The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Amiga_Nut on January 30, 2008, 02:13:02 am



Title: Hillary bashing
Post by: Amiga_Nut on January 30, 2008, 02:13:02 am
(http://c-68-56-131-214.hsd1.fl.comcast.net:82/fantasy-designs-10.jpg)


Moderator edit: gave this thread a subject. Feel free to change it if you have a better one.


Title: Re: :|
Post by: Shiver on January 30, 2008, 02:25:27 am
I read Something Awful's debate and discussion section too much, so I'm a little burned out on the Hillary Clinton hating. After you see "shrillary" and "hellary" enough times, you just stop caring. Can't speak for anyone else here.


Title: Re: :|
Post by: RTyp06 on January 30, 2008, 02:59:28 am
My local union backed Hillary in Nevada's Democratic presidential primary. I want to vote for her in '08. I'll probably vote for who ever makes the democrat nomination of which anybody is better than the republican candidates. I'm hopingI this will be Hillary.


Title: Re: :|
Post by: Shiver on January 30, 2008, 03:31:01 am
My local union backed Hillary in Nevada's Democratic presidential primary. I want to vote for her in '08. I'll probably vote for who ever makes the democrat nomination of which anybody is better than the republican candidates. I'm hopingI this will be Hillary.

Why? I'm serious, why would you prefer her over Obama and Edwards?


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: AngusThermopyle on January 30, 2008, 04:10:43 pm
Looks like Edwards is dropping out (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html).

That being said, I will probably vote for Obama in the primary. I’m no Hillary fan, but I don’t understand the fanatical loathing that Hillary bashers have for her.

My take on this is that - with Bush out - we’ll be better off no matter who wins the election. How much better is really the question.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Dancing Fungus on January 30, 2008, 04:24:58 pm
Quote
My take on this is that - with Bush out - we’ll be better off no matter who wins the election. How much  better is really the question.
What about McCain? He is a lot like Bush, only more evil. He even recently said that he would keep the troops in Iraq for a thousand years if he could and that he thought it was necessary. 


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: AngusThermopyle on January 30, 2008, 05:23:48 pm
What about McCain? He is a lot like Bush, only more evil. He even recently said that he would keep the troops in Iraq for a thousand years if he could and that he thought it was necessary. 

I think McCain would be a significant upgrade over Bush. For one thing, he’s a military man and, unlike Bush, will actually listen to his military commanders. I don’t think he’ll start wars he can’t win and put our own soldiers in harms way.

He also spent a good deal of time at the Hanoi Hilton, which gives him a huge amount of credibility in my mind. He knows what the troops on the ground face day in and day out and the horrors of life as a POW. Places like Gitmo will be gone.

Again, I’m leaning towards Obama, but McCain is an improvement too, IMO.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Dancing Fungus on January 30, 2008, 06:34:07 pm
A military man is not necessarily a wise man. But more importantly, he has a republican agenda to keep going. If he can gain enough support for a war which could help get republican backers more money, he'll do it. Just like Bush.

Also, while Bush lacks normal human brain functions, and thus relies on Cheney and Condi for actual decision making, creating a disgustingly demonic version of the Zoq-Fot-Pik [although their total intelligence quotient is still lower than three Piks screaming "Frungy!" repeatedly], McCain has a spark of intellect. This combined with fanatical support is not good.

Oh, yeah, Gitmo won't be gone. McCain might know what being a POW is like, but the people being actively tortured there aren't American soldiers, so he won't care. What he might do is cover it up a bit better.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Fsi-Dib on January 30, 2008, 10:40:18 pm
I don't really have to worry about USA politics, but if I'd live there, my vote would be cast on Obama. Odd how most of the people I know seem to lean that way, huh.


Title: Re: :|
Post by: RTyp06 on January 30, 2008, 11:25:52 pm
My local union backed Hillary in Nevada's Democratic presidential primary. I want to vote for her in '08. I'll probably vote for who ever makes the democrat nomination of which anybody is better than the republican candidates. I'm hopingI this will be Hillary.

Why? I'm serious, why would you prefer her over Obama and Edwards?

Obama would be my second choice then Edwards. The only problem I had with obama was an interview I saw with him  on the Jon Stewart show. Unless I misunderstood what obama said, he mentioned somthing about looking into our " nuclear options" with regard to Iran. There is no military nuclear option with Iran in my book. I'm very anti-war, and was so even before Iraq.

Hillary has experience being a first lady and a senator. Plus I really liked Bill Clinton as president. Also, Obama seems more like an apprentice of sorts with little real world experience. I also believe Hillary is the best choice with regards to our medical industry here in the U.S.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Amiga_Nut on January 31, 2008, 01:25:21 am
OK THAT'S IT!!!

Clinton related badness:

____________________________________
CRIMES
---------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Garry N. Ray" <gnray@nxi.com>
Newsgroups: us.politics.bob-dole, talk.politics.misc, nyc.politics,
    ny.politics, alt.society.conservatism, alt.president.clinton,
    alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.democrats.d,
    alt.politics.clinton, alt.impeach.clinton, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
    alt.fan.art-bell, alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.conspiracy,
    alt.activism
Subject: Re: THE CORRUPT CAREER OF ALFONSE D'AMATO

dporter@magpie.com (David Porter) supplicated thusly to the portals of
heaven:

=>Get your facts straight.  There is not one molecule of evidence, hearsay
=>or otherwise, implicating Bill Clinton or any member in his administration
=>in Whitewater.  Hillary Clinton is at the center of the probe and she's

Lessee....

Web's in the crowbar motel.
Altman "resigned" in disgrace.
Tucker is now plea bargaining with Starr.
Lindsey went underground.
Nussbaum "resigned".
Thomasses is outre.
Gearan was "transferred."
Hillary was subpoenaed by grand jury.
Vince is dead.

"Evidence" is determined by the court, not by ABC News or the NY Times
or the Washington Post. On the other hand, obvious conflicts in sworn
testimony are on the record, for all to see and hear, somewhat
transcending the notion of "evidence". But we'll give you the benefit
of the doubt and agree that - technically - there is as yet no
"evidence," as the trials have not yet begun.

Nonetheless, you might want to tape the following to your refrigerator
door for imminent review. Note that Web, while previously sentenced
for the "unauthorized taking" of client and firm funds, may have
plea-bargained his way out of the obstruction issues. Yet 18 USC 1001,
1502, 1503, 1505, and 1512 *do* call for some additions to this list
(Hillary, Thomasses, Williams, Ickes, et al.).

But you can't have everything, now can you.

------------------------------------------------------------------
1995, The American Spectator

                            BILL CLINTON
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While president, discussed possible federal
jobs for Arkansas state troopers who had knowledge about potentially
politically damaging stories of Clinton's marital infidelity and
abuse of Arkansas Governor's office.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 201, which makes it a crime to
                        offer or promise "directly or indirectly"
                        anything of value to someone with the aim of
                        influencing that person's testimony under
                        oath.
 
Penalty:                Up to 15 years in prison, a fine, and
                        disqualification from any federal office of
                        honor, trust, or profit.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1622, prohibiting subornation of
                        perjury.
 
Penalty:                Up to 5 years in prison, $2,000 fine.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While president, approved actions by White
House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum designed to circumscribe offical
federal investigations into White House aide Vincent Foster's death,
and directed that documents found in Foster's office be removed from
the White House and handed over to a private lawyer retained by the
Clintons.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 372, which prohibits conspiring to
                        prevent any person - here, the FBI and Park
                        Service investigator - from discharging the
                        duties of federal office.
 
Penalty:                Up to 6 years in prison, $5,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes it a crime to
                        conceal material facts in connection with
                        matters within the jurisdiction of a United
                        States agency.
 
