Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 164
  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    ...will continue the progressive/populist agenda, or at least attempt to.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    True enough I guess. Hillary doesn't have peace negotiations to meddle with like Dick had with Johnson/Humphrey...look what that got us BTW...you can expect that from Iran, just like GW's refusal to treat with North Korea lead to them developing the bomb.

    Hillary can run on the continued success of the gains made in the culture war. Her rant on voting rights could be considered a probe in that direction. Also promising to get police under control, remember the persecution? That is an issue even for some to the right.
    You do realize Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam, right? It is so weird. I mean sure, Nixon is kind of this bad guy in American history. Fine. But, I mean, we are discussing politics and Vietnam and you just sort of ignore why we there just so you can take a shot at a Republican. It isn't even rational. The point. The main point of all of this was I am trying to objectively look at Presidential election history and figure out how Hillary may have a shot at winning (or not winning). I am looking at the historical data. The history of how Americans vote for Presidents. I compare her to Nixon. If you don't see the comparison, allow me elaborate.
    1. Both lost against a young up and comer (Kennedy/Obama) due to their slick campaigns and ability to show well.
    2. Neither Nixon nor Hillary was especially well-liked. Their were trust issues. Accusations of partisanship.

    So, we look at how the Nixon election played out to understand what we may be able to expect as Hillary runs. The first thing I ask is how the heck did Nixon win. He learned some lessons when he got beat by Kennedy which he applied. Most importantly, he promised to get America out of Vietnam. Some would argue that this is how Obama beat Hillary. People believed he'd get the troops out whereas people viewed Hillary as a little more hawkish. So, she enters this election without a Vietnam to tip the scales. She isn't the candidate to get us out of Iraq. We had eight years of a Democrat who couldn't do it. So, she cannot run on the platform of change as Nixon did. Now, she is up against some weak-ass competition. However, as we all know, that can change in an instant. No one saw Obama until he just flew in and swooped up the nomination. Outside of the weak field, though, I have a difficult time figuring out how she wins in the general election. As I noted, over 1/2 of Americans don't find her trustworthy. Will a significant number of Americans vote for someone they find untrustworthy? People find her experienced, but they had no problem voting for a political neophyte 7 years ago. Will Americans demand a more experienced executive this time around? Will enough people consider Hillary to be properly experienced or will they view her career as a series of sham jobs where she really accomplished little of note. Yes, her small accomplishment list could be considered as just a symptom of the sorts of jobs she held. However, the question will be asked why she always seeks out such jobs.

    In summary, I get that you are a partisan guy. Love you some Democrats. You wear being gay on your sleeve and its a real big deal for you that people kow-tow to identity politics. And maybe that's just where independent Americans are right now. I don't know. For Hillary's sake, she better hope so because that is her best chance of winning. She is going to play identity politics from here to eternity. So, we are going to hear about wars on women, blacks, gays, midgets, the under-insured, the working poor, the non-working poor, and the middle class. We are gonna hear about all these wars because the war she really needs is not happening in her favor.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  4. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    In summary, I get that you are a partisan guy. Love you some Democrats. You wear being gay on your sleeve and its a real big deal for you that people kow-tow to identity politics. And maybe that's just where independent Americans are right now. I don't know. For Hillary's sake, she better hope so because that is her best chance of winning. She is going to play identity politics from here to eternity. So, we are going to hear about wars on women, blacks, gays, midgets, the under-insured, the working poor, the non-working poor, and the middle class. We are gonna hear about all these wars because the war she really needs is not happening in her favor.

    Right, again, remember the persecution.

    (perhaps it will amuse you to know that in RL I am closeted).

    ---------- Post added at 12:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You do realize Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam, right?

    Yes, we're talking about the '68 election, right? There's wonderful evidence that Nixon meddled in the peace negotiations...promising the north they could get a better deal if they waited until after the election.

    Does Hillary have any similar opportunity? I agree with you she doesn't, though I have no reason to believe she'd stoop to such a disgusting tactic...although the reverse is certainly true if we consider the letter to Iran or the theorized upcoming economic collapse in 2016.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, again, remember the persecution.

    (perhaps it will amuse you to know that in RL I am closeted).
    1. Persecution? Of who? This is 2015. We have a black President. The supposedly conservative court just upheld gay marriage. Roe v Wade has been law for over 40 years. Blacks and women have had the right to vote over 100 years. The colored/whites only establishments are long gone. Who exactly is being persecuted? More to the point, what are the signs of institutional persecution?
    2. Actually, not really amusing at all. Kind of sad that you feel you need to hide this. Perhaps, you believe persecution runs rampant because it is the norm in your own home.

    Yes, we're talking about the
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    '68 election, right? There's wonderful evidence that Nixon meddled in the peace negotiations...promising the north they could get a better deal if they waited until after the election.

