Support NeoGAF

[APF]

Or I will, once my death ray is complete.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

your a fucking idiot.

 

[harSon]

It's not whether or not she lied, it's that I think the whole Bosnia thing is so ridiculously blown out of proportion that I shudder at anyone who actually would base their vote on it.

Both candidates embellish. There was an article that, along with Clinton's Bosnia thing, had several ones from Obama. How he wanted front credit -- and publically thanked himself -- for legislation he barely worked on while others did the dirty work.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Actually, no, it IS wrong. But it's also what you get with Clinton. She doesn't hold herself to a standard of being above it.

That's what I dislike about this whole Bosnia thing. In the grand scheme of things, it's such a minute detail that all the Obamaniacs brought to the forefront, when the irony is that they should be scrutinizing their own candidate who actually promises to be above that. It's why I think the Obamaniac response to Reverend Wright is equally hypocritical. Barack Obama's entire campaign has a few core ideas, a major one being that he has the judgement to make up for his experience. You might not think Rev. Wright is a concern of yours, and that's fine, but to act like the media should get off a situation that really IS a judgement call, against the "I have the right judgement" candidate -- I think that's ridiculous.


Really now, who the fuck actually is looking to base their vote on Bosnia sniper fire? It's utterly ridiculous. It's just media fodder for people to gawk at to pass the time. Newsflash -- Hillary's not going to be defeated based on shit everyone expects from her. If Obama wants to really take her on, he needs to take her down in policy. Show that his is better than hers.

Bosnia is simply an entry way to a much larger can of worms. The fact that she exaggerated (Lied) her foreign experiences in Bosnia is going to lead to the uncovering of her overly distorted view of "Foreign Experience".

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Really now, who the fuck actually is looking to base their vote on Bosnia sniper fire? It's utterly ridiculous. It's just media fodder for people to gawk at to pass the time. Newsflash -- Hillary's not going to be defeated based on shit everyone expects from her. If Obama wants to really take her on, he needs to take her down in policy. Show that his is better than hers. He's not gonna swing voters en masse the way he needs to by little pity situations like this.

People damned well should look to base their votes on this. It was a blatant and disgusting lie, one that she repeated, and she even emphasized the truthfulness of the account. She was called on it, and her camp claims that she misspoke. The mere thought of such a person, with such a nasty two faced track record throughout this campaign, the thought of such a person gunning for the presidency and being given the chance to do so by voters, that's just disturbing.

 

[Particle Physicist]

quadriplegicjon: they weren't vague; I was responding to a post suggesting I wanted her to avoid guilt because her comments were unintentional. I said I thought they were intentional. The vagueness is in your mind.

geeze man, dont need to respond so aggressively. i was just commenting on how your statements might have been perceived.

It's not whether or not she lied, it's that I think the whole Bosnia thing is so ridiculously blown out of proportion that I shudder at anyone who actually would base their vote on it.

do you think the jeremiah wright controversy was blown out of proportion?

 

[Triumph]

It's not whether or not she lied, it's that I think the whole Bosnia thing is so ridiculously blown out of proportion that I shudder at anyone who actually would base their vote on it.

Both candidates embellish. There was an article that, along with Clinton's Bosnia thing, had several ones from Obama. How he wanted front credit -- and publically thanked himself -- for legislation he barely worked on while others did the dirty work.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Actually, no, it IS wrong. But it's also what you get with Clinton. She doesn't hold herself to a standard of being above it.

That's what I dislike about this whole Bosnia thing. In the grand scheme of things, it's such a minute detail that all the Obamaniacs brought to the forefront, when the irony is that they should be scrutinizing their own candidate who actually promises to be above that. It's why I think the Obamaniac response to Reverend Wright is equally hypocritical. Barack Obama's entire campaign has a few core ideas, a major one being that he has the judgement to make up for his experience. You might not think Rev. Wright is a concern of yours, and that's fine, but to act like the media should get off a situation that really IS a judgement call, against the "I have the right judgement" candidate -- I think that's ridiculous.


Really now, who the fuck actually is looking to base their vote on Bosnia sniper fire? It's utterly ridiculous. It's just media fodder for people to gawk at to pass the time. Newsflash -- Hillary's not going to be defeated based on shit everyone expects from her. If Obama wants to really take her on, he needs to take her down in policy. Show that his is better than hers. He's not gonna swing voters en masse the way he needs to by little pity situations like this.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I say, to learn that this is your viewpoint on this particular issue.