Penalty:                Up to 5 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1505, which prohibit
                        obstruction of justice and obstruction of
                        Justice Department or Congressional
                        inquiries.
 
Penalty:                Up to 10 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While president, had Vincent Foster perform
personel legal work at taxpayer expense.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Any of a number of statutes governing
                        employees of the White House and misuse of
                        appropriations, but in particular 31 U.S.C.
                        1519, prohibiting the creation of financial
                        obligations unauthorized by appropriations.
 
Penalty:                Up to 2 years in prison.  $5,000 fine.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While governor, used state troopers for
personal errands, to facilitate extramarital affairs, and to
investigate campaign opponents.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 666, which prohibits any state
                        government employee from stealing or
                        converting state property valued at over
                        $5,000.  (Theft of employee time has been
                        held to be a theft prohibited under Section
                        666.)
 
Penalty:                Up to 10 years in prison and a fine of twice
                        the amount of the pecuniary gain.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While governor, named John Latham, chief
executive officer for Madison Guaranty, to a seat on the state S&L
regulatory board.  Also named Beverly Bassett, who had previously
served as lawyer for Madison, commissioner of the Arkansas
Securities Commission.  Bassett would later give Madison regulatory
approval on several of it requests.  McDougal would later host a
fundraiser that would allegedly funnel Madison funds to Clinton.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 5-52-101 of the Arkansas Criminal
                        Code, which makes it a crime to trade in
                        public offices.
 
Penalty:                Up to 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 5-52-103 of the Arkansas Criminal
                        Code, which makes it a crime for a public
                        servant to solicit a bribe.
 
Penalty:                Up to 6 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While governor, extracted an illegal Small
Business Administration loan from David Hale's investment company
which went to James McDougal's wife.  The McDougals were partners
with the Clintons in Whitewater Development Co.  Mrs. McDougal
thereafter gave a portion of her loan to Whitewater Development Co.
The loan was never repaid.
 
Statutes Implicated:    15 U.S.C. 645, which prohibits making false
                        statements for the purpose of obtaining any
                        loan from the Small Business Administration.
 
Penalty:                Up to 2 years in prison, $5,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 371, making it a crime to conspire
                        to defraud the federal government.
 
Penalty:                Up to 5 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1006, which makes it a crime to
                        share "directly or indirectly" in any
                        payment made in violation of federal laws
                        governing small business investment
                        companies.
 
Penalty:                Up to 30 years in prison, $1,000,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1344, criminalizing frauds on
                        financial institutions.
 
Penalty:                Up to 30 years in prison, $1,000,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 5-42-204 of the Arkansas Criminal
                        Code, which makes it a crime to launder the
                        proceeds of criminal activity.
 
Penalty:                Up to 10 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While Arkansas attorney general, shortly before
becoming governor, received a 50-percent interest in Whitewater from
the McDougals in return for an apparently nominal investment.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 5-52-103 of the Arkansas Criminal
                        Code, which makes it a crime for a public
                        servant to accept a bribe.
 
Penalty:                Up to 6 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
                ===============================

Alleged Misconduct:  While governor, pressured McDougal to retain
Hillary Clinton to represent his S&L in order to help the Clintons
financially.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 5-52-103 of the Arkansas Criminal
                        Code, which makes it a crime for a public
                        servant to accept a bribe.
 
Penalty:                Up to 6 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While governor, advised Gennifer Flowers, in
taped conversation, to state falsely that they had never talked
about her obtaining a state job.  ("If they ever ask you if you've
talked to me about it, you can say no.")
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1512, criminalizing attempts to
                        influence testimony.
 
Penalty:                Up to 10 years in prison, $250,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 5-53-110 of the Arkansas Criminal
                        Code, which prohibits tampering with
                        witnesses.
 
Penalty:                Up to 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine.

                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While governor, participated in the destruction
of Whitewater files.  The McDougals, partners with the Clintons in
Whitewater, have stated that they delivered Whitewater's records to
the Arkansas Governor's mansion at the request of Mrs. Clinton.
Both Clintons deny receiving tyhe documents, some of which are
missing.
 
Statutes Implicated:    26 U.S.C. 7206, which makes it a crime to
                        destroy any record relating to the
                        "financial condition of the taxpayer."
 
Penalty:                Up to 3 years in prison, $100,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 5-37-202 of the Arkansas Criminal
                        Code, which prohibits the destruction of
                        business records with the intent to defraud.
 
Penalty:                Up to 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine.

                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While governor, benefitted from numerous errors
in tax filings having to do with illegal deductions, treatment of
capital gains, unreported income, etc.
 
Statutes Implicated:    26 U.S.C. 7206, which makes it a crime to
                        file a tax return that the filers do not
                        believe to be true and correct as to every
                        material matter.
 
Penalty:                Up to 3 years in prison, $100,000 fine.

                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  While president, engaged in cover-up activities
with respect to all of the above, involving, among other things, the
making of false statements about his role in and knowledge of the
various scandals, and conspiring with other to have them make
similar false statements.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 372, which prohibits conspiring to
                        prevent any person (such as Justice
                        Department investigators) from discharging
                        the duties of federal office.
 
Penalty:                Up to 6 years in prison, $5,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1001, prohibiting concealment and
                        false or misleading statements in connection
                        with any matter within the jurisdiction of
                        the Justice Department.

                ===============================
 
Bill Clinton's total potential criminal liability: disqualification
from federal office, 178 years in prison, more than $2.5 million in
fines.
 
 
                ===============================
                ===============================
 
                       HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
 
Alleged Misconduct:  In 1985, as counsel for Madison, submitted
audit to state regulators to demonstrate that Madison was solvent;
four years later, after Madison's collapse, her law partner, Webster
Hubbell, attacked the bona fides of the audit in litigation in which
he represented the FDIC, calling into question what Mrs. Clinton
knew and when she knew it.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1014, prohibiting false statements
                        designed to influence "in any way" the
                        actions of federal financial regulators.
 
Penalty:                Up to 30 years in prison, $1,000,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 23-34-108 of the Arkansas Code,
                        which prohibits intentionally false
                        statements regarding banks.
 
Penalty:                Up to 10 years in prison.
 
Statutes Implicated:    Section 5-37-202 of the Arkansas Criminal
                        Code, prohibiting the fraudulent creation of
                        false business records.
 
Penalty:                Up to 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  Participated with her husband in the
destruction of Whitewater files.
 
Statutes Implicated:    26 U.S.C. 7206, which makes it a crime to
                        destroy any record relating to the
                        "financial condition of the taxpayer."
 
Penalty:                Up to 3 years in prison, $100,000 fine.
 
                ===============================
 
Alleged Misconduct:  Benefitted with her husband from numerous
errors in tax filings.
 
Statutes Implicated:    26 U.S.C. 7206, which makes it a crime to
                        file a tax return that the filers do not
                        believe to be true and correct as to every
                        material matter.
 
Penalty:                Up to 3 years in prison, $100,000 fine.
 
                ===============================

Hillary's total potential criminal liability:  47 years in prison,
more than $1.2 million in fines.

                ===============================
                ===============================
 
               BERNARD NUSSBAUM, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
 
Alleged Misconduct:  With Clinton political aides, circumscribed FBI
and Park Police investigations into Vincent Foster's suicide, and
gave Foster files to Bill Clinton's personal lawyer.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 372, which prohibits conspiring to
                        prevent any person from discharging the
                        duties of federal office.
 
Penalty:                Up to 6 years in prison, $5,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes it a crime to
                        conceal material facts in connection with
                        any matter within the jurisdiction of a
                        United States agency.
 