    Does Hillary have any similar opportunity? I agree with you she doesn't, though I have no reason to believe she'd stoop to such a disgusting tactic...although the reverse is certainly true if we consider the letter to Iran or the theorized upcoming economic collapse in 2016.
    We could argue about whatever role you believe Nixon played. Not important. The important thing here is that Vietnam did exist then and does not exist now. Or, if it did exist, then Hillary would very much be more like Humphrey than Nixon since her party has held the White House for the previous two terms. Don't turn this into a partisan thing. It isn't a partisan argument.

    More interestingly is that you actually believe Hillary has scruples. This is a women who looked the other way while Bill was out schtuping other women. Then, when he got caught by the press, she took Bill's side and went as far as publicly slut-shaming the 20-something year old intern (plus the others who came out of the closet). Yup, Hillary, that supposed pillar of women's rights. The supposedly highly scrupled women per your argument. She really held her moral ground on that one. Actually, she decided her ambition to one day be President was worth destroying the lives of these other women. And you believe she is above disgusting tactics because???? Hillary most recently has been caught in a series of lies about emails she decided to keep on her own personal server. The thing is, she lied from the get-go on this one. When asked why she needed to do this, her excuse was because she wanted to do all her business from one phone. Umm, I've been using multiple mail addresses on my phone for nearly a decade. I'm gonna have to call b.s. on that one. She's been lying about it ever since. Regardless of whether you believe she covered up anything, let's at least agree she has not been 100% truthful. Enough so to make me question your unshakable belief in her integrity.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #65
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. Persecution? Of who? This is 2015. We have a black President. The supposedly conservative court just upheld gay marriage. Roe v Wade has been law for over 40 years. Blacks and women have had the right to vote over 100 years. The colored/whites only establishments are long gone. Who exactly is being persecuted? More to the point, what are the signs of institutional persecution?
    2. Actually, not really amusing at all. Kind of sad that you feel you need to hide this. Perhaps, you believe persecution runs rampant because it is the norm in your own home.
    Right, who said it had to be institutional...though institutional persecution of homosexuals is still legal in many states where you can be fired for just being such.

    and it was more like it ran rampant in the community I grew up in. I doubt you could find a high school without a single gay person who is openly out today - just the opposite in fact, if you were even suspected you might be thinking of leaning that way you were in for a great deal of physical and mental anguish.

    Does what happened in my experience just go away now that gay marriage is a thing? no.

    ---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    More interestingly is that you actually believe Hillary has scruples. This is a women who looked the other way while Bill was out schtuping other women. Then, when he got caught by the press, she took Bill's side and went as far as publicly slut-shaming the 20-something year old intern (plus the others who came out of the closet). Yup, Hillary, that supposed pillar of women's rights. The supposedly highly scrupled women per your argument. She really held her moral ground on that one. Actually, she decided her ambition to one day be President was worth destroying the lives of these other women. And you believe she is above disgusting tactics because???? Hillary most recently has been caught in a series of lies about emails she decided to keep on her own personal server. The thing is, she lied from the get-go on this one. When asked why she needed to do this, her excuse was because she wanted to do all her business from one phone. Umm, I've been using multiple mail addresses on my phone for nearly a decade. I'm gonna have to call b.s. on that one. She's been lying about it ever since. Regardless of whether you believe she covered up anything, let's at least agree she has not been 100% truthful. Enough so to make me question your unshakable belief in her integrity.

    Hillary didn't cheat, nor did she chase after someone else's husband. Your "babe-in-the woods" defense of Monica is laughable.

    I've seen nothing to lead me to believe she hasn't been 100% truthful about the email thing. So no, I won't agree until you provide some evidence.

    ---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, who said it had to be institutional...though institutional persecution of homosexuals is still legal in many states where you can be fired for just being such.

    and it was more like it ran rampant in the community I grew up in. I doubt you could find a high school without a single gay person who is openly out today - just the opposite in fact, if you were even suspected you might be thinking of leaning that way you were in for a great deal of physical and mental anguish.

    Does what happened in my experience just go away now that gay marriage is a thing? no.

    ---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------




    Hillary didn't cheat, nor did she chase after someone else's husband. Your "babe-in-the woods" defense of Monica is laughable.

    I've seen nothing to lead me to believe she hasn't been 100% truthful about the email thing. So no, I won't agree until you provide some evidence.
    I'm talking about some like Nixon or Reagan (Iran-Contra) who would act in reckless disregard for the welfare of the country and others (even their own countrymen) to advance themselves.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, who said it had to be institutional...though institutional persecution of homosexuals is still legal in many states where you can be fired for just being such.

    and it was more like it ran rampant in the community I grew up in. I doubt you could find a high school without a single gay person who is openly out today - just the opposite in fact, if you were even suspected you might be thinking of leaning that way you were in for a great deal of physical and mental anguish.

