It is currently Wed Feb 26, 2025 2:48 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 200 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.


Every politician does what is politically expedient. That is what makes them politicians. Does anyone think Obama wouldn't have voted for the Iraq war in 04? What about his selling out of Jeremiah Wright? Was that based upon conviction? Guantanamo? About his comments regarding NAFTA? What about all the spin regarding small donation donors all while he collected more money from Wall Street than any other candidate.

In the case of Bernie Sanders his gun vote, switch to the Democratic Party, failure to ever produce any meaningful legislation, switch from Socialism to independent status were all done out of political expediency. His refusal to ever challenge the system that he customarily rails against was done out of political expedience.


The reason that I defend Hillary Clinton so vehemently is because she doesn't get credit for anything on here. Even her perseverence isn't really that now. She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.

by nature, politicians are wind socks...but not to the extreme of these two. It's so difficult to vote for someone that seems to take a straw poll to determine their every move politically. Why do we not have better candidates?! What is wrong with us?!

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
City of Fools wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.

by nature, politicians are wind socks...but not to the extreme of these two. It's so difficult to vote for someone that seems to take a straw poll to determine their every move politically. Why do we not have better candidates?! What is wrong with us?!


You know which President(s) used political calculations? All of them. Do you think Abe Lincoln acted out of "conviction" when he created the Emancipation Proclamation? What about the actions of FDR? He probably didn't have a bone of conviction in his body yet he is regarded as a great statesman. They all do it.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:16 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.


I think a lot of what you say is true but I think your conclusion is wrong. Do you really believe any woman would be weeks away from becoming President-elect without being calculating and flexible when it came to certain issues? Reality is they wouldn't have. You may have loved her if she was a principled politician but she would have never been more than a Senator from New York. I believe that she had to do what she's done in order to reach the mountain top.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:19 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
long time guy wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.

by nature, politicians are wind socks...but not to the extreme of these two. It's so difficult to vote for someone that seems to take a straw poll to determine their every move politically. Why do we not have better candidates?! What is wrong with us?!


You know which President(s) used political calculations? All of them. Do you think Abe Lincoln acted out of "conviction" when he created the Emancipation Proclamation? What about the actions of FDR? He probably didn't have a bone of conviction in his body yet he is regarded as a great statesman. They all do it.


Agreed. We celebrate men for doing the same thing Hillary has done.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
Nas wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.


I think a lot of what you say is true but I think your conclusion is wrong. Do you really believe any woman would be weeks away from becoming President-elect without being calculating and flexible when it came to certain issues? Reality is they wouldn't have. You may have loved her if she was a principled politician but she would have never been more than a Senator from New York. I believe that she had to do what she's done in order to reach the mountain top.


If she was principled, she wouldn't have been Senator of New York.

And you are describing the same attributes as a cockroach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:22 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Nas wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.


I think a lot of what you say is true but I think your conclusion is wrong. Do you really believe any woman would be weeks away from becoming President-elect without being calculating and flexible when it came to certain issues? Reality is they wouldn't have. You may have loved her if she was a principled politician but she would have never been more than a Senator from New York. I believe that she had to do what she's done in order to reach the mountain top.


If she was principled, she wouldn't have been Senator of New York.

And you are describing the same attributes as a cockroach.


Resilience?

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:25 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
long time guy wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.

by nature, politicians are wind socks...but not to the extreme of these two. It's so difficult to vote for someone that seems to take a straw poll to determine their every move politically. Why do we not have better candidates?! What is wrong with us?!


You know which President(s) used political calculations? All of them. Do you think Abe Lincoln acted out of "conviction" when he created the Emancipation Proclamation? What about the actions of FDR? He probably didn't have a bone of conviction in his body yet he is regarded as a great statesman. They all do it.


So your point is that all politicians are spineless, depraved, and weak? Wow, sounds like you have a very dark vision of our political system. Perhaps we do need a revolution after all!

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:28 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Nas wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.


I think a lot of what you say is true but I think your conclusion is wrong. Do you really believe any woman would be weeks away from becoming President-elect without being calculating and flexible when it came to certain issues? Reality is they wouldn't have. You may have loved her if she was a principled politician but she would have never been more than a Senator from New York. I believe that she had to do what she's done in order to reach the mountain top.


You're probably right that being a spineless tool of corporate power was the condition of her advancement. But engaging in sycophantic behavior doesn't mean you're strong--it means you're a sycophant.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Tall Midget wrote:
long time guy wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.

by nature, politicians are wind socks...but not to the extreme of these two. It's so difficult to vote for someone that seems to take a straw poll to determine their every move politically. Why do we not have better candidates?! What is wrong with us?!