Penalty:                Up to 5 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1505, which prohibit
                        obstruction of justice and obstruction of
                        Justice Department or Congressional
                        inquiries.
 
Penalty:                Up to 10 years in prison, $10,000 fine.

                ===============================
 
Bernard Nussbaum's total potential criminal liability: 21 years in
prison, $25,000 in fines.
 
                ===============================
                ===============================
 
            WEBSTER HUBBELL, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 
Alleged Misconduct:  As partner of Hillary Clinton inthe Rose Law
Firm, represented the FDIC in suit against Madison, without
bothering to disclose to the FDIC that Mr. Hubbell's firm had
previously represented Madison, or that Mrs. Clinton was a partner
of McDougal.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 208, which prohibits special
                        government employees from acting in matters
                        in which they or their partners have a
                        financial interest.
 
Penalty:                Up to 5 years in prison and a fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes it a crime to
                        conceal material facts in connection with
                        matter within the jurisdiction of a United
                        States agency.
 
Penalty:                Up to 5 years in prison, $10,000 fine.
 
Statutes Implicated:    18 U.S.C. 1007, which prohibits influencing
                        "in any way" the actions of the FDIC by
                        means of false statements.
 
Penalty:                Up to 30 years in prison, $1,000,000 fine.

                ===============================
 
Webster Hubbell's total potential criminal liability: 40 years in
prison, more than $1 million in fines.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett N. Ray: P.O Box 528, North Conway, NH 03860-0528;(603)356-9490;
                                gnray@nxi.com
                      Public key available on request
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Amiga_Nut on January 31, 2008, 01:26:21 am
_________________________________________
LAND FLIPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
From: Max Kennedy <mkennedy@iglou.com>
Newsgroups: alt.flame.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.elections,
    alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
    alt.politics.clinton, talk.politics.misc, alt.impeach.clinton,
    alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.misc,
    alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: Re: Citizen Clinton

Michael Zarlenga (zarlenga@conan.ids.net) wrote:
: pyoung@serdp20f.cisein.org wrote:
: : > The Kennedy notes have information on numerous bank frauds that have
: : > been commited by McDougal and the Clintons, including a new one that I am
: : > unaware has been mentioned before.  The 25,000 that McDougal pocketed
: : > straight from his bank in a plane "flip".  In addition, knowledge of

I wrote the above paragraph, and also posted the Kennedy Notes (complete)
which I attached to it.  I re-attached the part about the plane in the
note proceeding this.

: Flipping is a term that realtors use to mean "property bought cheap
: and sold at a profit, very quickly."  This practice is popular in
: the realty business because realtors are the first people to find
: many "distressed" parcels that get put up for sale.
: It's not illegal, but it's unethical.

In the context of whitewater, it means bank fraud.  Attached to the
end of this message is an article on EXACTLY what is meant by land flips.

Its highly illegal.

: Flipping a plane probably refers to buying one very cheaply based
: on "inside" information, then selling it quickly and making a profit.
: Again, this is unethical.

Flipping a plane is my snide coment on how that plane and its receipt
kept changing hands amoung the same people that were doing the land
flips.  You'll note if you read the preceeding message that the plane was
actually part of a larger land flip itself.

What is illegal here is not the trading of the plane, but the fact that
McDougal sells the plane from his bank then pockets all the cash
himself!  This is HIGHLY illegal.

Max Kennedy
-----------------------------------------
                   How to Make $2 Million
            Developing a God-Forsaken Tract of Land
             Without Selling One Square Foot of It
 
When the media folk told you about Whitewater, they left out a
few amusing details.
 
So in a spirit of altruistic service and public education, I'm
going to let you in on the secrets of how to pull off a land
scam. Pay attention, because you've never heard this before.
 
  A. Real estate developing is more fun when you can borrow all
     your capital without having to pay it back... or even sell
     any land. So to get started, you need two friends: one an
     appraiser, one a banker.
 
  B. Next, you find some dirt-cheap dirt. Anywhere in the
     boondocks will do. In the Whitewater case, it was 230
     acres of land along the White River for about $90,000.
     (Some housing tract! It was fifty miles to the nearest
     grocery store.)
 
  C. Then you get your appraiser friend to do a bloated
     appraisal. Hey, what are friends for? Let's say he pegs it
     at $150,000.
 
  D. You go to the bank and get the usual 80% loan. [CN --
     e.g., 80% of $150,000 with the land as collateral] You now
     have $120,000, so you pay off the land [($90,000)], and
     you still have $30,000 in your pocket. You're on a roll.
 
  E. You pay $5,000 to subdivide it and bulldoze in a few
     roads. (Or if you know the ropes, you get the state to do
     it, as Bill did to get a $150,000, two-mile access road.)
 
  F. Voila! You now are the proud owner of a partly-developed
     luxury estate community. So you call up your appraiser
     friend again, and he re-evaluates it at a cool $400,000.
 
  G. You hustle back to the bank [run by your friend McDougal]
     and get a new 80% loan based on the new value. (Nothing
     out of line so far. An 80% loan is standard, right?)
 
  H. You draw up plans for some fine houses (which will never
     be built.)
 
  I. You get a new appraisal.
 
  J. You get a new loan.
 
  K. You make two or three phony homesite sales to friends. You
     shuffle the funds around among your shell corporations and
     bounce it back to your friends -- plus a little extra for
     their help.
 
  L. You get a new appraisal.
 
  M. You get a new loan.
 
  N. You do a "land flip," selling the whole thing to Company X
     for $800,000, which sells it to Company Y for a million,
     which sells it back to you for $1.25 million. (All these
     companies are your friends.) And yes, this kind of thing
     *did* happen in Whitewater and Madison. In fact,
     Whitewater figures David Hale and Dean Paul once flipped
     Castle Grande back and forth from $200,000 to $825,000 in
     *one* *day*!
 
  O. You get a new appraisal.
 
  P. You get a new loan.
 
  Q. Finally, your development corporation declares bankruptcy,
     and the bank has to eat your loans because the money is
     all gone, and since the record-keeping is so poor, nobody
     knows where it went.
 
But weep not for the bankers. You pay them nicely -- perhaps a
third of the $2 to $3 million you skim off. Weep for the taxpayer
who bails out their banks.
 
Which is to say, in the case of Whitewater, weep for yourself.
 
 
            -+- Does This Actually *Work*? -+-
 
Whitewater was just the first of a series, like a pilot for a
sitcom.
 
Using Whitewater as a prop, Bill and his partner Jim McDougal
milked -- by my rough estimate -- several million dollars from
the SBA [Small Business Administration] and at least five or six
banks and S&Ls, starting with the Bank of Kingston.
 
But their later ventures, bringing in Steve Smith and now-Gov.
Jim Guy Tucker, did even better. Campobello started with about
$150,000 in property and squeezed over $4 million in loans from
banks in about two years. Castle Grande began with $75,000 worth
of swamp land and cleared over $3 million. It never built
anything. The only human artifacts on it today are a few old
refrigerators and mattresses.
 
Why do I have information you haven't seen before? Because my
firm had $10 million in Madison Guaranty S&L, and I was thinking
of buying the Bank of Kingston. (I was already worth millions by
that time.) When I saw Kingston's financial statement, however, I
ran like a scalded cat.
 
And Madison was worse. You didn't have to be a Philadelphia CPA
to spot their money laundering, dead real estate liabilities
proudly listed as assets, huge amounts of 24-hour deposits from
brokers, and $17 million in insider loans. It was a nightmare.
 
Whitewater Development Corp. had at least an appearance of
sincerity. It even had TV commercials, starring Jim's
[McDougal's] striking young wife, Susan, in hot pants, riding a
horse. Another one showed her behind the wheel of Bill's restored
'67 Mustang.
 
