talks are analogous to a libertarian caught in a hurricane looking for help from that federally funded FEMA helicopter flying overhead while whining about the federal government .. but still needing to get his ass off the roof.
Click to expand...
LOL. Well, at least you know that diplomacy with Iran is happening. Pretending it is only about Iraq is pretense and foolish. Of course there is dialogue about their nuclear program happening.

Just as multi-lateral talks worked with NK, they can work here. Even Bush will talk with Iran, it is only the inexperienced that would say they would do it with no conditions.

And you know the libertarians would have driven away before the storm hit...
 
doniston said:
????? (shaking head disgustedly)
Click to expand...

Consider the source, Doniston.

Speaking from the 'loyal opposition', I hope that Obama wins the nomination, I don't think that will happen though. Regardless of my opinion on Hillary or her heavy negatives, she's by far the stronger candidate.
 
Well....

doniston said:
how much more articulate could I be. repeat your words and then say I disagreed?
Click to expand...


considering that damo was using sarcasm with the word 'Profound' as in How Profound...ie:marked by intellectual depth or insight/thought...coming from or reaching to a depth...deeply felt:intense...I do believe damo was asking for a more insightful response ie: why do you disagree?;)
 
Runyon said:
Consider the source, Doniston.

Speaking from the 'loyal opposition', I hope that Obama wins the nomination, I don't think that will happen though. Regardless of my opinion on Hillary or her heavy negatives, she's by far the stronger candidate.
Click to expand...
I do, I have, all too often.
 
Cheap shot by runnynose!

Runyon said:
Consider the source, Doniston.

Speaking from the 'loyal opposition', I hope that Obama wins the nomination, I don't think that will happen though. Regardless of my opinion on Hillary or her heavy negatives, she's by far the stronger candidate.
Click to expand...



:rolleyes:
 
Battleborne said:
considering that damo was using sarcasm with the word 'Profound' as in How Profound...ie:marked by intellectual depth or insight/thought...coming from or reaching to a depth...deeply felt:intense...I do believe damo was asking for a more insightful response ie: why do you disagree?;)
Click to expand...
:confused: I had one of those ---once, but the wheels fell off. :rolleyes:
 
Runyon said:
Why do you believe that Obama is stronger?
Click to expand...

Well for one, he doesn't have to explain covering up numerous crimes, from s&l fraud, to murder, to rape.

White Water Scandal
Vince Foster
Juanita Broderick

The Truth Is Out There.
 
Runyon said:
Yes, but he has his own home brew, literally connected to his homestead, problems.
Click to expand...



EWWWW, illegal attainment of a few yards of extra land, not exactly like the murder of vince foster, or the transfer of missile guidance technology to the chinese through loral corporation.
 
AssHatZombie said:
EWWWW, illegal attainment of a few yards of extra land, not exactly like the murder of vince foster, or the transfer of missile guidance technology to the chinese through loral corporation.
Click to expand...

Proof of Vince Foster? No more credible than the Jews were behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top