    Does what happened in my experience just go away now that gay marriage is a thing? no.
    I don't know. I guess I could hold resentments against Germans like my Uncle... but at some point it is best to move on. I'm certainly not going to play the victim card. Nor am I going to look for government to make everyone like, or even accept me. It I am not welcome somewhere... oh well. We live in a big world and I don't need to haggle over small minds. This is why I find the comparisons between the modern gay struggle and black struggle so absolutely absurd. Today, there is no institution barring gay people. You can walk into any shop in America and make your purchase. Now, if you CHOOSE to express being gay, then you'll be subject to the same sorts of judgments any human being is subjected to when they make a choice. If I CHOOSE to walk into a shop wearing a shirt that says "My mother knows I'm Jewish!" I can expect some places will look at me cross ways and maybe, some places would ask me to leave. Yea, I got picked on for being Jewish in grade school and heard the slurs all through high school. The difference between you and I though is that no one had to know you were a gay kid. Everyone knew I was the Jewish kid. It didn't matter if I went to church on Sunday. Everyone knew my folks and there were no secrets. Let's face it. People will vote for a gay person as President long before a Jew ever gets elected.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Hillary didn't cheat, nor did she chase after someone else's husband. Your "babe-in-the woods" defense of Monica is laughable.

    I've seen nothing to lead me to believe she hasn't been 100% truthful about the email thing. So no, I won't agree until you provide some evidence.I'm talking about some like Nixon or Reagan (Iran-Contra) who would act in reckless disregard for the welfare of the country and others (even their own countrymen) to advance themselves.
    Really? That's your focus? How I characterized Lewinsky. Ok. You're absolutely right. I should hold an intern and the President of the U.S. equally culpable. I am not defending Monica. However, if Hillary were truly the champion of women's rights, wouldn't she have acknowledged the power dynamics involved? Wouldn't she have shown some compassion for the intern? If not compassion, wouldn't she have avoided outright character assassination and playing to the usual stereotypes women get in these situations? Since you cannot defend Clinton here, I see, like Clinton, you'd prefer to simply attack Lewinsky and the others.

    According to CNN, Hillary's explanation of using a personal server is questionable:
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politi...-mail-devices/
    Clinton claimed:
    "In a press conference at the United Nations earlier this month, Clinton explained that she used a personal email because she only wanted to have one phone, not two."

    In reality:
    "Clinton used an iPad and a Blackberry for email, the source said Tuesday, confirming an Associated Press report that Clinton emailed with staff about both work and personal issues on her iPad."

    The funny thing is that even this explanation is poor. Even if she truly only used one device, her excuse does not make sense. I had a blackberry and received both work and personal emails. It is one of the things Blackberry was known for. Yet, it has been years since you could use Android and Apple devices to accomplish the same thing. So, I am going to call b.s. on her explanation whether she lied about her motive or the actual practice itself. Either way... she lied.

    More importantly, she probably broke the rules at the State Dept.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politi...-mail-devices/
    "While Clinton may have technical arguments for why she complied with each of these and the other rules that have been discussed in the news, the argument that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law is unsustainable," said Douglas Cox, a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation."

    What all of this points to is someone who lacks the type of principled behavior you claim she does. Again, in light of facts, how is it you have this religious like belief in her and her ethics?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    More importantly, she probably broke the rules at the State Dept.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politi...-mail-devices/
    "While Clinton may have technical arguments for why she complied with each of these and the other rules that have been discussed in the news, the argument that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law is unsustainable," said Douglas Cox, a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation."

    Where does that quote come from? It's not in the CNN article.

    This one is: ""She said her reason for opting for one email account in 2009 was a desire to not have to carry more than one device around," the source said. "And in the second sentence of the above statement, she specifies that the extra device she was seeking to avoid was 'a second phone.'"


    It is this continued (what I call) persecution that makes her more relateable. Digging and digging and digging in the hopes that maybe, somewhere an i wasn't dotted or a t not crossed and then claiming that something so insignificant is somehow a grand criminal conspiracy.

    Even if she did break the rules (which you've still provided zero evidence of) so what? Was anything compromised? Deleted? Again, you have zero evidence. So the fishing expeditions continue.

    Benghazi - nothing, Troopergate - nothing, Filegate - nothing, Travelgate - nothing, WHITEWATER - nothing, and on and on. Although I do believe our elected officials should be held accountable and should be investigated with the appearance of impropriety, republicans have made it a corner stone of their political activity. Backed up by the corporate media power. Which is why that side always has to protest (too much, and it is obvious) that the main stream media has a liberal bias when the reverse is actually the reality.



