Hillary crying poor

[AAAintheBeltway]

Well, I disagree with both of you on both counts.

First, the original post was a humorous collection of Hillary's statements. Even the snopes entry agrees with that. So, it stands on its own. What does it mean? You decide, based on your preferences, experiences, knowledge, etc. I believe that that's exactly how Hillary thinks, it's my choice.

Second, what I hear is the typical aristocratic Republican position (I am a conservative Independent) that states that you guys want a "clean" fight. And then you wander in the dark alley. Yeah, good luck. That's how both McCain and Romney lost to that charismatic street fighter who's sitting in the Oval Office as we speak. We all knew how clean and above reproach Romney is, how honest and hardworking and creative and successful he is. They told the public that he was exactly the opposite, and the public believed them.

You don't want to fight according to the de facto rules of political struggle? I would say, stay home. I also believe that Newt would have wiped the floor with his opponent had he got the nomination, but the other, super-genteel and "I want a clean fight" side had so much more money and looked so much more "civilized" to the Republican base.

How are the ISIS fighters taking over Iraq? How did Obama get OBL? They used all means at their disposal, that's how. Freedom of speech is there for a reason, including politics. Oh well.

This is just so true and so frustrating.

Why do these wimps run for office if they are not prepared to do what is necessary to win? You can be honorable, but if your opponent starts running scurrilous ads saying you killed some guy's wife, what kind of person doesn't fight back?

Modern elections are often decided by which side can create a negative or unflattering public persona of the opppsition's candidate. The republicans did it easily with Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. For some reason, they were frozen with fear at the prospect of doing it to Obama, who was far more vulnerable than any of the other democrat candidates.

Obviously they were afraid of the media playing the race card. So what? Every black and liberal was voting for obama anyway.

Now we will probably get the same routine with Hillary. We will end up with some "mainstream" candidate who will be totally subservient to the mainstream media and be afraid to call Hillary out on her lengthy record of corruption. sleaze and failure.

 

[Ricter]

This is just so true and so frustrating.

Why do these wimps run for office if they are not prepared to do what is necessary to win? You can be honorable, but if your opponent starts running scurrilous ads saying you killed some guy's wife, what kind of person doesn't fight back?

Modern elections are often decided by which side can create a negative or unflattering public persona of the opppsition's candidate. The republicans did it easily with Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. For some reason, they were frozen with fear at the prospect of doing it to Obama, who was far more vulnerable than any of the other democrat candidates.

Obviously they were afraid of the media playing the race card. So what? Every black and liberal was voting for obama anyway.

Now we will probably get the same routine with Hillary. We will end up with some "mainstream" candidate who will be totally subservient to the mainstream media and be afraid to call Hillary out on her lengthy record of corruption. sleaze and failure.

A wall of words.

So we're to put Clinton's quotes back into the context of the time they were spoken, and to put all that into a larger context [which you define] of "this is what dems typically mean". Got it.

Lol

 

[Tsing Tao]

Well, I disagree with both of you on both counts.

First, the original post was a humorous collection of Hillary's statements. Even the snopes entry agrees with that. So, it stands on its own. What does it mean? You decide, based on your preferences, experiences, knowledge, etc. I believe that that's exactly how Hillary thinks, it's my choice.

As for humor, it was indeed. If that's all it was intended for, then great. It was funny. I giggled when I first saw it But unfortunately, it's not designed for humor and even if it was, it's now being used as a political salvo. You are certainly entitled to believing it, as I am entitled to not believe it and state my opinion.

Second, what I hear is the typical aristocratic Republican position (I am a conservative Independent) that states that you guys want a "clean" fight. And then you wander in the dark alley. Yeah, good luck. That's how both McCain and Romney lost to that charismatic street fighter who's sitting in the Oval Office as we speak. We all knew how clean and above reproach Romney is, how honest and hardworking and creative and successful he is. They told the public that he was exactly the opposite, and the public believed them.

You don't want to fight according to the de facto rules of political struggle? I would say, stay home. I also believe that Newt would have wiped the floor with his opponent had he got the nomination, but the other, super-genteel and "I want a clean fight" side had so much more money and looked so much more "civilized" to the Republican base.

How are the ISIS fighters taking over Iraq? How did Obama get OBL? They used all means at their disposal, that's how. Freedom of speech is there for a reason, including politics. Oh well.

You certainly have a valid point with the fight dirty philosophy. Feel free to do whatever it is you wish to. My personal belief is that conservatives can win if they focus on the issues in a smart manner without resorting to lies and cheating.

As for the ISIS comment, physical war is a bit different.

 

[Tsing Tao]

This is just so true and so frustrating.

Why do these wimps run for office if they are not prepared to do what is necessary to win? You can be honorable, but if your opponent starts running scurrilous ads saying you killed some guy's wife, what kind of person doesn't fight back?

Who says don't fight back? But fighting back doesn't mean you take out your own scurrilous ads accusing the guy of being a pedophile if he isn't. Is it honorable to make up complete bullshit about someone?

 

[Ricter]

Who says don't fight back? But fighting back doesn't mean you take out your own scurrilous ads accusing the guy of being a pedophile if he isn't. Is it honorable to make up complete bullshit about someone?

Ok, but AAA is arguing that it's not complete bullshit once you understand the larger context.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Ok, but AAA is arguing that it's not complete bullshit once you understand the larger context.

Yeah, so if I believe someone is a wife beater because, well, he just looks that way and I've heard him speak aggressively to his wife, and one day when we're fishing and he gets a text from her and goes "Damnit, I'll kill that bitch - she just invited her mother over on poker night", I should take the "Damnit I'll kill that bitch" and report him to the police immediately for intent to murder?

I know it's a far out example, but it amounts to the same type of thing. Context is important.

 

[Ricter]

Yeah, so if I believe someone is a wife beater because, well, he just looks that way and I've heard him speak aggressively to his wife, and one day when we're fishing and he gets a text from her and goes "Damnit, I'll kill that bitch - she just invited her mother over on poker night", I should take the "Damnit I'll kill that bitch" and report him to the police immediately for intent to murder?

I know it's a far out example, but it amounts to the same type of thing. Context is important.

I agree with you, context is essential to understanding. (I have an extreme example, too. Suppose I were to simply lift words you've written and string them together to form a sentence you never uttered. To be fair, though, I'd retain the order you wrote them! )

But with that said, and politics being what it is, we'll have to define new, larger contexts into which we'll insert those lesser, original contexts--to support our own particular point of view. ; )

 

[Ricter]

Before this thread disappears I will mention that I agree with the general direction. It is laughable, at least from the perspective of "the 99%", to say you're "penniless" when you have so many connections, so much access to credit. That's the point when we're talking about the children of the wealthy in general, too. Mom and dad don't necessarily need to give them a penny (though they often do). And the kids can later say, "nobody gave me a thing". But that business card from, and phone call directly to, the CEO of X, who they met at dad's barbecue party last weekend, certainly didn't hurt.

Not that any of this is unknown to anyone here.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Before this thread disappears I will mention that I agree with the general direction. It is laughable, at least from the perspective of "the 99%", to say you're "penniless" when you have so many connections, so much access to credit. That's the point when we're talking about the children of the wealthy in general, too. Mom and dad don't necessarily need to give them a penny (though they often do). And the kids can later say, "nobody gave me a thing". But that business card from, and phone call directly to, the CEO of X, who they met at dad's barbecue party last weekend, certainly didn't hurt.

Not that any of this is unknown to anyone here.

Did you just offer a criticism to someone on the left?

 

[Ricter]

Did you just offer a criticism to someone on the left?

I can do that, to skew the polling later.