 

[APF]

geeze man, dont need to respond so aggressively.

I'm a Hillary supporter.

 

[CoolTrick]

My viewpoint isn't that what she did was right, it's the double standard.

People damned well should look to base their votes on this. It was a blatant and disgusting lie, one that she repeated, and she even emphasized the truthfulness of the account. She was called on it, and her camp claims that she misspoke. The mere thought of such a person, with such a nasty two faced track record throughout this campaign, the thought of such a person gunning for the presidency and being given the chance to do so by voters, that's just disturbing.

There are plenty of instances of Obama doing this, though. Why should he get away with it just because he pretends to be above it? That, if anything, should make him more scrutinized.

My problem with this situation is the Obamaniacs not holding their own candidate to the same standard, when that's an entire core idea of his campaign.

 

[harSon]

I'm a Hillary supporter.

Will anything Obama does short of croaking please you?

My viewpoint isn't that what she did was right, it's the double standard.



There are plenty of instances of Obama doing this, though. Why should he get away with it just because he pretends to be above it? That, if anything, should make him more scrutinized.

My problem with this situation is the Obamaniacs not holding their own candidate to the same standard, when that's an entire core idea of his campaign.

The word double standard shouldn't escape your mouth.

 

[APF]

Why should he get away with it just because he pretends to be above it? That, if anything, should make him more scrutinized.

My problem with this situation is the Obamaniacs not holding their own candidate to the same standard, when that's an entire core idea of his campaign.

That's the problem with propping yourself up as this sort of "different" candidate; namely that you're asking to be held to a higher standard of behavior. I'll note that this is a common complaint with the US as a whole, particularly when it comes to its foreign policy--that it holds itself up as a shining beacon of justice, while its hands are plenty dirty. I wonder if anyone has written any good sermons on that subject? Guys?

harSon: don't discuss killing candidates here, it's disgusting and out of line.

 

[reilo]

I am shocked, SHOCKED I say, to learn that this is your viewpoint on this particular issue.

It's all the media's fault.

The thing with the Bosnia lie is not that it was a one time occurrence of her perpetrating something like that. It's the sum of the parts of how Clinton has run her campaign - and the Bosnia lie was just the epitome of how you can characterize her campaign.

It's a laundry list of reasons, and the Bosnia lie just happened to be the tipping point of it all.

And who the fuck cares about the Bosnia thing?

Well, uhm, me? Her lying about her stay in Bosnia is personal to me for obvious reasons stated before. I have family down there that was not as lucky as I was and able to seek refuge in another country and instead gutted it out the entire three plus years that the war lasted. For her to use the horrors and hardship of my people for political gain and to even remotely compare her visit at a military base to all the horrible things that happened in the war is just repulsing.

So no. It's not a double standard.

 

[Lefty42o]

My viewpoint isn't that what she did was right, it's the double standard.



There are plenty of instances of Obama doing this, though. Why should he get away with it just because he pretends to be above it? That, if anything, should make him more scrutinized.

My problem with this situation is the Obamaniacs not holding their own candidate to the same standard, when that's an entire core idea of his campaign.

find me one time obama said he was on a official trip and took incoming sniper fire. all to beef up her so called experience.

i will wait


obama has never done anything to turn me off from his candidacy. but hillary hs done plenty. like say my state of virginia doe snot matter to outright lying over bosnia. and she lost me forever when she talked up mccain. thats a huge no no.

remember when i said she has charcter flaws and is not trustworthy. bosnia reaffirms that.

 

[CoolTrick]

do you think the jeremiah wright controversy was blown out of proportion?

I already talked about this, go back and actually read my post.

No, I don't think it was blown out of proportion, because Obama is the judgement candidate. That's a core idea of his entire campaign.

The Reverend Wright issue has a lot to do with judgement.

It's fine if what Rev. Wright says and Obama's association with him doesn't personally concern you, that's nice, but I don't understand why Obamaniacs think that shouldn't be talked about.

It would be like if the media started scrutinizing Clinton's policy plans and her supports didn't think the media should do that. It's like, uh, no, that's kind of a core ideal of her campaign.