But after Whitewater, the deals began dropping their frills like
a hooker in a hurry to get things over with. The RTC criminal
referral that Bill suppressed during his presidential campaign
cites such later corporations as *Tucker-Smith-McDougal*, *Smith-
Tucker-McDougal*, and *Smith-McDougal*. Catchy, eh? If it were
me, I would have called them *Son of Whitewater*,
*Whitewatergate*, and *Whitewater & Ponzi, L.P.*
 
 
                   -+- Short Report -+-
 
On their 1979 income tax, Hillary valued Bill's used undershorts
-- donated to charity at the end of their action-studded tour of
duty -- at two dollars a pair.
 
Plainly, we are dealing here with a couple that gives loving
attention to detail in matters of deductions.
 
As you may recall, however, Clinton has proclaimed over and over
that he simply "forgot" to deduct the $68,900 he claims he lost
on Whitewater. Commentators have been mystified by the paradox.
 
But it's no mystery to me. The reason is obvious: Bill didn't
deduct the $68,900 because he didn't lose a dime on Whitewater,
and he didn't want to do time for tax fraud. Period.
 
Jim McDougal put up all the money except for $500 -- and Bill
borrowed even *that*.
 
But weep not for Jim. Not only was he Bill's partner in
Whitewater, but he owned Madison Guaranty S&L, which was the
designated milk cow that provided most of the inflated loans.
Weep instead for the taxpayers -- like you and me -- who picked
up the $66 million tab when Madison folded.
 
 
           -+- The Paperless Office Is Pioneered -+-
                     by the Rose Law Firm
 
Will Bill and Hillary go to jail for masterminding all the land
deals that fall under the label *Whitewater*?
 
I expect they will [CN -- Don't bet on it.] -- not because of
existing documents, but because of the testimony of subpoenaed
people.
 
The few remaining documents will play a supporting role, but
frankly, friend, there aren't many left. According to grand jury
testimony: On February 3, 1994, right after Fiske became special
counsel for Whitewater, the nice folks at the Rose Law Firm fired
up their high-speed Ollie-o-Matic paper shredder and ordered
courier Jeremy Hedges to slice 'n dice his way into the history
books by destroying twelve (12) cartons full of Whitewater
documents. As far as anyone knows, Rose now has no more
Whitewater records than you do.
 
Actually, a lot of the usual documents were never created in the
first place. For instance, there was no written partnership
agreement (don't try this at home). No transactions were written
up, even though Clinton's real estate agent says there were
$300,000 in sales. No deeds were ever recorded. And if any
interest was paid on bank loans, the payment checks are missing.
 
Plus, after Whitewater, Bill got very smart and kept his name
completely out of every subsequent deal he cut. But the
Whitewater monies, probably several million, ricocheted from
shell company to shell company like the basketball in a Harlem
Globetrotters warmup drill, and every dollar wound up in the
proper pocket. Beneficiaries included many of the biggest names
in Arkansas -- like Gov. Tucker, Seth Ward, and some very
powerful executives from outfits like Wal-Mart and Tyson's
Chicken -- Clinton campaign backers all. (Campaign records for
1982 and 1984, the two most suspicious years, have also been
studiously shredded.)
 
And Bill, who entered public office with nothing but debts, and
who never made over $35,000 a year as governor, is now worth
about four to five million. A real rags-to-riches, American
success story, isn't it? Kind of puts a lump in your throat.
 
But there's one other reason for Bill's success. In a word,
Hillary. Prepare to be shocked as you learn...
 
 
          -+- Why the Feds Settled for $1 Million -+-
                   on $60 Million in Debts
 
You'll find this one hard to believe, so read carefully.
 
  ITEM: When Madison Guaranty folded, it was somewhere between
  $47 and $68 million in the hole. The tab has settled at $65
  million.
 
  ITEM: One of the biggest defaults was $600,000 in loans to
  one of Madison's own directors, Seth Ward, who is the father-
  in-law of Webb Hubbell. Webb happened to be Hillary's law
  partner and until April [1994] was the No. 3 man at the
  Justice Department -- and assigned to investigate Whitewater!
 
  ITEM: When the RTC cleanup crew took over Madison, Hillary
  had been on retainer to Madison [Guaranty S&L] for many
  months.
 
 
Got it so far? O.K. Now, the RTC lawsuit sought $60 million from
Madison Guaranty's debtors. But here's what happened:
 
  1. Hillary negotiated the RTC down *from* *$60* *million*
     *to* *$1* *million*. What a talker!
 
  2. Hillary then got the RTC to forgive the $600,000 debt Seth
     Ward owed the RTC -- every penny of it -- thus leaving the
     RTC with $400,000 [out of the $60 million owed.]
 
  3. But wait! Hillary did these two deeds *as* *the* *counsel*
     *for* *the* *RTC*, not Madison. Incredible as it sounds to
     those of us who have to live in the real world, Hillary
     got herself hired by the RTC, and in *that* position, from
     the GOVERNMENT side, she talked them down to $1 million.
 
  4. Her fee for the RTC job was (pure coincidence) $400,000.
     Which left the government with $400,000 minus $400,000...
     or in technical accounting terms, zippo.
 
  5. And who do you suppose was the mastermind who conned the
     RTC into hiring Madison Guaranty's own Hillary to
     prosecute Madison Guaranty? None other than the late Vince
     Foster! When he made his pitch to the RTC, he neglected to
     tell them about Hillary's retainer with Madison Guaranty.
     In fact, he even wrote them a letter stating that the Rose
     Law Firm didn't represent thrifts!
 
 
Vince and Hillary were, by the way, very, uh, close. Not only
were they partners at Rose, but there's no shortage of people who
saw them hugging and smooching in public. Arkansas troopers say
that when Bill took a trip on state business, Vince was often at
the mansion gates within minutes -- and would stay till the wee
hours. They also spent a few weekends together at the Rose
vacation cabin in the mountains. And when Hillary filed for
divorce from Bill in 1986, Vince was right there at her side.
(She withdrew the suit [later on].)
 
 
                -+- 178 Years in Club Fed -+-
 
Nobody ever accused Bill Clinton of being stupid.
 
As proof, look at the Congressional hearings. What a hoot! Bill
had them stacked so that fully 99% of all Whitewater crimes were
off limits!
 
This left our dignified Congressmen sternly chasing the remaining
1% of petty misdemeanors with hardly a mention of fourteen years
of felonies: shell games, killings, break-ins, coverups, threats,
bribes, thefts, check kiting, payoffs, arson, money laundering,
fraud, influence of testimony, tampering with witnesses, you name
it...
 
And Bill managed to focus 100% of the attention on [Roger] Altman,
[Bernard] Nussbaum, [Lloyd] Cutler and others, with none of it on
himself. You have to admit, that's pretty smart maneuvering.
 
In February, *The American Spectator* added up two pages of
Bill's alleged crimes, and the total potential penalties came to
$2.5 million in fines and 178 years in prison. And *they* just
listed the piddly stuff, like tax fraud and soliciting bribes;
they didn't even mention the heavier incidents I listed above!
(They did include a short roster of Hillary's much lighter
penalties, totaling only $1.2 million and 47 years.)
 
Is such punishment excessive? I think not. Even if you ignore the
mayhem, the Clinton economic damage has been severe. Counting
Clinton's Arkansas Development Finance Authority, which never
awarded a bond grant without a major campaign contribution and
Bill's signature, he sucked over a billion dollars from state and
federal taxpayers.
 
 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
 
Please forgive me for sounding dramatic, but this is a dark day
for the republic.
 