You know which President(s) used political calculations? All of them. Do you think Abe Lincoln acted out of "conviction" when he created the Emancipation Proclamation? What about the actions of FDR? He probably didn't have a bone of conviction in his body yet he is regarded as a great statesman. They all do it.


So your point is that all politicians are spineless, depraved, and weak? Wow, sounds like you have a very dark vision of our political system. Perhaps we do need a revolution after all!

no, wait...you've buried the lead. Hillary Clinton, Abe Lincoln and FDR in the same sentence! You're getting a feel for LTG's "affair of the mind" with Hillary...

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.


I think a lot of what you say is true but I think your conclusion is wrong. Do you really believe any woman would be weeks away from becoming President-elect without being calculating and flexible when it came to certain issues? Reality is they wouldn't have. You may have loved her if she was a principled politician but she would have never been more than a Senator from New York. I believe that she had to do what she's done in order to reach the mountain top.


You're probably right that being a spineless tool of corporate power was the condition of her advancement. But engaging in sycophantic behavior doesn't mean you're strong--it means you're a sycophant.


Being calculating doesn't make a person any of those things. It simply makes them a politician.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
City of Fools wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
long time guy wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.

by nature, politicians are wind socks...but not to the extreme of these two. It's so difficult to vote for someone that seems to take a straw poll to determine their every move politically. Why do we not have better candidates?! What is wrong with us?!


You know which President(s) used political calculations? All of them. Do you think Abe Lincoln acted out of "conviction" when he created the Emancipation Proclamation? What about the actions of FDR? He probably didn't have a bone of conviction in his body yet he is regarded as a great statesman. They all do it.


So your point is that all politicians are spineless, depraved, and weak? Wow, sounds like you have a very dark vision of our political system. Perhaps we do need a revolution after all!

no, wait...you've buried the lead. Hillary Clinton, Abe Lincoln and FDR in the same sentence! You're getting a feel for LTG's "affair of the mind" with Hillary...



It's not any of that and I notice you didn't address the point (per usual). This notion that she is the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities is pure fallacy.

I find it rather interesting that she gets bashed for changing positions while a guy that changes affiliations (twice) gets a pass.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:34 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
long time guy wrote:

It's not any of that and I notice you didn't address the point (per usual). This notion that she is the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities is pure fallacy.


And I notice that you've fabricated a point. Please identify the point in this discussion where anyone states that Hillary is "the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities."

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Tall Midget wrote:
long time guy wrote:

It's not any of that and I notice you didn't address the point (per usual). This notion that she is the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities is pure fallacy.


And I notice that you've fabricated a point. Please identify the point in this discussion where anyone states that Hillary is "the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities."



You show me the President that exhibited the qualities which you so richly endear?

She isn't the only one to exhibit those qualities yet she continually is the only one to be bashed. You and others hold her to standards that other politicians aren't held to. She is no more or less a corporate shill than the last 2 Presidents. I'm fairly certain that she will do more to fight corporatism than they have. Her work on the Children's Defense Fund Trumps anything that Obama or Bush have ever done regarding poverty. She also fought stronger for Health Care than Obama ever did.

I think this notion that she will simply be a tool of the rich is 2000's media crap. Trump's economic team is a reconfiguration of Reagan'so supply side tax cutters yet people on here were making the argument that he is championing the cause of the working man.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19937
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.


Every politician does what is politically expedient. That is what makes them politicians. Does anyone think Obama wouldn't have voted for the Iraq war in 04? What about his selling out of Jeremiah Wright? Was that based upon conviction? Guantanamo? About his comments regarding NAFTA? What about all the spin regarding small donation donors all while he collected more money from Wall Street than any other candidate.

In the case of Bernie Sanders his gun vote, switch to the Democratic Party, failure to ever produce any meaningful legislation, switch from Socialism to independent status were all done out of political expediency. His refusal to ever challenge the system that he customarily rails against was done out of political expedience.


The reason that I defend Hillary Clinton so vehemently is because she doesn't get credit for anything on here. Even her perseverence isn't really that now. She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.


Credit for what? She hasn't really done anything.

The biggest boast from her propaganda ministers is that she traveled to 115 countries and met "leaders"

Also interesting to note that you've basically admitted the she is an incompetent, corrupt piece of shit yet you will defend her anyways.

Pathetic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40948
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
long time guy wrote:
She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.



All you are really saying here is that it is her turn. Having a long career in Washington means nothing if you are diametrically opposed to the things shes done or the way she has done things.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
SomeGuy wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:

I disagree. She’s survived a lot of shit and she's 3 weeks away from becoming President-elect Hillary Clinton. I don't think a weak woman or man could do that.