 

[Triumph]

My viewpoint isn't that what she did was right, it's the double standard.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHA

Srsly man, don't do that. If I laugh so long and hard I might asphyxiate!

 

[reilo]

I also find it laughable that the argument is that Clinton's biggest flaw is that she does not hold herself to a higher standard, and therefore the media should give her a break and not scrutinize her.

Get the fuck out.

 

[APF]

Hey, how many of you guys are working on the Obama campaign again? I can't keep track of you all. Triumph, you're one right?


reilo: I commend your spin there. Admirable.

 

[reilo]

reilo: I commend your spin there. Admirable.

What was I spinning, exactly?

 

[CoolTrick]

The thing with the Bosnia lie is not that it was a one time occurrence of her perpetrating something like that. It's the sum of the parts of how Clinton has run her campaign - and the Bosnia lie was just the epitome of how you can characterize her campaign.

But you didn't answer my real my point.

Obama's campaign is being above that.

Clinton doesn't act like she is.

The Clintons fight dirty. Yes, congratulations, we all know this. So why should this ellicit a more negative response than when Obama does it, considering he's supposed to be above it?

Srsly man, don't do that. If I laugh so long and hard I might asphyxiate!

Hey, whatever it takes to get you out of the thread.

 

[thekad]

I like how Obama's association with Wright throws into question his judgement, but Hillary's blatant lies and fabrication about her foreign policy cred doesn't put said cred into question.

 

[Lefty42o]

I also find it laughable that the argument is that Clinton's biggest flaw is that she does not hold herself to a higher standard, and therefore the media should give her a break and not scrutinize her.

Get the fuck out.

clinton supporters have started to snap. its very sad to see. to me it seems they would sell their souls and the souls of the party to get hillary the nom :lol

 

[APF]

Certainly it puts into question the point she was trying to make, which was that her term as First Lady was more serious than state dinners and afternoon teas.

 

[Lefty42o]

But you didn't answer my real my point.

Obama's campaign is being above that.

Clinton doesn't act like she is.

The Clintons fight dirty. Yes, congratulations, we all know this. So why should this ellicit a more negative response than when Obama does it, considering he's supposed to be above it?



Hey, whatever it takes to get you out of the thread.

once again show me one time obama has lied boldly tot he american people? said his life wa sin danger to serve the american people. please explain?

 

[thekad]

I also find it laughable that the argument is that Clinton's biggest flaw is that she does not hold herself to a higher standard, and therefore the media should give her a break and not scrutinize her.

Get the fuck out.

It's like CoolTrick is trying to get Hillary off on an insanity plea.

"She doesn't know any better. Give her a break!"

 

[Triumph]

I already talked about this, go back and actually read my post.

No, I don't think it was blown out of proportion, because Hillary is the experience candidate. That's a core idea of her entire campaign.

The Bosnia, Ireland, SCHIP, lack of security clearance but still claiming Bill consulted her on important stuff issues have a lot to do with experience.

It's fine if Hillary blatantly misrepresenting her experience doesn't personally concern you, that's nice, but I don't understand why Clintonians think that shouldn't be talked about.

It would be like if the media started scrutinizing Obama's policy plans and his supports didn't think the media should do that. It's like, uh, no, that's kind of a core ideal of her campaign.

SEE WHAT I DID THERE

 

[reilo]

But you didn't answer my real my point.

Obama's campaign is being above that.

Clinton doesn't act like she is.

The Clintons fight dirty. Yes, congratulations, we all know this. So why should this ellicit a more negative response than when Obama does it, considering he's supposed to be above it?

How has Obama fought a dirty campaign?

Why should it illicit a more negative response?

Well, let me put it this way:

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

Clinton fought dirty. What she said about Bosnia was so wrong on so many levels, that she deserves to be scrutinized equally. For her to just say "oh, it's not big deal," pisses me off. She directly spat in the faces of all men, women, and children that lost their lives in the war by claiming that she survived a similar experience when she clearly did not.

She spat in the face of a dear family friend of mine that has lost four fingers and half of his intestinal tract from being shot by a sniper rifle while he was out carrying milk from the grocery store.

So yes, it's a big fucking deal.

 

[Lefty42o]

It's like CoolTrick is trying to get Hillary off on an insanity plea.

