Hillary give up, the media as anoited the chosen one

[Michael Tee]

<<The only one showing any vitriolic irrational hatred towards anyone around here, would be you, Tee, Brass, and Lanya, regarding Bush (& Cheney).>>

I would agree with vitriolic and hatred, but what's irrational about hating a man who starts a war that kills and maims and tortures hundreds of thousands of people?  We have shown excellent reasons to hate the man.  You haven't shown one good reason not to.

[Christians4LessGvt]

xo can't just allow someone to study an issue and come to a different conclusion
he certainly is not alone, many of his leftist friends do the same thing

if xo studies an issue and comes to conclusion, "well it's rational"

but if someone else studies the same issue and arrives at
a different conclusion "well they must not be able to think on their own".

actually that kind of mindset fits right in with the liberal mentality of
intolerance of differing opinions and of "we know better"

[Rich]

>>actually that kind of mindset fits right in with the liberal mentality of
intolerance of differing opinions and of "we know better"<<

It's the Communist mindset actually. A small group of "intellectuals" know what's best for you, so shut up or it's up against the wall enemy of the state!

[sirs]

<<The only one showing any vitriolic irrational hatred towards anyone around here, would be you, Tee, Brass, and Lanya, regarding Bush (& Cheney).>>

I would agree with vitriolic and hatred, but what's irrational about hating a man who starts a war that kills and maims and tortures hundreds of thousands of people?  

When it's been shown that it was justified war, given the intel at the time, cleared by congress, and that much of the maim and tortured were at the hands of Muslim terrorists & insurgents targeting their own.

We have shown excellent reasons to hate the man.  

actually, no.  You've shown excellent examples of selected facts, blatant distortions, and out and out LIES, as reasons to hate the man.  But whatever makes you feel better, you go for it Tee.  Let that hatred spill over.  Call it cleansing therapy, catharatic even.  

[Michael Tee]

<<When it's been shown that it was justified war . . . >>

Bulshit.

<< . . . given the intel at the time>>

cooked to order for the express purposes of justifying the invasion and transparently fake to anyone who cared to look more than a tenth of an inch into the surface of it

<< . . . cleared by congress>>

as if THAT could make it legal.  Hitler's invasions were "cleared" by the Reichstag, does that make THEM legal too?

<< . . .  and that much of the maim and tortured were at the hands of Muslim terrorists & insurgents targeting their own.>>

some of whom had come to Iraq specifically for the purpose of driving out the Amerikkkans, and the rest of whom were thoroughly subjugated in the socialist non-sectarian state run by Saddam.

<<You've shown excellent examples of selected facts . . . >>

ALL arguments rely on selected facts.  People opposing the argument can select their own facts to oppose it.  Which, I note, you have never been able to do convincingly.

<< . . . blatant distortions, and out and out LIES, as reasons to hate the man.>>

Really.  What particular "distortions" are you complaining of now, and what "LIES" did I use as reasons to hate Bush?

[sirs]

<<When it's been shown that it was justified war . . . >>

Bulshit.

And we thank you for that already conceded Bush hating vitriolic OPINION

<< . . . given the intel at the time>>

cooked to order for the express purposes of justifying the invasion and transparently fake to anyone who cared to look more than a tenth of an inch into the surface of it

LIE  (Multiple commissions concluded otherwise, with not a SHRED of proof to claim some massive cover-up, outside of your must-fit-template of what is is supposed to be) 

<< . . . cleared by congress>>

as if THAT could make it legal.  Hitler's invasions were "cleared" by the Reichstag, does that make THEM legal too?

Ahhh, can't have a Tee response without equating America/Bush to Hitler

<< . . .  and that much of the maim and tortured were at the hands of Muslim terrorists & insurgents targeting their own.>>

some of whom had come to Iraq specifically for the purpose of driving out the Amerikkkans, and the rest of whom were thoroughly subjugated in the socialist non-sectarian state run by Saddam.

And we thank you for reinforcing my point.  Much appreciated

<<You've shown excellent examples of selected facts . . . >>

ALL arguments rely on selected facts.

No, not at all.  Objective analysis looks at ALL facts, not just the selected ones to try and paint a biased picture.  Such as ignoring the plethora of intelligence organizations conclusions of Saddam's WMD, the prior Administrations conclusions regarding Saddam's WMD, various intel experts, who don't support Bush's war, but still concede that the intel was largely unanimous regarding the dispotion of Saddam's WMD.  All that's ignored, in order to point to "selected facts" (read; op-eds and "circumstantial evidence") that supposedly claims otherwise


 

<< . . . blatant distortions, and out and out LIES, as reasons to hate the man.>>

Really.  What particular "distortions" are you complaining of now,

Perfect example being the Mission Accomplished garbage.  Distorting the ACTUAL mission of taking out Saddam as being accomplished, and trying to portray it as Bush supposedly claiming that we were "all done, nothing left to do"

and what "LIES" did I use as reasons to hate Bush?