I'm not sure surviving political turmoil makes her strong. To me, strength (especially in politics) implies defending/adhering to your core beliefs in the face of adversity. Clinton seemingly assumes new positions and principles based on their popularity. She has survived by doing what is politically expedient, not what she thinks is right. She is a hollow pragmatist, a spineless cipher, the cockroach that outlasts nuclear apocalypse. She endures, but her endurance does not signify strength; rather, it is a symptom of capitulation, depravity, cowardice--and endless calculation.


Every politician does what is politically expedient. That is what makes them politicians. Does anyone think Obama wouldn't have voted for the Iraq war in 04? What about his selling out of Jeremiah Wright? Was that based upon conviction? Guantanamo? About his comments regarding NAFTA? What about all the spin regarding small donation donors all while he collected more money from Wall Street than any other candidate.

In the case of Bernie Sanders his gun vote, switch to the Democratic Party, failure to ever produce any meaningful legislation, switch from Socialism to independent status were all done out of political expediency. His refusal to ever challenge the system that he customarily rails against was done out of political expedience.


The reason that I defend Hillary Clinton so vehemently is because she doesn't get credit for anything on here. Even her perseverence isn't really that now. She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.


Credit for what? She hasn't really done anything.

The biggest boast from her propaganda ministers is that she traveled to 115 countries and met "leaders"

Also interesting to note that you've basically admitted the she is an incompetent, corrupt piece of shit yet you will defend her anyways.

Pathetic.


She was part of Clinton's inner circle dumbass. Do you really not know that she was as involved with the intricacies of policy as anyone in that White House.

I've never admitted that. That's your narrative. Who is your guy Someguy? I know you are a Reagan and Trump apologist but other than that whom do you prefer for President?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
pittmike wrote:
long time guy wrote:
She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.



All you are really saying here is that it is her turn. Having a long career in Washington means nothing if you are diametrically opposed to the things shes done or the way she has done things.


That is sort of the essence of perseverence which was the point that I addressed. To suggest that she doesn't have it is disingenuous. No one in Public life has taken more bullets than she has over the past 25 years.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:51 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
long time guy wrote:

It's not any of that and I notice you didn't address the point (per usual). This notion that she is the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities is pure fallacy.


And I notice that you've fabricated a point. Please identify the point in this discussion where anyone states that Hillary is "the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities."



You show me the President that exhibited the qualities which you so richly endear?


LOL. Just admit you're making stuff up and are trying to shift the topic.

I responded to Nas's assertion that Hillary Clinton is strong when she clearly isn't according to my definition. What does this have to do with anyone else? Why do Clinton defenders always have to disingenuously advocate for her by claiming that everyone else is awful, too? Logically speaking, this kind of defense amounts to nothing other than a prosecution of our entire political system, yet Clintonites paradoxically oppose systemic change while desperately clinging to the status quo. Talk about mental gymnastics.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Tall Midget wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
long time guy wrote:

It's not any of that and I notice you didn't address the point (per usual). This notion that she is the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities is pure fallacy.


And I notice that you've fabricated a point. Please identify the point in this discussion where anyone states that Hillary is "the only person to ever exhibit politically calculating qualities."



You show me the President that exhibited the qualities which you so richly endear?


LOL. Just admit you're making stuff up and are trying to shift the topic.

I responded to Nas's assertion that Hillary Clinton is strong when she clearly isn't according to my definition. What does this have to do with anyone else? Why do Clinton defenders always have to disingenuously advocate for her by claiming that everyone else is awful, too? Logically speaking, this kind of defense amounts to nothing other than a prosecution of our entire political system, yet Clintonites paradoxically oppose systemic change while desperately clinging to the status quo. Talk about mental gymnastics.



You stated a whole lot more than the part regarding resilience. I addressed that too by the way. I'm not a half full kind of guy when it comes to politics. I don't think that all hope is lost when it comes to the system. I also do not believe that the system is in dire need of a "savior" either. I'm suspicious of people like that because it simply strikes me as a guy mad because he doesn't have a seat at the dinner table.

I like people that understand and embrace the system. We had the "change" agent 8 yrs ago and by most metrics where did it get anyone?

If you don't think referencing prior Presidents is relevant then I don't know what to tell you. It is absolutely relevant. Hillary Clinton is a product of the American political system as it is presently constituted. Nothing more nothing less.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
long time guy wrote:

I like people that understand and embrace the system. We had the "change" agent 8 yrs ago and by most metrics where did it get anyone?


look, I voted for Obama because he was the best candidate in the democratic ticket. I didn't need to vote for him in the general because Illinois. But it's disingenuous to compare Obama to say, Bernie Sanders. That's so ridiculous I'm not sure where to begin.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93680
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.
This is a strange comment.