    I'm not talking about holding a grudge. I'm talking about empathy. I'm not jewish nor black but I can relate to that feeling of powerlessness when faced with irrational persecution of a minority by the majoirty (be that the population numbers or the power they hold).
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #68
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Where does that quote come from? It's not in the CNN article.

    This one is: ""She said her reason for opting for one email account in 2009 was a desire to not have to carry more than one device around," the source said. "And in the second sentence of the above statement, she specifies that the extra device she was seeking to avoid was 'a second phone.'"


    It is this continued (what I call) persecution that makes her more relateable. Digging and digging and digging in the hopes that maybe, somewhere an i wasn't dotted or a t not crossed and then claiming that something so insignificant is somehow a grand criminal conspiracy.

    Even if she did break the rules (which you've still provided zero evidence of) so what? Was anything compromised? Deleted? Again, you have zero evidence. So the fishing expeditions continue.

    Benghazi - nothing, Troopergate - nothing, Filegate - nothing, Travelgate - nothing, WHITEWATER - nothing, and on and on. Although I do believe our elected officials should be held accountable and should be investigated with the appearance of impropriety, republicans have made it a corner stone of their political activity. Backed up by the corporate media power. Which is why that side always has to protest (too much, and it is obvious) that the main stream media has a liberal bias when the reverse is actually the reality.



    I'm not talking about holding a grudge. I'm talking about empathy. I'm not jewish nor black but I can relate to that feeling of powerlessness when faced with irrational persecution of a minority by the majoirty (be that the population numbers or the power they hold).
    Both quotes were pulled from the same article. And you're conflating all sorts of topics here. I am demonstrating her moral compass isn't what you claim. Now, you're free to rationalize it away as some vast right wing conspiracy out to get her. That's been her position since the early 90's which, by the way, is a bit Nixon like. That you liken it to persecution... is frankly beyond words. She breaks and bends the rules of ethical behavior and then cries foul when someone calls her on it. There's no right wing conspiracy. There's just her behavior and its consequences. Even when pressed with facts, you close your eyes and make excuses for her. I quoted an article from CNN. Not some right wing rag. The quotes you could not find in the article are in the second and third paragraphs respectively.

    Its funny, you claim I didn't provide evidence (which I have). Then you act like, so what? Did you really ask if anything was deleted? Seriously? She admitted wiping her hard drive clean. So, yes, apparently, things were deleted. What was deleted? Well, by the very definition of delete, we'll never know. You can bring up all sorts of straw men to pretend like Hillary is wonderful, but you're just avoiding the arguments I am putting in front of you.

    ----

    You can choose to believe you relate to whomever you want. I am nobody to tell you otherwise. All I can tell you is that as you focus on powerlessness, being a victim, the greatest black and Jewish leaders have always focused on power. The power to rise. To overcome. To be independent. To be free. As an American gay person, you have experienced nothing more than people who don't like you. I am sure you've heard people make slurs about being gay. You've never experienced the kind of persecution in this country that blacks experienced. Not even close. Nor have I. My situation is far different than that of my grandparents who literally came here to escape death. I don't know a sliver of the horrors they experienced as they were chased from their homeland. It is actually almost insulting that you believe you can empathize with these people. That you think your "civil rights" movements is on par with slavery and genocide. The fact is that you are holding a grudge. Your entire political spectrum is based on your perceived persecution. You select politicians based, almost solely, on identity politics. You'll never get the change you want that way, but you will get the change you deserve.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    She admitted wiping her hard drive clean. So, yes, apparently, things were deleted. What was deleted? Well, by the very definition of delete, we'll never know.

    So you have no evidence of anything "damning" or even just not nice. The thing about an email is that you send it to someone else who may very well likely save it.

    Could you tell me what you believe - admitting it is only speculation - was on those deleted emails?

    ---------- Post added at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    She breaks and bends the rules of ethical behavior
    What rules are these? Can you point to there sources or are these just some general rules that maybe you believe important? There's all types of rules and regulations concerning ethical behavior imposed by businesses, government, industries and organizations.

    People go through great lengths navigating them, probing the boundaries - even pushing past them - and often these are the sources of innovation and lucrative returns. Take Whitewater, for example, I'm supposed to be surprised and filled with moral indignation that lawyers get involved in risky and questionable business dealings?...in real estate development?

    puh-lease, you must not know that many lawyers.

    ---------- Post added at 12:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As an American gay person, you have experienced nothing more than people who don't like you. I am sure you've heard people make slurs about being gay. You've never experienced the kind of persecution in this country that blacks experienced. Not even close.

    "Gay bashing" is a thing and many of us have been maimed and killed. We were used as scape-goats and blamed for HIV and denied a rapid response to the tragedy accordingly.

    Maybe not to the same level (it would depend on the metric you used), but the rest of your statement simply isn't true. Does it matter? Is what happened to asian american the same as what happened to blacks? To hispanics?