That there was some imminent threat of Iraq about to hit the Continental U.S. with a nuke, but the "He lied us into war" suffices just as well

[Michael Tee]

<<No, not at all.  Objective analysis looks at ALL facts, not just the selected ones to try and paint a biased picture.  >>

We're just quibbling over words.  The relevant facts are selected for the argument, the irrelevant ones are weeded out.

<<Such as ignoring the plethora of intelligence organizations conclusions of Saddam's WMD>>

That was not ignored, it was dealt with: 

1.  by pointing out that you have no way of knowing what the other intelligence organizations believed or didn't believe, they report to their own governments, not to the U.S.A. and when they deal with other intelligence organizations, including Amerikkka's, they may or may not be telling them the truth about anything, they each have their own national agendas;
2.  by denying that there was any "plethora" concluding any such thing;
3.  that the fact that Germany, France, Russia, Canada, China, etc. did not support the invasion means that they did not believe either in the presence of WMD or that the presence justified the invasion.

Nor did I ignore "the prior Administrations conclusions regarding Saddam's WMD," - - this was taken at a time BEFORE Saddam had complied with the UN's order to account for his WMD; Saddam had provided a reasonably satisfactory accounting as ordered;

Nor did I ignore "various intel experts, who don't support Bush's war, but still concede that the intel was largely unanimous regarding the dispotion of Saddam's WMD." - - that's a crock.  Most of those experts are Zionist plants like Barry Rubin, people who critique Bush's performance but have no problem at all with the war itself, which is obviously of enormous benefit to the State of Israel, which is their primary interest as well.

 I challenge you to find one anti-war "expert" who will claim that the intel was "largely unanimous" (whatever the hell that means, something is either unanimous or not, it's kind of like pregnancy, a girl is either pregnant or not, there is no such thing as "a little bit pregnant" or "a whole lot pregnant."

<<  All that's ignored . . . >>

Usual lies and bullshit from our crypto-fascist friend, nothing was ignored, on the contrary every lying piece of bullshit was carefully dissected and exposed.

<< . . .in order to point to "selected facts" (read op-eds and "circumstantial evience" that supposedly claims otherwise>>

The circumstantial evidence of lying, fakery and manipulation is overwhelming.  Even the possession of WMD by Hussein, which Bush pretends to believe, would not have justified the invasion.  The UN Security Council would not authorize such action and Bush knew that - - which is why his motion for authorization of use of force was withdrawn on the eve of the day it was to be submitted.

<<LIE  (Multiple commissions concluded otherwise, with not a SHRED of proof to claim some massive cover-up, outside of your must-fit-template of what is is supposed to be) >>

"Multiple" in this case being two U.S. and one British commission, all carefully excluding even one token individual seriously opposed to the war.  The fiction of bi-partisanship being used to cloak the cherry-picked commission members, guaranteed not to rock any boats. 


<<Ahhh, can't have a Tee response without equating America/Bush to Hitler>>

If the shoe fits . . .

<<Perfect example being the Mission Accomplished  garbage.  Distorting the ACTUAL mission of taking out Saddam as being accomplished, and trying to portray it as Bush supposedly claiming that we were "all done, nothing left to do">>

Hilarious.  When there was never anything said about two missions, "Mission Accomplished" means mission accomplished, now we have nothign left to do in Iraq and can all come home.



<<That there was some imminent threat of Iraq about to hit the Continental U.S. with a nuke . . . >>

A little confused, aren't we?  That was Condoleeza Rice's lie, not mine.  Remember the smoking gun and the mushroom cloud?

<< . . .  but the "He lied us into war" suffices just as well>>

Bush did lie the country into war by creating fictitious threats that required an invasion and all of your sophistry can't change that one unsavoury fact.  The mushroom cloud remarks just referred to were just one example of many lies used to promote the war.

[sirs]

All those "unsavory facts" my friend remain your delusional Bush is Hitler opinion, manifested by the examples of lies & distortions you keep perseverating on, this go around.  Repeating those lies, might make you feel better.  Well, you and like minds.  So, knock your socks off

[Christians4LessGvt]

The leading Democrats were in on the "Hitler/Bush/Iraq Conspiracy".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7qlGXt6vg

Sirs once again the foundation, the bedrock of the Left's argument is lunacy.