"She doesn't know any better. Give her a break!"

:lol

 

[syllogism]

Obama rally in PA drew 22k, pretty impressive

 

[APF]

once again show me one time obama has lied boldly tot he american people?

It's hard to interpret what you're saying, but you want more Obama lies? Like, when he said John McCain wants "another 100 years of war in Iraq?" That sort of lie? Or like when he says none of his people have talked to Canadian government officials about NAFTA, when they had?


Edit: Oh Triumph, you're peddling SCHIP FUD? tsk tsk

 

[harSon]

I already talked about this, go back and actually read my post.

No, I don't think it was blown out of proportion, because Obama is the judgement candidate. That's a core idea of his entire campaign.

The Reverend Wright issue has a lot to do with judgement.

It's fine if what Rev. Wright says and Obama's association with him doesn't personally concern you, that's nice, but I don't understand why Obamaniacs think that shouldn't be talked about.

It would be like if the media started scrutinizing Clinton's policy plans and her supports didn't think the media should do that. It's like, uh, no, that's kind of a core ideal of her campaign.

Surely you must be appalled with Hillary. A major center piece of her campaign is the idea that she has unmatched experience both locally and abroad. Unfortunately her experience is not as elaborate as she'd like you to think.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html

 

[CoolTrick]

I also find it laughable that the argument is that Clinton's biggest flaw is that she does not hold herself to a higher standard, and therefore the media should give her a break and not scrutinize her.

I'm not saying they should give her a break.

But they are way more lax on Obama who DOES hold himself to a higher standard.

My point revolves around Obama. Not Clinton. Don't turn it back to Clinton because you're just dodging what I brought up.

I like how Obama's association with Wright throws into question his judgement, but Hillary's blatant lies and fabrication about her foreign policy cred doesn't put said cred into question.

There's a reason this argument doesn't work, at least with me:

a) Saying she went to Bosnia under sniper fire as opposed to her going to Bosnia to a warm reception doesn't really say anything about her foreign policy, it's an honesty and judgement issue. Something that while a president should idealy have, no one really expects that much from Clinton anyway. So, yes, what she did is not great, and I frown upon it, but I'm supposed to act shocked and surprised and get pissed off?

b) Because trying to tear down the experience mantra is like trying to demolish the Great Wall of China with a pickaxe. Not only is it the perception that she has more experience than Obama by and large, but she just does. She does. Even if you strip everything down to compare apples to apples, she's been in the Senate longer than Obama has. It's whether or not you think that matters. The point is, trying to tear down Clinton's experience doesn't suddenly make Obama's resume longer.

I keep saying over and over again, experience is just as much an anti-Obama as it is a pro-Hillary. Trying to discredit Hillary's experience doesn't make people feel more comfortable about Obama's lack of it.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I already talked about this, go back and actually read my post.

No, I don't think it was blown out of proportion, because Obama is the judgement candidate. That's a core idea of his entire campaign.

The Reverend Wright issue has a lot to do with judgement.

okay. fine. and hillary is the experience candidate.. so.. if we cant even trust her on her own experiences.. then.. what?




P.S. i love how you guys continue to sprinkle the obamaniacs, obamapologists, and messiah comments all over.. classy.. so classy..

 

[CoolTrick]

okay. fine. and hillary is the experience candidate.. so.. if we cant even trust her on her own experiences.. then.. what?

But you see, this can be changed to:

. fine. and Obama is the change and judgement candidate.. so.. if we cant even trust his judgement and the tangible changes he would bring are almost identical to Hillary.. then.. what

 

[XxenobladerxX]

Obama rally in PA drew 22k, pretty impressive

Holy crap,its like a sea of heads.

 

[CoolTrick]

P.S. i love how you guys continue to sprinkle the obamaniacs, obamapologists, and messiah comments all over.. classy.. so classy..

I don't think Obamaniacs have much to stand on here considering people had to be banned for calling Clinton sexist names before it stopped.

 

[APF]

P.S. i love how you guys continue to sprinkle the obamaniacs, obamapologists, and messiah comments all over.. classy.. so classy..

More or less classy than suggesting my soul will forever be a restless ghost haunting purgatory until that accursed Man Of Hope is rid from the Earth?