By no metric has she had the longest national political career. If you count being in the Senate as being "national" then many had much longer. For instance, McCain has been a Senator since 1987, and I don't think he is even the one with the longest run there.

Also, counting the position of "married to the President" is a loose definition of political position. Only one guy got a vote on that one.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.
This is a strange comment.

By no metric has she had the longest national political career. If you count being in the Senate as being "national" then many had much longer. For instance, McCain has been a Senator since 1987, and I don't think he is even the one with the longest run there.

Also, counting the position of "married to the President" is a loose definition of political position. Only one guy got a vote on that one.


John McCain has had nowhere near the political platform that Hillary Clinton has over the past 25 years. He is a high profile Senator that is it. If you think that she was merely "married to the President" then you are truly ignorant of the dynamics regarding their relationship. In true Nas like fashion you are also demonstrating a great deal of sexism.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.
This is a strange comment.

By no metric has she had the longest national political career. If you count being in the Senate as being "national" then many had much longer. For instance, McCain has been a Senator since 1987, and I don't think he is even the one with the longest run there.

Also, counting the position of "married to the President" is a loose definition of political position. Only one guy got a vote on that one.


John McCain has had nowhere near the political platform that Hillary Clinton has over the past 25 years. He is a high profile Senator that is it. If you think that she was merely "married to the President" then you are truly ignorant of the dynamics regarding their relationship. In true Nas like fashion you are also demonstrating a great deal of sexism.

oh boy.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22704
pizza_Place: A few...
So anyway.....when't this tape coming out? And when is the big Assange release?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
City of Fools wrote:
long time guy wrote:

I like people that understand and embrace the system. We had the "change" agent 8 yrs ago and by most metrics where did it get anyone?


look, I voted for Obama because he was the best candidate in the democratic ticket. I didn't need to vote for him in the general because Illinois. But it's disingenuous to compare Obama to say, Bernie Sanders. That's so ridiculous I'm not sure where to begin.



The results would not doubt be similar. Sanders couldn't get any Democratic Senators to support him ( save one). That says a lot about what his future performance might be. Both Obama and Sanders touted their ability to change things. Neither has ever demonstrated that they could and neither has demonstrated a willingness to work with other politicians. That is sort of requirement for performing the job. I wonder what you mean by ridiculous. It seems like you had nothing else so might as well characterize.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
City of Fools wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.
This is a strange comment.

By no metric has she had the longest national political career. If you count being in the Senate as being "national" then many had much longer. For instance, McCain has been a Senator since 1987, and I don't think he is even the one with the longest run there.

Also, counting the position of "married to the President" is a loose definition of political position. Only one guy got a vote on that one.


John McCain has had nowhere near the political platform that Hillary Clinton has over the past 25 years. He is a high profile Senator that is it. If you think that she was merely "married to the President" then you are truly ignorant of the dynamics regarding their relationship. In true Nas like fashion you are also demonstrating a great deal of sexism.

oh boy.


Once again nothing else to add.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
long time guy wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
She has probably had the longest national political career of anyone in history. She has been on a national stage since 92. That counts for something.
This is a strange comment.

By no metric has she had the longest national political career. If you count being in the Senate as being "national" then many had much longer. For instance, McCain has been a Senator since 1987, and I don't think he is even the one with the longest run there.

Also, counting the position of "married to the President" is a loose definition of political position. Only one guy got a vote on that one.


John McCain has had nowhere near the political platform that Hillary Clinton has over the past 25 years. He is a high profile Senator that is it. If you think that she was merely "married to the President" then you are truly ignorant of the dynamics regarding their relationship. In true Nas like fashion you are also demonstrating a great deal of sexism.

oh boy.


Once again nothing else to add.

there's no point. Perhaps Midge will pick up the sword, but I doubt it.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93680
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
John McCain has had nowhere near the political platform that Hillary Clinton has over the past 25 years. He is a high profile Senator that is it.
If you prefer, John Kerry then. He started in 1985, and was an actual elected political representative until he became Secretary of State which you seem to hold in such high regard.

John Kerry is an open and shut case. The only difference is he was a Senator while she was "married to the President", and was a Senator for about 2 decades more.

long time guy wrote:
If you think that she was merely "married to the President" then you are truly ignorant of the dynamics regarding their relationship. In true Nas like fashion you are also demonstrating a great deal of sexism.
It is in no way sexism. I can't say I'm involved in the industry my wife works in either just because we are married.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Peoria Matt wrote:
So anyway.....when't this tape coming out? And when is the big Assange release?


His big reveal eerily resembles Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 200 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group