[Michael Tee]

<<All those "unsavory facts" my friend remain your delusional Bush is Hitler opinion . . . >>

"Bush is Hitler" is not MY opinion, sirs, it is your caricature of my opinion.  You don't want to deal with the truth of what I have to say, so like your fellow right-wing crazies, you manufacture your own reality, a world where the leftist critique becomes "Bush is Hitler," something you feel you can easily rebut.

My opinion is that Bush in many ways is similar to Hitler - - in his creation of fictitious enemies who must be destroyed at all costs, including the sacrifice of domestic civil liberties; in his manufacturing of reasons (all of them false) to make war on other, weaker states whose wealth can then be plundered; in his total lack of moral scruples, reflected both in his willingness to use torture to advance his goals and his willingness to risk high civilian casualties for the same purpose; in his use of the "Big Lie" as propaganda (example:  "They hate us for our freedoms;")  and in his nationalism and militarism.

<<manifested by the examples of lies & distortions you keep perseverating on>>

Typical of your confused thinking.  The only thing "manifested" by the examples of lies and distortions that I "keep perseverating on" is that Bush is a liar many times over.  Which I think by now the Amerikkkan people have come to realize.

<<Repeating those lies, might make you feel better.  >>

I repeat, with evidence, that Bush is a liar and a murderer only when I see you denying the point once again.  I am not going to let you get away even once with denying that Bush is a liar and a murderer.  You right-wing bullshit artists think that you can wear down the truth with your lies.  Keep repeating your bullshit and one day the left will get tired of trying to rebut it with facts.  That's EXACTLY how Hitler thought.  Well, you can't.  For every one of your lies, I will sling back the truth

[sirs]

<<All those "unsavory facts" my friend remain your delusional Bush is Hitler opinion . . . >>

"Bush is Hitler" is not MY opinion, sirs, it is your caricature of my opinion. 

Not really.  When nearly every rebuttal arguemnt of yours includes either Hitler, Nazi, fascist, etc., it's no illogial leap to aknowledge that for the most part, Bush = Hitler, simply a more moronic version is all.  The other pure OPINIONS minus even a shred of facts to support such is the supposed bi-partsian Congressional cover-up, the 911 comission cover-up, that the other intel agencies are likely lying to us regarding their positions on Saddam's WMD.  And for now, will just skip your out and out lies.

You don't want to deal with the truth of what I have to say, so like your fellow right-wing crazies, you manufacture your own reality, a world where the leftist critique becomes "Bush is Hitler," something you feel you can easily rebut.

This, ladies and gentlemen is called projection.  Replace Bush is Hitler with Bush is evil, Amerikkka is a fascist nation, and/or Our military is a bunch of low hanging fruit rapists & torturers, and ......well, you all get the picture, regarding "realities"     

[Michael Tee]

<<When nearly every rebuttal arguemnt of yours includes either Hitler, Nazi, fascist, etc., it's no illogial leap to aknowledge that for the most part, Bush = Hitler, simply a more moronic version is all. >>

One of the stupidest arguments I have seen from you yet, and that's really saying something.  Whether I was arguing that Bush = Hitler or that Bush is similar to Hitler in many ways, the argument in either case would necessarily have to include the words "Hitler," "Nazi," "fascist," etc.  Your logic really sucks.

<< The other pure OPINIONS minus even a shred of facts to support such is the supposed bi-partsian Congressional cover-up, the 911 comission cover-up, that the other intel agencies are likely lying to us regarding their positions on Saddam's WMD. >>

I guess the actual composition of the supposedly "bi-partisan" coverup is not, in your lunatic world, a fact.  The names of the members of the commission and their records are not facts.  A fact is not a fact unless sirs says it's a fact.  Honest to God, you are getting too crazy for me to even bother arguing with.  Similarly with your unsupported assertion that the other intel agencies all supported Bush's conclusions.  Unmitigated bullshit, with plenty of common sense and circumstantial evidence to the contrary, all of which I have gone over in too much detail to bother repeating here.

<< And for now, will just skip your out and out lies.>>

A very prudent decision for you to make, sirs, since there ARE no "out and out lies" of mine to skip.  Trying to point them out would be kind of embarrassing for you, I guess.  But then, what can you ever say that ISN'T embarrassing for you?

[Stray Pooch]

But, I simply do not trust her. What in her background would make me think this?

