This message was self-deleted by its author

[KMOD]

This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:55 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[merrily]

1. Let's talk polls.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

Let's also talk campaign rhetoric to match those polls not matching a lifetime versus campaign rhetoric that does match a lifetime.

[merrily]

4. Bull puckies. I bellieve Hillary's lifetime in politics more than either of her primary campaigns.

I don't think there is much distinction between the two candidates (HRC, Bernie) aside from the Iraq war vote.

My ass.

I don't think much of your political analysis. It was not just a vote. She fucking advocated for that war. Sanders would NEVER have made that speech OR taken that vote.

That is the exact same kind of bs the Hillary campaign, esp. Bill, tried to use against Obama in 2008. The only difference between them was supposedly her war vote (and, in Obama's case, the whole thing was supposeddly "a fairy tale" because Obama had not been in the Senate when she advocated for the Iraq War. It was bs in 2008 as to Obama and it's even ranker bs against Sanders.

Sanders would never have helped found the DLC to take any political Party to the right. Assuming Sanders would ever have taken a slot on WalMart's board to begin with, he would never have done absolutely nothing for the workers, including nothing about a workers' strike during his time on the board.

Sanders would never have said, when debating Obama in a DEMOCRATIC primary, "Senator McCain and I are ready for that 3 am phone call. Senator Obama is not." Nor would Bernie have run a "racially tinged" campaign against Obama.

And on and on.

Speaking only for myself, the main reason why I post negative things about Hillary is that so many posts the post after posts trying to sell her are so hyperbolic and patently false. Letting them stand uncontradicted would be tantamount to joining the falsehood as an accessory after the fact.

ETA: Senator Sanders never would have remained silent about the PUMAs for so long, either, or allowed Carville to wear PUMA sneakers to the convention nominating Obama--and yes, Carville would have passed if either Clinton had asked him to.

[merrily]

11. IOW, you can't rebut. I post about issues, you post a baseless ad hom about me. No love lost.

As if whether you love me or I love you is the important thing about political posting, anyway

But, I do love how you and so many DUers can read emotions from fonts.

[merrily]

13. You can't be serious. My posts on this thread are full of facts.

eventually you back down

No eventually, I want to go on to something else, even if the swarm keeps posting as if their very lives depended on the last word.

BTW, you backed from my reply to you pretty damned fast.

It's hysterical. Rebut a false statement, you're starting a fight. Keep posting, you're wrong for posting so many replies. Decide to move on from the endless lies and ad homs, and you're backing down.

Reality is, not a one of you would have a problem with the way I post if I were posting in support of Hillary.

And now, I am moving on--oh, sorry, "backing down"---from your false ad homs about me.

[betsuni]

15. "Swarm" heh

Somebody's not feeling very merry and bright tonight.

[merrily]

16. Guess I won't back down from your baseless and false ad homs just yet after all.

First, I am a woman.

Second, you've posted to me about wanting Jim Webb like "my team," when I have never made a pro Webb post to in my life. At most, I've added to a post criticizing him, just to try to be fair, that he is good as to veteran's issues. My reference to the swarm as part of my description of when I, according to you, "back down" was not even close to that.

It's already been established that I'm gangless and hordeless

Really? How does one establish that on the internet?

Third, if calling out the people who go ad hom on me after a post by me comparing Hillary to Sanders is my being a victim in your book, too bad. In my book not doing that is being a victim.

Fourth, if you see my contradicting your false statement that Hillary is as liberal as Sanders, except for an Iraq war vote, as baiting, also too bad.

As for the rest of your post, pot. kettle. I haven't been calling you names for my last three posts. You might check yourself.

[merrily]

22. As I posted to you at the time, I had laughed when I heard a gal reality show "star" say it.

Sorry you didn't get over my finding funny something that you did not find funny. And how ago was that? (And I'm supposedly playing victim?)

I'm not going to entertain you.

Yet, you keep replying, though it's true that your name calling replies are boring, rather than entertaining.

You were annoyed by my ebola posts. You jumped into my Eric Garner post for no good reason. You are the biggest (edited) here.

Annoyance? No, disagreement. I have no memory of your ebola or Garner posts. However, if anyone posts something with which I disagree, I just might state my disagreement, as might others who disagree. The response is to prove me wrong, not to start flinging ad homs. No one is shy about disagreeing with me and I don't take substantive disagreement personally. Most often, I welcome it.

You've been carrying this grudge about a substantive disagreement on a message board since the ebola outbreaks? Wow. Yet, I am a victim if I reply to your personal insults in the next post? Double standards isn't the term for it.

I've yet to see anyone support you in your agenda.

I have no agenda. However, posters have expressed agreement with a number of my posts, sometimes, strong agreement, thanked me, etc. Sorry you missed them. And, others have done the same in pms.

Most people ignore you. And from now on I will too.

Be my guest. I love it when someone who calls me names because we disagree puts me on ignore instead.

[merrily]

6. Bull puckies, part 2 Bush Clinton Clinton Bush

Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq (January 16, 1991)



George H. W. Bush


Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait—a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations—was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.

much more at:

http://www.millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3428

transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

much more at:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

more at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673



Senate vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237



House vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.


On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

more at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

[fadedrose]

2. His appearances on TV have helped

Can't remember what programs, but saw him as a guest on several major programs, and he did well.

[Cheese Sandwich]

5. Running against Hillary is almost like trying to primary challenge a sitting president...

It's an uphill battle.

[merrily]

9. She does have huge advantages, but not the advantage of a sitting war time President,

which both Dimson and Obama had, along with Truman, FDR, etc. (Earlier, terrorism was not seen as a war, as in the WOT).


Aside from war time Presidents, incumbents have not been invincible. Poppy was not. neither was Carter--despite negotiating a successful peace treaty with Israel, not starting a fucking war over the hostages and being 100% right on energy/ MidEast policy. Truman was not, after the 1948 election (although that probably had to do with many other things). LBJ was not. We don't know if JFK would have won a second term, though I think he probably would have.

It's not a magic bullet, and Hillary did lose in 2008. So, we'll see.

[longship]

7. 17 months out? Really? We are talking about polls already?

We don't even know who is or isn't going to run?

Breathe! Take a break! The horses are still in the stable and nobody knows who will be a scratch, and who won't.

Relax and have a beer and a hot dog, or something. Just like at the track, the odds makers don't know shit at this time. Have some fun for a change. Go see a ballgame, or go to an actual horse track and see how it all works.

Breathe easy! And above all, have some fun.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. I don't vote based on polls or supposed "electability".

I vote on issues, policies, candidate history, and principles.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. John Kerry was supposed to be the "electable" one in 2004, remember?

Because he had that service in Vietnam that would render him immune to all right wing attacks.

Yeah, that worked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley Robert Burns