    We're talking about degrees of injustice here. I'm not sure there's a reading on that scale that is acceptable to me - especially if there is something easy that can be done about it.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #70
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    So you have no evidence of anything "damning" or even just not nice. The thing about an email is that you send it to someone else who may very well likely save it.

    Could you tell me what you believe - admitting it is only speculation - was on those deleted emails?
    So you expect me to tell you what evidence is there that she wiped information of her pc which could be damning? The question is, why did she wipe it clean to begin with? No. The real question is why she thought it was ok to break State Dept rules and keep sensitive information on her own home server?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    What rules are these? Can you point to there sources or are these just some general rules that maybe you believe important? There's all types of rules and regulations concerning ethical behavior imposed by businesses, government, industries and organizations.

    People go through great lengths navigating them, probing the boundaries - even pushing past them - and often these are the sources of innovation and lucrative returns. Take Whitewater, for example, I'm supposed to be surprised and filled with moral indignation that lawyers get involved in risky and questionable business dealings?...in real estate development?

    puh-lease, you must not know that many lawyers.
    1) You keep mentioning Whitewater, but I have not mentioned it once. So, either support that Whitewater is an issue I am accusing her of or drop this rebuttal. It is nothing more than a straw man argument.
    2) "While Clinton might be able to put together a case that she "complied" with the rules, experts said her actions are nevertheless hard to defend."
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/
    In fact, she is the first Secretary of State to never use her .gov email.

    Look, we can't know what has been destroyed. Things will leak out over time and you'll just look the other way because you have some odd investment in her. Just admit that you don't care whether she is ethical. The point is that she isn't above doing just about anything, including something unethical, if it helps her become President. This is the argument we are having. You are claiming she is a virtual saint and I'm pointing out her behaviors have not been saint-like.



    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "Gay bashing" is a thing and many of us have been maimed and killed. We were used as scape-goats and blamed for HIV and denied a rapid response to the tragedy accordingly.

    Maybe not to the same level (it would depend on the metric you used), but the rest of your statement simply isn't true. Does it matter? Is what happened to asian american the same as what happened to blacks? To hispanics?

    We're talking about degrees of injustice here. I'm not sure there's a reading on that scale that is acceptable to me - especially if there is something easy that can be done about it.
    Yes, gay bashing, Mexican bashing, white-male bashing, rape, etc al. So, gays have been targeted as a minority. Just like every other minority on the planet. Congrats. You're totally normal. Then, listen to yourself.

    Gays were blamed for HIV and you believe this is because they were gay. It could be it was because HIV spread in the gay community at a much higher rate than in the straight community. It could be that behavior in the gay, male community helped that stereotype via their actions. For example, based on CDC stats, gay/bisexual men (accounting for 2% of the population) were responsible for over 70% of all new HIV cases between 2008 and 2010. Is this the fault of straight people? You can blame whomever you wish, but behavior has consequences, even if you believe that behavior is essential. HIV spending is, I believe, second behind cancer research. How much more of a response would you like? Yup, just like the struggle of blacks from slavery, gays will overcome this injustice.... casual, unprotected sex, causing HIV and they have to wait almost a decade for a cure... whew!

    Look, I am not saying it is easy to be gay or that there aren't some hurdles to overcome. I am saying that they aren't much more significant than the hurdles for any minority community. Certainly, they are no where near the hurdles blacks in this country have overcome. Let's put it this way. If I were black and someone compared the gay civil rights struggle to the black civil rights struggle, I'd probably beat the **** out of them. Just for being so damn ignorant. Oh, and because as a black man I'd have a natural tendency towards violence... Just kidding!
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  12. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So you expect me to tell you what evidence is there that she wiped information of her pc which could be damning? The question is, why did she wipe it clean to begin with? No. The real question is why she thought it was ok to break State Dept rules and keep sensitive information on her own home server?

    She didn't:

    "Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/

    and she said she deleted here personal emails. Perfectly reasonable.

    True we can't know what was destroyed and like you said maybe things will leak out...let me know when they do. Until then it is just speculation.

    I never made the claim that she was a saint. In fact, some of the traits she possesses would be admired if she were a male. Perhaps that's your problem with her.

    ---------- Post added at 11:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Just admit that you don't care whether she is ethical.

    If you'd give me an example of where she hasn't been ethical then maybe I would agree. I need a concrete example and the ethical rules she has supposedly broken.

    ---------- Post added July 1st, 2015 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was June 30th, 2015 at 11:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Gays were blamed for HIV and you believe this is because they were gay. It could be it was because HIV spread in the gay community at a much higher rate than in the straight community. It could be that behavior in the gay, male community helped that stereotype via their actions. For example, based on CDC stats, gay/bisexual men (accounting for 2% of the population) were responsible for over 70% of all new HIV cases between 2008 and 2010. Is this the fault of straight people? You can blame whomever you wish, but behavior has consequences, even if you believe that behavior is essential. HIV spending is, I believe, second behind cancer research. How much more of a response would you like? Yup, just like the struggle of blacks from slavery, gays will overcome this injustice.... casual, unprotected sex, causing HIV and they have to wait almost a decade for a cure... whew!