There is much about her that gives pause when it comes to personal trust.  It doesn't come from Rush.  I, too, gave up listening to Rush years ago.  I listen to Boortz because he is on while I am driving on our local news station, and I like listening to that station.  He comes on delayed in the afternoon.  He is very anti-Hillary, though his current stance is that he considers Obama more of a threat than she is.  But I also listen to NPR.  I don't take my opinions from either - or any - source.  I listen to interesting commentary and compare it with my own experience.  Though Boortz gets a lot of airtime in my car, I often have to turn away to classical music or some other venue because he gets so damned annoying.  His viewpoints are often simplistic nonsense and I note that he has a habit of hanging up on callers when he can't make a substantive counterargument or just "letting them rant" without comment to prove he is "giving them a fair shot."  Then he doesn't respond at all.  I find his show entertaining and humorous, but aside from the fair tax, I don't think much of his ideas and I don't think much of him.

Hillary is her own worst enemy.  She engenders distrust because of her extreme arrogance and inability to connect with people.  This is, incidentally, very close to George W. Bush.  Neither has the personality to overcome their own negatives, or the opposition's exploitation thereof.  I remember Hillary's VRWC talk.  That was almost paranoid.  Her "stand by your man" comment in the '92 elections made her look smug and clueless at the same time.  Her burning ambition is obvious.  I said when she ran for Senator that she was really running for President, and I was right.  Nobody disputed it when I said it, because nobody saw it as anything but a stepping stone.  Her appointment as Health Care Czar was inappropriate.  Even though she has a good educational background, and clearly has leadership skills, you don't appoint your wife to a position when you are an elected official.  It's way too iffy.  She actually did a good job in the Senate of trying to combat her ultra-liberal reputation by staying close to the center when possible.  But it came off to me as a cynical ploy to make herself electable - whether or not that analysis is justified.   I may have respected her more had she been an unapologetic liberal, like Howard Dean, rather than trying to simultaneously stay in the spotlight and fly under the political radar.  Finally, this campaign was defined for me when she did the Katie Couric interview in which she thrice refused to answer the question "What if you are not the nominee?"  She kept saying "I WILL be the nominee."  Katie tried three times to get the question asked.  The repsonse was the same each time, and Hillary got increasingly tense each time.  At least Caesar had the good sense to reject the crown thrice, rather than insist it was already his before the coronation.   (Ironic, considering that as it is, Hillary may not last through the Ides of March.)

Her increasing desperation and her woefully embarrassing attempts to find a good pop culture reference or pithy one-liner to take Obama down are adding to the picture of a child denied her toy.   She has campaigned abysmally.  Her husband was a tremendous politician - she is not.  She is pitted against Obama - an excellent politician and a man with style and credibility (deserved or not).   She went in assuming the crown was hers, and underestimated her need to actually earn it.  She is starting to get the picture, but it's too late.  It may be that she could apply the lessons learned in this election and go on to get the next one, but I think she will emerge from this election beaten and tainted to the point nobody will get behind her in four or eight years.  She has developed a reputation as a loser, and that - if nothing else - is unforgiveable in politics.  Of course, she could still pull out a win, but if she does it will come off as the victory of the political machine against that uppity black guy and she will very likely lose the general election, giving Obama the grease to take the 2012 nomination without credible opposition.

In the end, Obama is probably more liberal than Hillary, though I think that liberalism is more a sincere expression of his experience than political pandering.  If anything, he is tempering it with rhetoric of "hope and change."  But his record is transparent, and he doesn't deny his leanings.  So while we may (and I do) often disagree with him, we feel at least that we know what we're getting, and it will be just a case of left vs. right.  He doesn't give the impression of someone whose goal is power for its own sake, rather than public service.  It may well be, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if so, that he is no less power-hungry and likely to abuse that power than any other person to hold office.  But if I had to buy a used car, I would pick Obama's lot over Hillary's any day.

Bottom line:  I don't trust her because of her.  If she ever does become President, the humiliation of her derailed campaign might be a great thing for her.  It might be just the thing to broaden her outlook beyond her own limitations and give her a chance to actually use those leadership skills she most certainly possesses to do something good.  But just now, I wouldn't let her drive my car, much less my country.

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Michael Tee]

Doesn't make a whole lotta sense.  Bill Clinton was a very popular President and all the polls I've seen indicate he could beat any present candidate hands-down.  I think Hillary's problem is, people just don't like her.  Speaking personally, I find myself increasingly turned off by that perpetual phony smile.  She just doesn't look real.  She looks way too desperate to win the nomination.  And I think it takes a hell of a lot of nerve to tout her "experience" over Obama's, when she approved the war and he didn't.  Experience is good only if it leads to improved judgment - - her judgment sucked and Obama's was rock-solid.