I apologize for giving you such an avalanche of appalling news.
God knows, I've tried to keep my tone somewhat light, but I
realize that you are probably still alarmed.
 
Unfortunately, I must now go on to tell you about the impact all
this is going to have on your own financial future, and that
could be the worst news of all -- by far.
 
But unlike all the depressing matters you've just read, there is
a bright silver lining to it. Yes, I do think it's the darkest
day for the republic since World War II. [CN -- Guarino goes on
from here to state that "the troubles ahead" will ironically give
you a great opportunity to improve your finances. He tells the
reader to open "the enclosed envelope" which I, unfortunately, do
not have because I received this pamphlet from someone else.]
 
 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
 
Footnote: I [Nicholas A. Guarino] serve notice that I am not
depressed in the least, and that if anything happens to me, I
publicly accuse Bill Clinton and his circle of power.
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Amiga_Nut on January 31, 2008, 01:28:47 am
White water FAQ removed By Amiga_Nut. Clinton related information is outdated.

that is all


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on January 31, 2008, 06:02:07 am
Amiga_Nut: I'm not reading that. tl;dr - Give us a summary or something.



RTyp06: Hilary Clinton is a far cry from being the "experience candidate". I don't believe anyone is actually voting for her based on experience anyway. There's a better word for what her main appeal to voters is and it's called nepotism. If people wanted experience above all, they would have voted for Bill Richardson or Joe Biden.

Quote
Obama would be my second choice then Edwards. The only problem I had with obama was an interview I saw with him  on the Jon Stewart show. Unless I misunderstood what obama said, he mentioned somthing about looking into our " nuclear options" with regard to Iran. There is no military nuclear option with Iran in my book. I'm very anti-war, and was so even before Iraq.

I saw that episode of the Daily Show and that was never brought up. He might have said something about 'keeping all options on the table' in a debate or stump speech, but you'd have to be retarded to think that any serious presidential candidate (Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo does not count) would be serious about using nuclear weapons on Iran. It sounds to me like your union told you to vote for her and you didn't really bother to research anything yourself.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: xenoclone on January 31, 2008, 07:00:43 am
I actually was leaning toward Obama before the primaries began. But now I'm 100% Obama. The Clintons have just been playing dirty. Fighting to restore votes where the other candidates weren't on the ballot? Fighting to make votes count in a state she won but no one could campaign? Fight to stop voters in casinos after she loses the endorsement? Taking Obama's words out of context in attack ads? Then whining that he isn't playing nice when he goes slightly negative? Etc... etc...


Heck, Hillary's ticked me off so much at this point I might very well vote for either McCain or Romney if she's the Democratic nominee. (I'm a registered independent.)


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Razorback on January 31, 2008, 07:31:40 am
Anybody but her, please!  Hell, I'd run for the job first!  Her problem can be summed up in one sentence.  She is the most polarizing, devisive American converting food to poop.  Pres. Bush is also polarizing, but not nearly as much as she is. You would have 4 - 8 years of party politics that were a half-breath away from a shooting war.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Fsi-Dib on January 31, 2008, 07:47:46 am
I find it misguided, if someone votes for Hillary just because they liked how her husband did the job.

And it wouldn't look good for USA, if for 20 years there has been 4 presidents, all from two families. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. I mean, really, what?! Democratic nepotism?


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on January 31, 2008, 08:10:47 am
Quote from: xenoclone
Heck, Hillary's ticked me off so much at this point I might very well vote for either McCain or Romney if she's the Democratic nominee. (I'm a registered independent.)

I hope you don't mind when either of those Republicans stuff two more of their guys on the Supreme Court and overturn Roe vs Wade.

Quote from: Fsi-Dib
I find it misguided, if someone votes for Hillary just because they liked how her husband did the job.

It's just as misguided for a Democrat to not to vote for her in the general election just because she gives off a bad vibe. In any case, you guys who have a beef with her best not forget to vote in the primary. Obama's gonna need it.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Fsi-Dib on January 31, 2008, 08:17:55 am
Quote from: Shiver
Quote from: Fsi-Dib
I find it misguided, if someone votes for Hillary just because they liked how her husband did the job.
It's just as misguided for a Democrat to not to vote for her in the general election just because she gives off a bad vibe. In any case, you guys who have a beef with her best not forget to vote in the primary. Obama's gonna need it.
Correct you are. Never did I mean to imply that Hillary would be the utmost worst choice of all candidates. She's just not the one I'd choose as a first choice.

Edited to make clearer and remove ambiguous statements.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Dancing Fungus on January 31, 2008, 05:00:01 pm
The Republicans:

Mitt [or Mittens] Romney: This candidate is a strong believer of Mormonism! [Also known as Moronism] He believes that all Americans should wear funny underwear, worship Satan as the brother of Jesus, think of themselves as gods, and become polygamists.

Ron Paul: He is mostly insane, has support from maybe 23 people in each state, he spent huge amounts of money on a blimp, and he looks like a bug-eyed little Ploxis. No other sane Republican wants to be associated with him.

Mike Huckabee: This former baptist minister wants the United States of America to become a Christian theocracy. All freedoms of religion and teaching could be suspended so we can all go to mandatory church sermons! Just like Iran, only not Muslim.

John McCain: As mentioned before, he is totally evil.

Rudy Giuliani: He has the hardest to spell name of all the candidates, but it doesn't matter because he has already committed political suicide! Say bye-bye to one more clown!

The Democrats:

Hillary Clinton: She is the center of almost every controversy imaginable, so what does she do? She starts crying on live T.V.! [also known as having a televised *quickbaby's sadtime*] This move actually rallies support, or at least from guys who wear "Hot For Hillary" t-shirts.

Barack Obama: He says he can bring [spare] change to America! But are his capabilities possibly enough to correct all of the various problems caused by the Bush Dynasty? I rather doubt it.

John Edwards: Don't vote for him, because he already lost the election!

Wow. With all of these losers to choose from, I'd rather elect a parakeet.
But I'm too young to vote. Mmmmmm that's good democracy.

EDIT: grammar and spelling are not with me today


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Amiga_Nut on January 31, 2008, 10:46:06 pm
I actually was leaning toward Obama before the primaries began. But now I'm 100% Obama. The Clintons have just been playing dirty. Fighting to restore votes where the other candidates weren't on the ballot? Fighting to make votes count in a state she won but no one could campaign? Fight to stop voters in casinos after she loses the endorsement? Taking Obama's words out of context in attack ads? Then whining that he isn't playing nice when he goes slightly negative? Etc... etc...


Heck, Hillary's ticked me off so much at this point I might very well vote for either McCain or Romney if she's the Democratic nominee. (I'm a registered independent.)

I agree totally. The thing that really bothers me is that it's almost supernatural, how dirty the Clintons deal and yet, receive this reverent following. "Babylon ruled by the corrupt." I hope it doesn't happen.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Defender on February 01, 2008, 01:24:08 am
You guys can say what you want about Hilary, she has my vote because:

 I like how Bill ran things in the 90's. I would likely suspect the same out of her. And yes, this is quite logical.

She has the experience being that she was once first lady and was involved in her husbands politics. She's the only one, I think, that can fix the Bush Dynasties screw ups. Obama doesn't even come close.

So what if she plays dirty...It's politics...were you expecting a clean fight? ha! Towards the end we'll see ad after ad of mud slinging form all sides. I guarantee.

She's a liberal and that's fine with me. No more neo christian republican crazies for me...no thanks.

Like I said... say what you want...with what we have to choose from... she's are only hope.






Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: RTyp06 on February 01, 2008, 01:40:34 am

Quote
RTyp06: Hilary Clinton is a far cry from being the "experience candidate". I don't believe anyone is actually voting for her based on experience anyway. There's a better word for what her main appeal to voters is and it's called nepotism. If people wanted experience above all, they would have voted for Bill Richardson or Joe Biden.