    Thank you for making my point because we all know that only gays act in the "unethical" manner of having casual, unprotected sex so it's their fault and they should die.

    or maybe you think it is god's judgement on them.

    However, when you see that "Among females, the largest percentage of new HIV infections was attributed to heterosexual contact (84%)." we can see that something more complicated is going on.

    But then again, it's women, so who cares.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #72
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    She didn't:

    "Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/

    and she said she deleted here personal emails. Perfectly reasonable.

    True we can't know what was destroyed and like you said maybe things will leak out...let me know when they do. Until then it is just speculation.

    I never made the claim that she was a saint. In fact, some of the traits she possesses would be admired if she were a male. Perhaps that's your problem with her.

    If you'd give me an example of where she hasn't been ethical then maybe I would agree. I need a concrete example and the ethical rules she has supposedly broken.

    Thank you for making my point because we all know that only gays act in the "unethical" manner of having casual, unprotected sex so it's their fault and they should die.

    or maybe you think it is god's judgement on them.

    However, when you see that "Among females, the largest percentage of new HIV infections was attributed to heterosexual contact (84%)." we can see that something more complicated is going on.

    But then again, it's women, so who cares.
    I gave you examples of Hillary acting unethically. You have chosen to dismiss them. Rationalize them away. Then, you attempt to poison the well by claiming my arguments are based on her being a woman. Considering I have repeatedly compared her to a man, Nixon, and was equally critical of his ethics, I'd say your accusations are baseless and I shall consider them withdrawn unless you can support them. She deleted the emails on her server and you say it is reasonable. That alone is enough to warrant question of her ethics. She sent a memo advising state department employees not to conduct sensitive state department business with personal email accounts. You are cherry picking the pieces you want and disregarding the whole. Again, your claim that she wouldn't stoop to some unethical level to win the presidency is hollow.

    Besides calling me a misogynist, you then claim that I think gays should die. Not believing in god, I am unclear how you arrive at your belief that I think dying of HIV, or anything else, is due to god's judgement. You offered a version of history where you claimed people believed gays were responsible for HIV and I offered you a reason why this belief was common at one time. In other words, based on the statistics of the time, it was not an unreasonable suspicion. Your personal attacks just demonstrate that your argument, in general, is weak. You have arrived at a bunch of conspiracy theories and they just cloud your judgement.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That alone is enough to warrant question of her ethics.
    Talk about cherry-picking...*sheesh*...she deleted her personal emails as she used the sever for both. Perfectly reasonable. That's something we all do.

    I've made no claim. You are the one claiming she is unethical based on non-existent evidence.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #74
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Talk about cherry-picking...*sheesh*...she deleted her personal emails as she used the sever for both. Perfectly reasonable. That's something we all do.

    I've made no claim. You are the one claiming she is unethical based on non-existent evidence.
    She deletes her server's contents, without any independent review... and you think this is ok. Let's imagine for moment her name was Dick Cheney. Would you still be so accepting? It is shady six ways to Sunday. If you believe her behavior was ethical.. I am going to guess it is only because it is Hillary and you support her candidacy.

    I'll bet I can go back and find some post where you insist Cheney led us into war to enrich his friends at Halilburton. Have you absolved Chris Christie of all responsibility for bridgegate? Just wondering how far your trust goes.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #75
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    She deletes her server's contents, without any independent review... and you think this is ok.
    Of course, stipulating that that's not what a happened at all. Maybe you don't know the course of events. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hi...email-timeline

    ---------- Post added at 03:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    I'll bet I can go back and find some post where you insist Cheney led us into war to enrich his friends at Halilburton. Have you absolved Chris Christie of all responsibility for bridgegate? Just wondering how far your trust goes.

    So you're agreeing that you have no evidence of Hillary behaving unethically (let alone criminally) - thank you for conceding. (Not that I am agreeing there's no evidence of Cheney's and Christie's bad behavior - that would be deflecting)
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #76
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Of course, stipulating that that's not what a happened at all. Maybe you don't know the course of events. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hi...email-timeline

    ---------- Post added at 03:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 AM ----------




    So you're agreeing that you have no evidence of Hillary behaving unethically (let alone criminally) - thank you for conceding. (Not that I am agreeing there's no evidence of Cheney's and Christie's bad behavior - that would be deflecting)
    1. Let's look at this item of the timelineDecember 5, 2014

    The Clinton camp said that at this time it provided the State Department with 30,490 work-related emails that totaled about 55,000 printed pages.
    It also said Clinton deleted emails she deemed related to her personal life sometime afterward.
    "After her work-related emails were identified and preserved, Secretary Clinton chose not to keep her private, personal emails that were not federal records," the statement from her office read.