 

[CoolTrick]

Oh, and yes, because I'm treated with such class by the Obamapologists. :lol

 

[harSon]

But you see, this can be changed to:

Why do your answers always involve Obama and his supporters? You're being asked questions involving Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

[thekad]

So according to CoolTrick, Hillary doesn't have good judgement nor honesty. She only has her vast experience, which was fabricated.

But she holds herself to a lower standard than her competiton, so its okay.

 

[Particle Physicist]

But you see, this can be changed to:

okay. you are entitled to that opinion.. but you still didnt answer my question which basically points out the hypocrisy in your statements.

 

[Link648099]

omg this thread is so fucking painful to read nowadays. PA can't come here soon enough

 

[CoolTrick]

Excuse me?

Why do your answers always involve Clinton and her supporters? You're being asked questions involving Barack Hussein Obama.

What I've been arguing predates the Bosnia shit.

And I think I've answered your question, anyway.

One more time:

Tearing down Hillary's experience doesn't make me feel more comfortable with Obama's lack of it. The experience angle is just as much anti-Obama as it is pro-Hillary, simply because Obama really DOESN'T have much of a resume.

If Obama were John Edwards, you might have more of a point, because Edwards was at least a recognizable name in politics before this election.

 

[Lefty42o]

Excuse me?



What I've been arguing predates the Bosnia shit.

And I think I've answered your question, anyway.

Tearing down Hillary's experience doesn't make me feel more comfortable with Obama's lack of it. The experience angle is just as much anti-Obama as it is pro-Hillary, simply because Obama really DOESN'T have much of a resume.

If Obama were John Edwards, you might have more of a point, because Edwards was at least a recognizable name in politics before this election.

:lol

yeah his 2004 presidential run after he had similar experience to obama that lead to him being the vp.

next just cause you did not know who obama was does not mean he was not known. obama won many over when he stumped for many after his 2004 key note. names like webb and tim kaine here in va where he won my vote.

 

[CoolTrick]

but you still didnt answer my question which basically points out the hypocrisy in your statements.

I did answer the question. Multiple times.

Now show me where any Obama fan has answered MY questions.

 

[CoolTrick]

If Obama were John Edwards, you might have more of a point, because Edwards was at least a recognizable name in politics before this election.

:lol

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to take into account people living under a rock out in the middle of nowhere, Oklahoma.

But the experience angle wouldn't be nearly as effective against John Edwards, nor would McCain's experience do much against Clinton in a general.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I don't think Muslimaniacs have much to stand on here considering people had to be banned for calling Clinton sexist names before it stopped.

calling clinton sexist names != calling people who you are debating with, names and such.

how do you expect to be taken seriously when you constantly refer to us with those childish names?

 

[reilo]

I did answer the question. Multiple times.

Where?

Now show me where any Obama fan has answered MY questions.

What questions are those exactly?

You and APF couldn't be any more vague if you tried.

 

[Hitokage]

I'd say the Palestinians.

I could see that... with the pro-Obama mods as wielding superior military power and forcing separation up against APF's smaller and less well equipped band of fighters. Not to mention the nebulous factional divide that runs in the pro-Clinton camp and the torn onlookers who can't decide which and the disenchanted who wish both would die.

But on the other hand, you have a rhetorical battle between a crazy establishment hardliner and a mobilized populist force, so it could work the other way!

 

[Triumph]

Oh, and yes, because I'm treated with such class by the Obamapologists. :lol

Which of course has nothing to do with your blatant misinformation re: Obama.

Also:

lololololol

 

[APF]

Well, I have no control over nor speak for my fellow supporters, or the candidate herself, so I'd agree I'm more the Palestinians here.


Can we uh, you know, stop talking about me though?

 

[Triumph]

I could see that... with the pro-Obama mods as wielding superior military power and forcing separation up against APF's smaller and less well equipped band of fighters. Not to mention the nebulous factional divide that runs in the pro-Clinton camp and the torn onlookers who can't decide which and the disenchanted who wish both would die.

But on the other hand, you have a rhetorical battle between a crazy establishment hardliner and a populist force, so it could work the other way!

Yeah, that works. I was looking at it from the pov that "as long as I get them to hit me back, I've won and can hold it up as a victory in the glorious struggle!" kind of thing.