Are you seriuos dude? Who was behind the health care plan that almost passed during the Clinton administration? What does Obama have? I'm not saying Hillary is super experienced anyway, just that obama is less so.
Quote
Quote
Obama would be my second choice then Edwards. The only problem I had with obama was an interview I saw with him  on the Jon Stewart show. Unless I misunderstood what obama said, he mentioned somthing about looking into our " nuclear options" with regard to Iran. There is no military nuclear option with Iran in my book. I'm very anti-war, and was so even before Iraq.

I saw that episode of the Daily Show and that was never brought up. He might have said something about 'keeping all options on the table' in a debate or stump speech, but you'd have to be retarded to think that any serious presidential candidate (Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo does not count) would be serious about using nuclear weapons on Iran. It sounds to me like your union told you to vote for her and you didn't really bother to research anything yourself.

Well you can draw whatever conclusion you like, because all you are doing is speculating. You don't know me. And yes he said keep all options on the table, including nuclear. btw Fire calling the kettle black, what do you know about hillary? Have you even looked at her record, or did you just decided you liked obama and never bother to look at the other one? How's that for speculation?


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: xenoclone on February 01, 2008, 06:52:21 am
As an independent, I don't see either either main Republican candidate as super-conservative. McCain's pretty liberal for a Republican. And so is Romney... even if he's trying to pander to the dissatisfied far right. So in that sense, I'm not worried about how they'd pick justices.

On the flip side, obviously the Repub's have been major screw-ups lately. No arguing that in the slightest. So I'm also strongly inclined to just vote Democrat period as a punishment, so to speak. With that said, I agree with most people's assessment that Obama and Hillary would be very similar in what policies they'd pursue.... just that people like Obama more. :)

I'm a little bit afraid we'll get a repeat of 2000. I think Nader stole the election from Gore, the far better candidate.... but who was a little less likable than Bush. We might get a case where this happens again, because Hillary isn't super likable, and McCain wins. Overall, I think Obama just has a better chance of winning because people aren't as biased against him (rational or not).


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on February 01, 2008, 12:51:03 pm
Quote from: RTyp06
Are you seriuos dude?

Off coarse! I am deadly seriuos.


btw Fire calling the kettle black

Fire isn't black. This fire is now calling the kettle lazy for not even bothering to use the correct expression.


Quote from: RTyp06
Well you can draw whatever conclusion you like, because all you are doing is speculating. You don't know me. And yes he said keep all options on the table, including nuclear. btw Fire calling the kettle black, what do you know about hillary? Have you even looked at her record, or did you just decided you liked obama and never bother to look at the other one? How's that for speculation?

The various policies of the three (now two, I guess) front runners have been very similar. For instance, all of them seem intent on fixing health care, not just Clinton. If I had a major problem with Hilary Clinton's stated policies I would let you know right now, but I don't. She pissed me off pretty bad when she said "lobbyists are people too!" during a debate, which leads me to believe she'd capitulate to corporate lobbyists under the slightest amount of pressure. How does one fix anything in government if they don't show backbone against this kind of influence? You can't fix health care if you're afraid of losing the support of the pharmaceutical lobby. You can't defend net neutrality from telecommunication companies if you refuse to step on their toes. But that's just me reading heavily into a single statement.

The thing I like least about Clinton is her penchant for hitting below the belt. Her campaign tells outright lies about her opponent's track record. Let's watch a video:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&eurl=http://www.youbama.com/newest/

This woman was previously the head of NOW in Chicago and has been a Hilary Clinton supporter since forever. She finally defected to Obama recently after becoming fed up with Clinton's sleaziness. Clinton had announced multiple times that Obama was not pro-choice when that is entirely false. And what's with Clinton stirring up all of this ruckus anyway? That's the kind of thing you'd expect from Karl Rove. If more people in this country had a basic grasp of ethics this kind of shit would not fly at all.


Quote from: xenoclone
As an independent, I don't see either either main Republican candidate as super-conservative. McCain's pretty liberal for a Republican. And so is Romney... even if he's trying to pander to the dissatisfied far right. So in that sense, I'm not worried about how they'd pick justices.

You should be. Both McCain and Romney are on shaky ground with the Republican base. They will have to do quite a bit to stay on good terms with these people if they want to win an election, let alone a second term.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: RTyp06 on February 01, 2008, 11:40:16 pm
Overall, I think Obama just has a better chance of winning because people aren't as biased against him (rational or not).

Interesting, but I think the opposite and here is why. Obama, is very articulate,likeable, moderate, and his political views are really not that much different than Clinton or Edwards. I just don't think he has the best shot at winning an election for the dems. I believe he will pull most of the ethnic minority vote and may even coax out first time voters. But this will still be a small percentage of voter turnout and historical always votes democrat regardless of the candidate. Hillary on the other hand will pull the women's vote, both minority and otherwise. How many women can identify with her regarding a cheating spouse? That factor alone, I believe, will bring out women voters in record numbers if she takes the democrat nomination. Hell, I could see republican moderate women voting outside party lines if Hillary takes the nomination.

So..

Obama: Record number of minority voters yes, election factor marginal. His votes will be from people who traditionally vote dem anyway.

Clinton: Record number of women voters and minority women. Election factor large. Female factor cuts across party lines.

Oh and shiver, I'll check out your propoganda video later.. ;)


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Baltar on February 02, 2008, 04:57:50 am
I think an Obama vs McCain race would be really interesting because its basically giving the American public an up or down vote on the occupation of Iraq.  If it came down to Hillary vs McCain I'd be enormously disappointed, because it would follow that the American public had no choice in the matter...


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on February 02, 2008, 12:40:47 pm
Quote from: RTyp06
So..

Obama: Record number of minority voters yes, election factor marginal. His votes will be from people who traditionally vote dem anyway.

Clinton: Record number of women voters and minority women. Election factor large. Female factor cuts across party lines.

I like how you're hypothesizing over the effectiveness of presidential candidates in the US general election entirely by a comparison of "WHITE WOMAN vs BLACK MAN" as if that were the only difference between the two which the general public is astute enough to pick up on. That enormous difference in charisma between the two candidates? Better pretend it's not there. Barack Obama can't win any white votes, just look how he got steamrolled in Iowa. Durrrr...

You speak of crossover appeal. Go to an Evangelical Christian church and ask the women there what they think of Hillary Clinton. Really. Go on, try it and report back with what they say to you. Clinton might pick up a few women with no political allegiance, but conservatives hate her universally.


Quote from: RTyp06
Oh and shiver, I'll check out your propoganda video later..

Let me know when you have something of substance to add to the debate then.

 :)


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: RTyp06 on February 02, 2008, 02:26:27 pm
Quote from: RTyp06
So..

Obama: Record number of minority voters yes, election factor marginal. His votes will be from people who traditionally vote dem anyway.

Clinton: Record number of women voters and minority women. Election factor large. Female factor cuts across party lines.

I like how you're hypothesizing over the effectiveness of presidential candidates in the US general election entirely by a comparison of "WHITE WOMAN vs BLACK MAN" as if that were the only difference between the two which the general public is astute enough to pick up on. That enormous difference in charisma between the two candidates? Better pretend it's not there. Barack Obama can't win any white votes, just look how he got steamrolled in Iowa. Durrrr...

You speak of crossover appeal. Go to an Evangelical Christian church and ask the women there what they think of Hillary Clinton. Really. Go on, try it and report back with what they say to you. Clinton might pick up a few women with no political allegiance, but conservatives hate her universally.


Quote from: RTyp06
Oh and shiver, I'll check out your propoganda video later..