    Clinton just decided, without independent review, to wipe her server clean... in the middle of an investigation. Ethical? Hell, it was not even known (again per your timeline) that was exclusively using her own email server until a hacker exposed her. While the issue of whether she actually broke policy is fuzzy, she sent an email out to State Dept employees reminding them not to use personal email for State Dept. business. So, at the very least, her behavior was against policy (even if not against the law).

    2. I noticed you have kind of just dropped the fact that Clinton bashed all the women Bill slept with. Supposedly, Hillary is leading the fight against the war on women... except when she's actually conducting her own war on women. Ethical? Is this the behavior of someone who wouldn't stoop to doing just about anything to get elected? You tried to paint her as this highly ethical politician. What support do you have when her history contradicts this claim at every turn where she has been tested.

    3. Exactly what did I concede? I just pointed out some examples of non-Hillary politicians and wondered if you gave them the same courtesy as you're giving Hillary? You are willing to look the other way when behaves poorly and I'm wondering if you choose to look the other way when someone like Cheney behaves poorly. Christie was a trick question since he's actually been absolved of all responsibility for bridgegate.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    2. I noticed you have kind of just dropped the fact that Clinton bashed all the women Bill slept with. Supposedly, Hillary is leading the fight against the war on women... except when she's actually conducting her own war on women. Ethical? Is this the behavior of someone who wouldn't stoop to doing just about anything to get elected? You tried to paint her as this highly ethical politician. What support do you have when her history contradicts this claim at every turn where she has been tested.
    Again with the babe-in-the-woods scenario. Some how those women were ethical in chasing after a married man? How this is in any way connected to the war on women you'll have to explain to me the connection...if I call the police on a black man who just robbed me am I a member of the Ayrian nation now?

    ---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    Clinton just decided, without independent review, to wipe her server clean... in the middle of an investigation. Ethical? Hell, it was not even known (again per your timeline) that was exclusively using her own email server until a hacker exposed her. While the issue of whether she actually broke policy is fuzzy, she sent an email out to State Dept employees reminding them not to use personal email for State Dept. business. So, at the very least, her behavior was against policy (even if not against the law).

    3. Exactly what did I concede? I just pointed out some examples of non-Hillary politicians and wondered if you gave them the same courtesy as you're giving Hillary? You are willing to look the other way when behaves poorly and I'm wondering if you choose to look the other way when someone like Cheney behaves poorly. Christie was a trick question since he's actually been absolved of all responsibility for bridgegate.

    Indeed, and you have no evidence that anything Hillary deleted wasn't personal and therefore not relevant so she has not been absolved as well...not that it's the same, nothing untoward was has been shown even in any of the emails that were turned over. You're so far off you don't even know what offense you're looking for.

    Could you tell me, at least, what you think was in those deleted emails?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #78
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Again with the babe-in-the-woods scenario. Some how those women were ethical in chasing after a married man? How this is in any way connected to the war on women you'll have to explain to me the connection...if I call the police on a black man who just robbed me am I a member of the Ayrian nation now?

    ---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------

    You are misdirecting the question to avoid the answer. I am not claiming anything about the women Bill slept with. They are not running for President. I am asking how Hillary's behavior meshes with your view of her? Don't we usually assign responsibility to the person in power? Isn't this the basis of sexual harassment. Someone in power abuses their position... and you're blaming the woman??? I am really confused. Certainly, Hillary blamed the women.. after first publicly calling them liars and also blaming the vast right wing conspiracy... So, I guess we can add paranoid to the list. You know who else thought people were out to get him??? Nixon...

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Indeed, and you have no evidence that anything Hillary deleted wasn't personal and therefore not relevant so she has not been absolved as well...not that it's the same, nothing untoward was has been shown even in any of the emails that were turned over. You're so far off you don't even know what offense you're looking for.