Let me know when you have something of substance to add to the debate then.

 :)

So your opinion trumps my opinion how? How can you criticize me for "substance" when you yourself provide none? And was I responding to you with my post in the first place?

You've made it clear where you stand and your hatred for hillary and the clintons in general. Fortunately most voters are smart enough to see through the mud slinging crap similar to what you are promoting. The Bill Clinton factor is and will be a huge boon for Mrs. Clinton imo. Yes, my opinion, same as minority and women's vote. If you disagree fine. We will see come november. 


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on February 02, 2008, 03:10:20 pm
Quote from: RTyp06
So your opinion trumps my opinion how?

An opinion can't be measured for quality, but an argument can. My argument has so far trumped yours every time.


Quote from: RTyp06
How can you criticize me for "substance" when you yourself provide none?

No, that's wrong. I gave you substance and you chose to ignore it. The Clinton campaign has lied about Obama's positions many times. The example I gave you was of a former supporter defecting based on Clinton's fabrications regarding Obama's position on abortion.


Quote from: RTyp06
And was I responding to you with my post in the first place?

"But I wasn't talking to you" is invalid here because you mentioned me by screen name in your last post. Yes, you were talking to me. You can't ignore someone and take little potshots at the same time without getting called out.


Quote from: RType06
You've made it clear where you stand and your hatred for hillary and the clintons in general.

No. Again your reading comprehension is laughable. I've been arguing in this thread from the start that if Hillary wins the primary, people should vote for her in the general election. I honestly thought I would be doing a lot more of this since the thread is titled "Hillary bashing".


Quote from: RTyp06
Fortunately most voters are smart enough to see through the mud slinging crap similar to what you are promoting.

Mudslinging applies when a political campaign besmirches another campaign. I am not affiliated with any campaign. It's a very long stretch to say that somehow Obama's campaign is going negative because I think you're an idiot.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: RTyp06 on February 02, 2008, 03:33:22 pm
Alright, look dude. My intention isn't to debate anyone. Irregradless of the thread title, people are popping in here and dropping thier opinions. That's all you and I did as well. Have a nice weekend.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Fsi-Dib on February 02, 2008, 03:43:10 pm
If McCain wins in the republican thingie next Tuesday, it would be a disaster to democrats. No doubt about that.

I've already seen at least reports and analyses that Hillary would have a harder time winning against McCain than Obama. Both of these analyses are in Finnish, thus I refrain from linking them.

This is not very far-fetched. Hillary divides people a lot. You see the effect here. And you can't really see people bashing Obama. Maybe Hillary supports your ideals, but in my opinion is not a winning candidate against the republicans.

Anyhow I've started to strongly believe McCain will win the presidental elections, mainly because democrats can't make up their minds.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on February 03, 2008, 06:40:55 pm
Based only on the debate between pro-Obama and pro-Clinton in this thread, it would appear that Obamites are much better at debating at any rate.

As has been said earlier in this thread, as a foreigner I don't understand how Clinton can be so divisive. From a Finnish vantage point it seem really odd that one candidate can make peoples blood boil so bad. I think she gives off a "career politician" sheen, but other than that she doesn't seem that bad

Amiga, that gigantic list you posted is annoyingly hard to read. Have you got anything other than chain mails / newsgroup postings to link to about Clinton's criminal past?

Oh and Guiliani is out. That's too bad. Having him as your president would have been disastrous, but hilarious.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Baltar on February 03, 2008, 06:58:46 pm
Honestly I'm an American and I don't get it either.  I think the portrayal of Hillary as such a 'divisive' figure is an indicator of how much control conservatives seem to have over the dialog in this country.  Hillary, by our standards, is clearly centrist in her positions, right wing by the standards of the rest of the developed world, yet gets decried as a 'socialist' by the right wing here.  I think this has something to do with the wounded pride of conservatives that Bill Clinton was such a successful politician.  He too was decried as being wildly left wing when his presidency was extremely centrist and frankly lacking in significant positive action.  I think it all boils down to Republican scare tactics, and they are effective enough that even democrats are weighing their political options and wondering if we need someone else just because the GOP has such a well oiled propaganda machine specifically for dealing with her.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on February 03, 2008, 07:36:02 pm
Quote from: Lukipela
Based only on the debate between pro-Obama and pro-Clinton in this thread, it would appear that Obamites are much better at debating at any rate.

I don't think that's entirely true to life. You only see the Internet where Obama supporters outnumber Clinton supporters dramatically. You know who else is popular on the Internet? Ron Paul. Take what those wacky voices from the Internet say with a grain of salt.

Quote from: Fsi-Dib
Anyhow I've started to strongly believe McCain will win the presidental elections, mainly because democrats can't make up their minds.

McCain is really damn old, and would be the oldest president to take office if he won. That's going to hurt in debates when people see him stacked up against a younger, more energetic Democrat. I'm surprised to see him going toe to toe with Romney right now.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on February 04, 2008, 08:09:12 pm
Honestly I'm an American and I don't get it either.  I think the portrayal of Hillary as such a 'divisive' figure is an indicator of how much control conservatives seem to have over the dialog in this country.  Hillary, by our standards, is clearly centrist in her positions, right wing by the standards of the rest of the developed world, yet gets decried as a 'socialist' by the right wing here.  I think this has something to do with the wounded pride of conservatives that Bill Clinton was such a successful politician.  He too was decried as being wildly left wing when his presidency was extremely centrist and frankly lacking in significant positive action.  I think it all boils down to Republican scare tactics, and they are effective enough that even democrats are weighing their political options and wondering if we need someone else just because the GOP has such a well oiled propaganda machine specifically for dealing with her.

This is a fair enough explanation I suppose. It seems very odd that so many people just come out and say "She is such a polarizing figure!1!1", but I've always put it down to my ignorance towards domestic american issues.

Quote

I don't think that's entirely true to life. You only see the Internet where Obama supporters outnumber Clinton supporters dramatically. You know who else is popular on the Internet? Ron Paul. Take what those wacky voices from the Internet say with a grain of salt.

Are you trying to tell me that Ron Paul isn't the best thing since sliced bread? In regards to Clinton supporters, I was just jesting about this thread. There are quite a few Clintonians on the internet that make good arguments as well, they just aren't present here.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Amiga_Nut on February 19, 2008, 12:00:06 pm
The power of Makeup.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1906854/postshttp://


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on February 19, 2008, 06:58:50 pm
And here I was getting ready to write something along the lines of "Oh good, we wouldn't want a president that doesn't look attractive". But apparently your selling point is just more bashing.

On a slightly more serious side, the democratic nominations are looking interesting (last I checked anyway). Who do you think will win?


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: AngusThermopyle on February 19, 2008, 07:48:38 pm
I think it'll be Obama.

Out of curiosity, who do the non-US poster’s here want to win the November elections?


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Resh Aleph on February 19, 2008, 10:01:55 pm
I don't really know much about the candidates (even though I should -- I'm not entirely "non-US" :-X), so all I can say is that I favor the democrats in general. ::)


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Baltar on February 20, 2008, 02:06:59 am
And here I was getting ready to write something along the lines of "Oh good, we wouldn't want a president that doesn't look attractive". But apparently your selling point is just more bashing.

On a slightly more serious side, the democratic nominations are looking interesting (last I checked anyway). Who do you think will win?

For today Wisconsin has caught the attention of the nation as our primary is today (I just came back from the ballot box)--it is said that what happens here could be an indicator of what will happen in the key Iowa and Texas primaries and could spell the nominee.  Can't say much for the general feeling--I'm in the demographic generally favoring Obama and thus so is just about everyone I know.  I don't see any numbers rolling in yet.

As an Obama supporter my hopes were rather low going into the primary but things are starting to look up and I'm starting to get optimistic.  I was anticipating Obama having a slight lead in popular support but that Hillary would have a lock on superdelegates.  Apparently the latter isn't the case anymore.  If Obama maintains the momentum through the next few states I think he'll very likely get the nod.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on February 20, 2008, 07:30:59 am
Quote from: Baltar
Iowa

Ohio! Get your boring square-shaped states right.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Cedric6014 on February 20, 2008, 08:39:02 pm
I don't really know much about the candidates (even though I should -- I'm not entirely "non-US" :-X), so all I can say is that I favor the democrats in general. ::)

Most foreigners, including me, will probably want Obama to win the nomination (and hopefully the election). The rest of the world is tiring of US imperialism somewhat and he is the candidate who is most likely to pull out of Iraq and least likely to drop nukes on Tehran and Damascus. From an international perspective Hillary is too tainted with Bill’s legacy of meddling in the Balkans and botching up Somalia and the middle-east. Also she voted for the move into Iraq. At least Obama is prepared to have a chat with the weirdo who rules Iran right now.

I have several American friends here in NZ (including my fiancée) and they’re all praying desperately for an Obama win. They’re all big travellers and they are totally over people slagging off America for throwing it’s weight around internationally. To them an Obama win means the US can begin redeeming itself as respected international citizen. It will be a long road back though. The Bush administration has done a staggering among of damage to America’s international reputation.

Either way Clinton can only improve on the last 8 years.

Anyway, go Obama!

What do the Europeans think?





Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: RTyp06 on March 05, 2008, 11:19:27 pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23480254

The democratic race just got more interesting.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: NECRO-99 on March 06, 2008, 08:32:47 am
Having McCain already a shoe-in makes the Republican's jobs that much easier- they sit back and collect donations and gather supporters while the still divided Democrats continue to fight. Hillary's recent gains, a stay of execution of her political career IMO, shouldn't be enough for her to win, but she continues to fight Obama...

...and now I understand why after reading that article. She's trying to make him look like a party divider, someone that is purposely attempting to polarize the party to him, although what she did was utterly arrogant and in all actuality it is most likely her that needs to get on -his- bandwagon and bring the Dems in to circle the wagons and support one candidate. He won't agree to be her VP because he doesn't want to get his hands dirty with all the smoky room deals- doing so would remove his ability to say that he's a fresh look and has no inside connections.

The games people play...it's like watching a soap opera.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on March 06, 2008, 09:23:41 am
Take a look at this little widget: http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

The calculator lets you see what the delegate count is depending on how the future states turn out. I gave Pennsylvania to Clinton by 70%, then every over state that has not already voted by 55% and she still lost. The race is already done, people just don't know it. This means we all get to listen to a few more months of manufactured drama, courtesy of the US media.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on March 06, 2008, 04:25:49 pm
That is interesting. What about the super delegates though? I don't pretend to understand your system, but couldn't they still vote for Hillary no matter what? I mean, she's the one with all the connections.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on March 06, 2008, 04:41:17 pm
That is interesting. What about the super delegates though? I don't pretend to understand your system, but couldn't they still vote for Hillary no matter what? I mean, she's the one with all the connections.

The superdelegates are already counted in that little slider score thingy. They broke for Hillary Clinton by almost a 2:1 ratio. Doesn't matter now.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on March 06, 2008, 05:22:26 pm
I must be misunderstanding the reader thingy then. I set it to your conditions and it said

"Obama has the pledged delegate lead, but will need at least 404 superdelegates to reach 2,025."

Doesn't that mean that if Clinton hoards enough super delegates, Obama still won't win?


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on March 06, 2008, 05:35:41 pm
I'm not sure why they put that bit down there because it's so misleading. Essentially, neither democratic candidate is going to hit the number (2025) required to win by default. The highest scoring candidate will be declared the nominee for President later.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on March 06, 2008, 05:49:02 pm
I'm not sure why they put that bit down there because it's so misleading. Essentially, neither democratic candidate is going to hit the number (2025) required to win by default. The highest scoring candidate will be declared the nominee for President later.

And is this sure? There's no chance some sort of political greasing of the wheels could encourage the super delegates to vote for the other person?


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on March 06, 2008, 06:07:47 pm
And is this sure? There's no chance some sort of political greasing of the wheels could encourage the super delegates to vote for the other person?

Yes, super delegates can switch. Even pledged delegates can switch. They almost never do this. A delegate switching sides pisses people off. 100 delegates switching sides so that a leading candidate drops to 2nd place would cause a shitstorm. That defies democracy.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on March 08, 2008, 06:04:03 pm
Yes, super delegates can switch. Even pledged delegates can switch. They almost never do this. A delegate switching sides pisses people off. 100 delegates switching sides so that a leading candidate drops to 2nd place would cause a shitstorm. That defies democracy.

So the super delegates have already declared sides? Or do they declare at your party meeting?


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Shiver on March 09, 2008, 12:10:11 am
So the super delegates have already declared sides? Or do they declare at your party meeting?

Does somebody pay you $10 every time you ask a question? Good lord. The superdelegates voice support for various candidates before the voting even begins, but they can jump ship and vote for someone else at the Democratic convention.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on March 09, 2008, 01:13:21 pm
Does somebody pay you $10 every time you ask a question? Good lord. The superdelegates voice support for various candidates before the voting even begins, but they can jump ship and vote for someone else at the Democratic convention.

Ah right. The image I got from the media here was that the super delegates only declare their support once all the regular voting is over, at the convention. That's why I didn't understand why you discounted them as "already spoken for". So all the super delegates (or almost all) are already bound to a candidate, and don't matter any more unless they change their vote.

That is one weird system.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Death 999 on March 14, 2008, 04:48:37 pm
We're thinking of replacing it, if that helps.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: RTyp06 on March 14, 2008, 10:32:27 pm
Kinda funny yet pathetic, the USA, the supposid epitome of democracy, dosen't have a  solution to a tie presidential race. Because the super delegates are too chicken to set off a storm of controversy, which is bound to happen upon nominee. Because we are using an archaic system. What level of incompetence does it take to paint yourself into a corner with contradictory laws such as those that plauge Florida law? And to further our world wide embarrasment, the multitudes of litigation cases that surely will follow the democratic presidential race.



Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Lukipela on March 15, 2008, 03:33:42 pm
We're thinking of replacing it, if that helps.

Depends. What are you replacing it with?

Quote
Kinda funny yet pathetic, the USA, the supposid epitome of democracy, dosen't have a  solution to a tie presidential race.

Worse than that, you don't even have a solution for a tied nomination race. I think it'd be ironically amusing if the same thing happened in the actual election.



Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Draxas on March 17, 2008, 03:38:31 pm
Didn't we already see exactly that in the 2000 race? The president was effecitvely elected by the Supreme Court after the whole recount / butterfly ballot / hanging chad fiasco.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Death 999 on March 17, 2008, 06:06:27 pm
We're thinking of replacing it, if that helps.

Depends. What are you replacing it with?

Under discussion. But lots of people are realizing the PLEOs are all danger and no benefit, so it'll probably be a system just based on the voters. It's hard to see how that could be worse.


Title: Re: Hillary bashing
Post by: Particleman42 on April 11, 2008, 04:05:09 am
We're thinking of replacing it, if that helps.

Depends. What are you replacing it with?

Under discussion. But lots of people are realizing the PLEOs are all danger and no benefit, so it'll probably be a system just based on the voters. It's hard to see how that could be worse.

Yeah, they almost all vote for who the voters choose anyway, as I'm sure has already been mentioned. So, they're kind of redundant then.