    Could you tell me, at least, what you think was in those deleted emails?
    The very fact she decided to delete them without getting some sort of independent review is unethical. I'm not claiming she committed a criminal act. I am rebutting your claim that she is some principled politician is foolhardy. Nixon got busted due to some recordings he didn't know existed. Had he found them and deleted them, we would have never known about Watergate. We wouldn't have even imagined he'd be tied into it. Certainly wouldn't have been able to prove it. So, if he deleted the tapes, would you have said he was acting ethically? It is hard for me to understand why someone would even defend this. We first ask, why the hell did she keep her own private server. Then, we have to ask why she chose to delete all the records on that server except those she hand-selected. Why? Was her server almost full? She didn't delete the emails from say 5 years ago or something which would be the normal archiving procedure if we were just clearing off some space. She deleted them all. Who actually does that? Personal emails too? Just delete them? It does not even make sense from an IT standpoint let alone a user standpoint. We KNOW she lied about why she was keeping her own server. Her supposed reason doesn't even pass the smell test. So, we just don't know the real reason. The reason why she was the first State Dept head to do this is unknown. The reason why she kept this on the hush-hush is unknown. The only reason why we know about it is because of some hacker who figured it out. One has to wonder what would have occurred if this hacker never leaked the details. The State Dept was not informed. Bottom line here is that this is not ethical behavior. It is actually pretty shady, but you'll defend her because... I dunno. That's just what you do.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #79
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are misdirecting the question to avoid the answer. I am not claiming anything about the women Bill slept with. They are not running for President. I am asking how Hillary's behavior meshes with your view of her? Don't we usually assign responsibility to the person in power? Isn't this the basis of sexual harassment. Someone in power abuses their position... and you're blaming the woman??? I am really confused. Certainly, Hillary blamed the women.. after first publicly calling them liars and also blaming the vast right wing conspiracy... So, I guess we can add paranoid to the list. You know who else thought people were out to get him??? Nixon...
    Monica never made any claim of sexual harassment. Did any of the others ever have any grounds?

    ---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The very fact she decided to delete them without getting some sort of independent review is unethical.
    Untrue. I submit that a large number of people delete all sorts of personal emails every day and have been doing so in also large numbers for about 2 decades...even if they are not allowed to use their work email for personal contacts and business. Perhaps that might be unethical. Using the web or sending emails at work is really about stealing time, no?

    Regardless, Hillary didn't do this, she was permitted to use her server.

    ---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Then, we have to ask why she chose to delete all the records on that server except those she hand-selected. Why? Was her server almost full?
    Because she was leaving her position.

    ---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We KNOW she lied about why she was keeping her own server. Her supposed reason doesn't even pass the smell test.

    How so? It was perfectly reasonable.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. #80
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Monica never made any claim of sexual harassment. Did any of the others ever have any grounds?
    Why are you focusing on the side-issue here? This isn't about Monica or the others. It is about Hillary blaming and shaming those who were subordinates in the relationship. It is about perpetuating the types of myths which you'd think a strong advocate for women like Hillary would avoid at all costs. However, I am positing that she isn't really much of a warrior for anything other than attaining her own ambitions. She is not the archetype of an ethical human being. She is the archetype of a megalomaniac.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Untrue. I submit that a large number of people delete all sorts of personal emails every day and have been doing so in also large numbers for about 2 decades...even if they are not allowed to use their work email for personal contacts and business. Perhaps that might be unethical. Using the web or sending emails at work is really about stealing time, no?
    When was the last time you wiped clean all your emails? Not just deleted them from your inbox, but wiped them clean? Most people don't do this. Those that do are probably hiding something. I can't prove it, but it just sounds shady as all hell. It certainly isn't the type of behavior which would make me think she is highly ethical as you implied.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Regardless, Hillary didn't do this, she was permitted to use her server.
    She was not forbidden from using her own server (unless she was sending classified material). However, there was no approval for her to wipe her server clean. She did this without asking for approval or recommendation. There weren't any guidelines because, let's face it, she was covering new ground here.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Because she was leaving her position.
    So, she leaves her job. Has her own political team decide which emails are work related. Then without any further review, has the server wiped clean. Not just of work email, but supposedly personal emails as well.... Really? You're not at all suspicious here? This sounds totally above board to you?

    Wouldn't the ethical behavior have been to have her team presort through the emails they believed were work related. Then, have an independent team advise her on the remaining emails. Then, AFTER the emails were independently reviewed, she could wipe her server clean. That would have been the ethical way to have gone about things.


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    How so? It was perfectly reasonable.
    No. I already explained why her explanation was not reasonable. She claimed she needed a personal server so she didn't need multiple devices. However, as I explained, a single device has been able to handle multiple email servers for over a decade now. I had a Blackberry which did this very well back when Bush was still President. So, I don't believe her story. In fact, she was often seen with multiple devices, one being her phone and one being her tablet. So, her story simply does not ring true.

    So, we KNOW she lied about why she needed a personal server for work. We KNOW she was secretive about having a personal server for work. We KNOW she was underhanded in releasing her work emails after leaving her post. None of that is ethical behavior personified.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: August 13th, 2009, 07:54 AM
  2. A REAL Ironman suit?
    By southernbelle in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 14th, 2008, 07:12 AM
  3. War for oil? SUPPORT IT.
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 08:46 PM
  4. Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harassment suit.
    By Booger in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 15th, 2004, 01:39 PM
  5. Utterly OT: Americans travelling abroad
    By sjjs in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 8th, 2004, 10:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •