NationStates Jolt Archive

Ron Paul is at it again:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/28/ron-paul-the-revolution-lives-on/

Seems like the Republican Race has gotten alot more interesting. Considering this:

I hope he runs third party. He'll steal votes from McCain.

He could be the Democrats Nadar.

And you know this how?

considering how closely they are being watched, considering the nuclear reactor that was bombed in Syria and anti-missile systems getting better and better, I have my doubts that they will be able to nuke anyone.

I hope he runs third party. He'll steal votes from McCain.

He could be the Democrats Nadar.

Looks like some would vote for him before they vote Hillary. Its a mixed blessing really. It will be very interesting to see what happens.

considering how closely they are being watched, considering the nuclear reactor that was bombed in Syria and anti-missile systems getting better and better, I have my doubts that they will be able to nuke anyone.

Maybe but then again...the question was WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF IRAN ATTACKED ISRAEL WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

It has nothing to do with what everyone already knows. It was a logical question to ask a Presidential Candidate.

The only Democrats I'd of supported were Dennis Kucinich or perhaps even Bill Richardson. The only Republican I support is Ron Paul. Now that it seems they are gonna be left out, I'm not voting for any of the three exteremists on the news right now - Clinton, Obama, and McCain. They'll all make things worse.

Since when was the Republican party about neoconservatism and since when was the Democratic party overrun by something close to socialism? I think both parties should get a wake-up and start making a move towards moderate candidates again. Until then, they won't be seeing any support from me or many other voters.

Maybe but then again...the question was WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF IRAN ATTACKED ISRAEL WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

It has nothing to do with what everyone already knows. It was a logical question to ask a Presidential Candidate.

i would try my best to talk israel out of nuking them back with a much more powerful nuke.

israel can take care of itself militarily. there is no sense us getting into it if it can be at all avoided.

Well, it was certainly a legitimate question. But I think Hillary's response was totally out of the realm of sanity- sure, nuking an ally should provoke one of the worst responses a country can give, but there is never a reason to "totally obliterate" an entire country. Obviously there would be significant retaliation that would no doubt result in the destruction of the Iranian regime, but mass killing of civilians won't solve anything- look what far smaller civilian deaths did to our popular support in Iraq.

Hillary needs to realize that what she says has a broader impact than just in the US- while the threat wasn't widely reported in the US media (yet another strike against them), it attracted huge condemnation abroad, from US allies like Britain and Saudi Arabia. It's obvious the hard-liners in Iran will milk this for all its worth, and turn the people even more against the West than our 1950s coup of their democratically-elected government already did. Hillary seems a bit too concerned about saying whatever it takes to get into office (like her 3 AM ad, playing into McCain's hands), but this raises serious doubts about her ability once in that office.

This wouldn't be funny except that CH ran around saying "Oh noes, Obama gonna bomb and invade Pakistan..."
Ahhh.....it looks like the regular trolls are out in full force.

Okay, I'll bite...

There is a tad difference to Clinton claiming that the US would defend Israel IF Iran were to use nuclear weapons against her, then Obama talking about invading/bombing/whatever a sovereign country (Pakistan) in his new "War We Need to Win" strategy.

The major difference of course being that Pakistan is an ally, whereas Iran is a manufactured enemy circa 1950's.

Yet you are okay with Clinton saying she would obliterate an entire country?

Yet you are okay with Clinton saying she would obliterate an entire country?
I have borrowed someone elses' words to answer your question:

I think, since Iran does not have nukes, it is a moot point. Hillary knows this (She is on the Armed Services Committee) and is just indicating that the U.S. does not want to appear weak to the rest of the world, especially since invading Iraq was a mistake, an attack on Israel would be provocation. There is a difference and Hillary recognizes this.

I have borrowed someone elses' words to answer your question:

So you are okay with Hillary saying she would obliterate another country because she doesn't really mean it?

Hillary Rodham Clinton versus Barak Hussien Obama

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/raw/2008/april22-28/6916030?zone=raw_videos

courtesy of the wwe

Did you guys really think either of your candidates could have withstood the Samoan Bulldozer???


LOL

So you are okay with Hillary saying she would obliterate another country because she doesn't really mean it?
Perhaps this will help you out?

Senator Clinton Announces Co-Sponsorship of Webb Legislation Prohibiting the Use of Funds for Military Operations In Iran (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/record.cfm?id=284618)

Reiterates that President Bush Needs Congressional Authorization Before Attacking Iran


Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that she is co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization (S. 759).

Senator Clinton - who has been at the forefront of calling on President Bush to seek authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran (Read the Senator's Speech on the Senate Floor from February) – said today, “In February, I took to the Senate floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Given recent reports about Administration military planning toward Iran and to ensure that Congress plays a proper role in the authorization of any potential military force, today I have added myself as a co-sponsor of a bill introduced by Senator Jim Webb which prohibits the use of funds for military action in Iran without authorization by Congress.”

Senator Clinton added, “Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims. I also support strong economic sanctions against Iran, including designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, to improve our leverage with the Iranian regime."

“Any military action against Iran will have an immediate impact on our troops serving in Iraq, our allies in the region as well as long term U.S. strategic interests. Senator's Webb's legislation insures that Congress will play its constitutional role of providing proper oversight over the Administration's policy toward Iran. Congressional oversight and debate can help avoid the mistakes and blunders that have afflicted U.S. policy in Iraq. We cannot allow recent history to repeat itself.”

I have borrowed someone elses' words to answer your question:

Most people would call that lying. So instead of being straight up and saying "Iran doesn't have a nuke", she gave a reply that both gives the impression that Irad DOES have nukes, but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point about how "tough" she is.

Hmmm... I can see why you support her.

Perhaps this will help you out?

Senator Clinton Announces Co-Sponsorship of Webb Legislation Prohibiting the Use of Funds for Military Operations In Iran (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/record.cfm?id=284618)

Reiterates that President Bush Needs Congressional Authorization Before Attacking Iran

Oh, Hillary has made it very clear... Bush needs approval and he's proven he would abuse the kind of power that SHE gave him. However, she's quite clear SHE does not need such approval and had SHE been President it would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to give her power constitutionally granted to Congress.

Your argument speaks to what she thinks of Bush, not whether or not she'd attack iran.

Ahhh.....it looks like the regular trolls are out in full force.

Okay, I'll bite...

There is a tad difference to Clinton claiming that the US would defend Israel IF Iran were to use nuclear weapons against her, then Obama talking about invading/bombing/whatever a sovereign country (Pakistan) in his new "War We Need to Win" strategy.

The major difference of course being that Pakistan is an ally, whereas Iran is a manufactured enemy circa 1950's.

Man, we get you a little ribbon to twirl around and you can bring Canada the gold in rhythmic gymnastics, there...

Man, we get you a little ribbon to twirl around and you can bring Canada the gold in rhythmic gymnastics, there...

As if it's new. When Obama says he'll make specific and exact strikes against an enemy that attacked us, he's Bush III, but when Hillary says she'll NUKE a country that's not attacked us and that she knows not to have a nuke (yet), she's being perfectly reasonable.

It's not hard to see which one of them is following a path that Bush would agree with. It ain't Obama.

Ahhh.....it looks like the regular trolls are out in full force.

Okay, I'll bite...

There is a tad difference to Clinton claiming that the US would defend Israel IF Iran were to use nuclear weapons against her, then Obama talking about invading/bombing/whatever a sovereign country (Pakistan) in his new "War We Need to Win" strategy.

The major difference of course being that Pakistan is an ally, whereas Iran is a manufactured enemy circa 1950's.

Yes, I'm a troll (sarcasm to avoid mod "he admitted it" crap from CH). I post on a variety of different topics ranging from politics, to sports, music, etc. because I am a troll. I've argued with you since before the mega thread was in existence because after all I'm a troll. I've earned the respect of some mods (was noted in moderation thread and TG) for my restraint in debate because I am a troll.

Clinton saying that she would nuke Iran is no better than what you claim Obama said. I think both statements were taken out of context and make both parties look silly. I don't believe that Hillary is rushing off to bomb Iran any faster than Obama is invading Pakistan. The different between us is that I can see the smokescreen of this "distraction politics."

You argued that you thought Obama wanted to invade/bomb Pakistan without their knowledge. It was shown that Hillary said she would "warn them once the missiles were in the air because of the volatility of the situation." Why has this troll spent this much time arguing this particular topic with you? After all, I'm just supposed to run out here and say something offensive and parroted right? This is what trolls like me do :D

Man, we get you a little ribbon to twirl around and you can bring Canada the gold in rhythmic gymnastics, there...

I was thinking it would be more synchronized swimming, or curling. But the ribbon would be a nice little touch.

Man, we get you a little ribbon to twirl around and you can bring Canada the gold in rhythmic gymnastics, there...
I see the troll brigade has a straggler. Grab your pom poms and get in line. :p

I see the troll brigade has a straggler. Grab your pom poms and get in line. :p

Oh aren't you just precious when you can't win a debate :eek:

Time to hit my rack. I'll be back tomorrow to deal with the delicious fall out.

I see the troll brigade has a straggler. Grab your pom poms and get in line. :p

Oh, look, what a surprise. You jump right over all the arguments to call more people names. That hardly ever happens.

Oh aren't you just precious when you can't win a debate

in your opinion

in your opinion

Well, then, it's unassailable.

Ugh, I'm so tired of the news.

"Obama has to fight back. He has to do something about Wright. He has to show he's got some strength.

....

This is just one voice. We must not get sucked in."

That's the same person speaking. So, apparently, Obama must get sucked into this rather obviously ludicrous "issue" but it would be silly for the news that CANNOT stop talking about Wright and how Obama MUST talk about him to get sucked in.

How does that make any sense? Wright is a character and I get why they're putting him all over the news, but, in what way, is Obama needing to talk about Wright? Obama said he disagrees. He said he said that the most agregious of the comments were inappropriate and condemnable. What else is he supposed to say? Should he call him a poopie-head?

Most people would call that lying.
I guess that you would call it? Do you profess to speak for "most people"?

So instead of being straight up and saying "Iran doesn't have a nuke", she gave a reply that both gives the impression that Irad DOES have nukes,
That is strange.....I didn't get that impression at all.

but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point about how "tough" she is.
And here is where you kick in with the melodramatic, by taking her out of context and by putting words in her mouth.

Now, if you can provide me a direct quote where she claims that "she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point", then I will gladly retract my claim.

I guess that you would call it? Do you profess to speak for "most people"?

I profess to know that the definition of lying is set by most people. I'm funny like that.

That is strange.....I didn't get that impression at all.

Yes, but you did get the impression that Obama wants to "invade" Pakistan when he didn't say, but didn't get the impression from Hillary when she explicitly talked about what she would do if they used one. Like I said, no one expects you to suddenly be honest or consistent.

And here is where you kick in with the melodramatic, by taking her out of context and by putting words in her mouth.

Now, if you can provide me a direct quote where she claims that "she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point", then I will gladly retract my claim.

Out of context? She didn't say she would nuke Iran? That doesn't change in context. She said she would do it. The ciricumstances require them to nuke Isreal, but she did say she would do it. That is the context or do you not know what context is.

And what do you think would happen to that country if she nuked it?

Tell you what, provide with a direct quote where Obama said he would "invade Pakistan". You, my dishonest friend, are so easy to bait into hypocrisy that it's just too easy. We argued for weeks about a claim you eventually admitted to infer and being quite a stretch, but you're going to claim I'm going to far to point out that she said she explicitly said she would nuke Iran and that it would do devestating damage.

As far as making a point, you claimed she was making a point. Now are you retracting that? Or you want to change your answer to just admitting she's plainly lying?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13475239&postcount=363

Hehehe. Hypocrite. Most amusingly. Let's see. What is closer?

And once again he is stating his willingness to attack terrorist camps within Pakistan, if Musharraf will not take action himself; at no point does he state that he will definitely invade Pakistan.
He is playing you like a fiddle.
He's playing me like a fiddle? I think not, I am not an Obama supporter, I have simply been pointing out the fact that you are twisting his words to suit your own ends.
No, they are his words and he has to live with them. I don't think diplomacy is his strong suit.

Now let's compare that to what I said.
Most people would call that lying. So instead of being straight up and saying "Iran doesn't have a nuke", she gave a reply that both gives the impression that Iran DOES have nukes, but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point about how "tough" she is.

So I said her statements "give the impression" of what I said and in order to be correct I have to quote her using the specific words. Perhaps you don't know what "give the impression" means, but it's not the same as "they are HIS words". Hehe.

Oh, and what did she really say?

And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

I wonder what happens to civilians when you 'totally obliterate' a country. I wonder what she meant when she said that in the next 10 years Iran 'might foolishing consider launching an attack'. Boy, I sure stretched that statement.

I profess to know that the definition of lying is set by most people. I'm funny like that.
Unless you can provide some statistics that would back up your claim, then it is just your opinion.

Yes, but you did get the impression that Obama wants to "invade" Pakistan when he didn't say,
Irrelevant sidetracking to the issue at hand.

but didn't get the impression from Hillary when she explicitly talked about what she would do if they used one.
Once again, you are off on a tangent. I remind you of your comment:

Originally Posted by Jocabia
So instead of being straight up and saying "Iran doesn't have a nuke", she gave a reply that both gives the impression that Irad DOES have nukes, but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point about how "tough" she is.
I stated that I did not get that impression. Here is the transcript:

Clinton talks about economy, Iran and 2008 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24247198/)

I am sure that you will have a different "impression" of what she stated once you have read it.

Like I said, no one expects you to suddenly be honest or consistent.
Ahhh, if challenged in a debate, toss out a few insults. That should work. That should help you win the debate? :rolleyes:

Out of context? She didn't say she would nuke Iran? That doesn't change in context. She said she would do it. The ciricumstances require them to nuke Isreal, but she did say she would do it.
You stated "she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point"

Compared to what she states here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24247198/page/2/), you are definitely taking her out of context.

That is the context or do you not know what context is.
Another salvo huh?

And what do you think would happen to that country if she nuked it?
It would be rather messy I imagine. However, that is not her ultimate goal now isit?

Tell you what, provide with a direct quote where Obama said he would "invade Pakistan".
Off again on a tangent to the discussion at hand.

You, my dishonest friend, are so easy to bait into hypocrisy that it's just too easy.
Too easy? Too easy for you to fling about insults...yes indeed.

We argued for weeks about a claim you eventually admitted to infer and being quite a stretch, but you're going to claim I'm going to far to point out that she said she explicitly said she would nuke Iran and that it would do devestating damage.
Whatever the circumstances, the fact remains that you took her out of context and put words in her mouth?

As far as making a point, you claimed she was making a point. Now are you retracting that? Or you want to change your answer to just admitting she's plainly lying?
refresh my memory, but only if it relates to the topic at hand....thanks.

Unless you can provide some statistics that would back up your claim, then it is just your opinion.

I can't help if you don't know how definitions work, but they reflect the COMMON usage. But keeping telling me that lying doesn't mean lying. It wasn't amusing enough the first time.
Irrelevant sidetracking to the issue at hand.

It's not irrelevant to your hypocrisy.
Once again, you are off on a tangent. I remind you of your comment:

I stated that I did not get that impression. Here is the transcript:

Clinton talks about economy, Iran and 2008 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24247198/)

I am sure that you will have a different "impression" of what she stated once you have read it.

See the problem here is one of ignorance. Her quote about "obliterating" Iran was not from that interview. I gave you the quote. Look it up.
Ahhh, if challenged in a debate, toss out a few insults. That should work. That should help you win the debate? :rolleyes:

Amusing. Kind of like the entirety of your response for several pages being "troll". I called you a hypocrite and dishonest because you are one and you are. You reply by proving me right.

You stated "she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point"

Compared to what she states here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24247198/page/2/), you are definitely taking her out of context.

Again, wrong interview, Bubba. What she said is quoted in my post. Read it. Educate yourself. Ignorance is to knowledge like dark is to light. Here's knowledge. Shine on.

And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

Another salvo huh?

It would be rather messy I imagine. However, that is not her ultimate goal now isit?

No one said it was her goal. I said she was willing to give the impression that she would do it in order to prove a point. You said she was also making a point. As I said, that makes her a liar, since you admitted she is just puffing up her chest and knows, despite the impression, that Iran does not have a nuke.
Whatever the circumstances, the fact remains that you took her out of context and put words in her mouth?

Put words in her mouth? Don't blame your ignorance on me. She used the words "in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them". That's not putting words in her mouth.

Also, please look up the term. If I say she gave the impression of something. That's not putting words in her mouth. That's inferring. The difference is not subtle.
refresh my memory, but only if it relates to the topic at hand....thanks.

I would want to forget were I you. Especially since, I've proven just how silly you can be. I've refreshed your memory and everyone else's. Your rather sad attempts to obfuscate are exposed.

*snip*

Now, for those playing along, notice what we see here.

1. Canuck calls several people names, calls them trolls for pointing out his rather spurious history on some of these issues, history very similar to the attacks he makes on other posts.

He then complains when I point out that requiring me to provide an exact quote stating the precise words I said were my impression is dishonest and hypocritical and provide evidence for why it's dishonest and hypcritical.

2. He asks for an exact quote when I say her statements "give the impression" but argued for weeks that Obama would "invade Pakistan" and claimed they were Obama's words.

3. He calls things irrelevant if they hurt his argument. Pretty common. I bet I could quote it no less than a dozen times, representing about half of his posts. The other half call people names and offer no substance.

4. Notice that when we are talking about the Chris Cuomo interview of Hillary, he quotes an entirely different interview to claim I misrepresented what she said. In the Cuomo interview she pointed out that Iran might consider nuking Isreal, and that we had the ability to obliterate them and said in the same interview that we would if they did.

(a summary for you, since his other rather obvious tactic is to break a post up into so many repetitive parts that no one will read it. Why? Because if he does, then no one will notice he's not debating.)

And here is what Hillary actually said, for those who are curious as to whether I'm exaggerating -
And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

Now, for those playing along, notice what we see here.

1. Canuck calls several people names, calls them trolls for pointing out his rather spurious history on some of these issues, history very similar to the attacks he makes on other posts.

He then complains when I point out that requiring me to provide an exact quote stating the precise words I said were my impression is dishonest and hypocritical and provide evidence for why it's dishonest and hypcritical.

2. He asks for an exact quote when I say her statements "give the impression" but argued for weeks that Obama would "invade Pakistan" and claimed they were Obama's words.

3. He calls things irrelevant if they hurt his argument. Pretty common. I bet I could quote it no less than a dozen times, representing about half of his posts. The other half call people names and offer no substance.

4. Notice that when we are talking about a series of interviews by Hillary, he quotes ONE, ignoring that she clarified her statements in another interview, one where she pointed out that Iran might consider nuking Isreal, and that we had the ability to obliterate them and said in the same issue that we would if they did it.

(a summary for you, since his other rather obvious tactic is to break a post up into so many repetitive parts that no one will read it. Why? Because if he does, then no one will notice he's not debating.)

I've lurked over enough of Canuck's discourse to be unsurprised by his disingenuous proclivities. My question is, haven't you seen enough of his posts that it should be expected by now?

I've lurked over enough of Canuck's discourse to be unsurprised by his disingenuous proclivities. My question is, haven't you seen enough of his posts that it should be expected by now?

Of course, but I tend to pull out the lantern and expose the dark corners where he hides. I utterly despise the kind of tactics he's using (note: this is not the same as despising him). Ducking and dodging the facts isn't debating. It's not even rhetoric. I quite enjoy exposing it for what it is.

~~SNIP irrelevant sidetrack~~

Now let's compare that to what I said.

So I said her statements "give the impression" of what I said and in order to be correct I have to quote her using the specific words. Perhaps you don't know what "give the impression" means, but it's not the same as "they are HIS words". Hehe.
One more time with feeling. How about using your EXACT words:

Originally Posted by Jocabia
So instead of being straight up and saying "Iran doesn't have a nuke", she gave a reply that both gives the impression that Irad DOES have nukes, but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point about how "tough" she is.
Where in her comments does she state or even give the "impression" that "Iran DOES have nukes"? She doesn't. She states:

If Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons....

In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing....

Again, back to your words:

gives the impression that Iran DOES have nukes, but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country
This sounds more like a promise.

What she really said:

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton
What I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
That is more like a threat. That is the impression I get.

Where did you get this:

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton
And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
Even if this quote is legit, it suggests that the US "would be able to totally obliterate them", which is a true statement, but not a statement of fact that the US indeed would "totally obliterate them"

II wonder what she meant when she said that in the next 10 years Iran 'might foolishing consider launching an attack'. Boy, I sure stretched that statement.
Maybe you did? Source please.

One more time with feeling. How about using your EXACT words:


Where in her comments does she state or even give the "impression" that "Iran DOES have nukes"? She doesn't. She states:

She replied to a question that asked about Iran nuking Isreal without stating "Iran doesn't have nukes". I stated that in the statement you quoted. Instead she answered what she would do if they did nuke Isreal, which gives the impression they can. This is especially given she, like Obama, knows this is a soundbite world.

Amusingly, you keep quoting a different interview. But, hey, don't let reality stop you.


Again, back to your words:


This sounds more like a promise.

What she really said:

Yeah, keep quoting a different interview. Nothing like lying in a debate. Let's try, you know, quoting what WE'RE talking about. Which is Cuomo's [edit: this was an error. It was Cuomo's question, but the reply was a clarification of it on ABC Good Morning America, which you'd know if you read the link] question where she said that Iran "might consider nuking Isreal" and that we are able to "obliterate Iran" were that to occur.


That is more like a threat. That is the impression I get.

Where did you get this:


Even if this quote is legit, it suggests that the US "would be able to totally obliterate them", which is a true statement, but not a statement of fact that the US indeed would "totally obliterate them"


Maybe you did? Source please.

I take it you're admitting that you jumped in the middle of the conversation without actually knowing what you were talking about. Typical. This conversation has been about the Cuomo interview, which I've clarified several times. When I say the person who interviewed her and when she said it, that is a source. I'm sorry that you're unfamiliar with it, but I'm not to blame for your ignorance.

How about next time when people are talking about a particular interview and citing a quote from it, you find out which interview and educate yourself rather than just jumping in and making stuff up. Or do this. The latter embarrasses you and points out that, for you, it's more about defending your beliefs rather than honestly exploring information.

"ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," "
This wouldn't be funny except that CH ran around saying "Oh noes, Obama gonna bomb and invade Pakistan..."

This sparked the debate, but several times throughtout, it's been mentioned that we're talking about the ABC interview.

I find it hilarious that only AFTER claiming I was misrepresenting her statements and AFTER accusing me of various other things do you finally realize that you're not even aware of what we're talking about.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/

Incidentally, it was Corny who defended her at this point. See, some debaters, educate themselves on the discussion and THEN choose a side. Apparently, you prefer to jump in, act like you have a clue, and then, finally, when your argument is unsustainable, make a comment about how I made up the quote we were talking about all along and prove you don't have the first clue what you're debating.

In order to make a point, she gave the impression she was willing to kill every civilian in Iran. That's what happens when you obliterate a country. And she certainly said she was willing to do that if they used a nuke on Isreal, which she explicitly said they might consider in the next ten years.

Well, then, it's unassailable.

CH does bring about some laughs now doesn't he? He provides comedic interludes for us all. :p

Ahhh.....it looks like the regular trolls are out in full force.

Okay, I'll bite...

There is a tad difference to Clinton claiming that the US would defend Israel IF Iran were to use nuclear weapons against her, then Obama talking about invading/bombing/whatever a sovereign country (Pakistan) in his new "War We Need to Win" strategy.

The major difference of course being that Pakistan is an ally, whereas Iran is a manufactured enemy circa 1950's.

I see the troll brigade has a straggler. Grab your pom poms and get in line. :p

Unless you can provide some statistics that would back up your claim, then it is just your opinion.


Irrelevant sidetracking to the issue at hand.


Once again, you are off on a tangent. I remind you of your comment:


I stated that I did not get that impression. Here is the transcript:

Clinton talks about economy, Iran and 2008 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24247198/)

I am sure that you will have a different "impression" of what she stated once you have read it.


Ahhh, if challenged in a debate, toss out a few insults. That should work. That should help you win the debate? :rolleyes:


You stated "she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point"

Compared to what she states here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24247198/page/2/), you are definitely taking her out of context.


Another salvo huh?


It would be rather messy I imagine. However, that is not her ultimate goal now isit?


Off again on a tangent to the discussion at hand.


Too easy? Too easy for you to fling about insults...yes indeed.


Whatever the circumstances, the fact remains that you took her out of context and put words in her mouth?


refresh my memory, but only if it relates to the topic at hand....thanks.

The bolded above make me laugh. You start off by calling people trolls which is yet to be seen through mod intervention. You then go back and claim that people are ignoring arguments and just throwing out insults. Unless you suddenly find the word troll on a message board to be complimentary?

Next, you took Obama out of context and used a good 20 pages of the former megathread to go over this topic. You took him out of context and that is fair game. Someone tries to use a Hillary quote and it ruffles your panties. So stop playing the victim because you are being pounded as usual.

And we have the CH manuever again. When facts contradict your position, ignore it and call it amusing and a tangent.

Your attempt at baiting is worse than your attempt at DEbating. You are Shalr should go someplace where both of you can cry elephant tears into a pillow for how bad NSG victimizes you.

I see the troll brigade has a straggler. Grab your pom poms and get in line. :p

Lets see if this sounds familiar to anyone-

Look, I've been busy (I really have, I've had job after job taking up 15-17 hour days) and don't presently have the time for lengthy responses, but I will get to them. For the time being I'm just calling out some of the easier ones.

I just can't bring myself to tag that with the Eutruscian smilies...



Anyway, it's not trolling, it's pointing out that you're doing quite the gymnastic routine to equivocate a rather detailed statement out of a large speech that focused far more on diplomacy and aid and gave a specific target that you then expanded into 'invading Pakistan' but then when Clinton suggests obliterating a nation you've got all kinds of excuses. That's not trolling, friend, that's admiring some gymnastic skills...

Your attempt at baiting is worse than your attempt at DEbating. You are Shalr should go someplace where both of you can cry elephant tears into a pillow for how bad NSG victimizes you.

Chillax dude. CH and I do this all the time. Just that its a refresher seeing him on the heavy end of the hammer being schooled by Jocabia, CNTOAN, you, and others, including me.

Relax my brother/sister.

Lets see if this sounds familiar to anyone-

Look, I've been busy (I really have, I've had job after job taking up 15-17 hour days) and don't presently have the time for lengthy responses, but I will get to them. For the time being I'm just calling out some of the easier ones.

I just can't bring myself to tag that with the Eutruscian smilies...



Anyway, it's not trolling, it's pointing out that you're doing quite the gymnastic routine to equivocate a rather detailed statement out of a large speech that focused far more on diplomacy and aid and gave a specific target that you then expanded into 'invading Pakistan' but then when Clinton suggests obliterating a nation you've got all kinds of excuses. That's not trolling, friend, that's admiring some gymnastic skills...

And given those gymnastics, one has to wonder which of you is the cheerleader.

This (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942916625251325.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox) is something I've been on about for a bit now, and it looks like it has traction-
Sen. Obama has taken the lead among elected officials
...
Among elected officials, Sen. Obama leads in endorsements from governors and senators. He is behind among House members by one, but both camps expect him to pull ahead unless he does badly in next Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries. If he doesn't stumble, enough elected Democrats are expected to back Sen. Obama after the last primaries June 3 to give him the delegate majority needed for nomination.

And why would they do this?
The reasons say a lot about these superdelegates' calculations for the November elections -- the presidential one, or their own.
...
The elected are the party's 28 governors, 234 House members, 49 senators and assorted big-city mayors and state officeholders. Democrats in both camps say that for many, these superdelegates' decisions to endorse someone -- or stay uncommitted -- reflect their answer to the question: What is best for my political future?
...
Many of them see Sen. Obama as more electable than Sen. Clinton. But even those who don't have been impressed by his grass-roots organizing and fund raising and the legions of new voters he has attracted, particularly younger and African-American voters.
...
A Democratic strategist to congressional candidates cites Sen. Clinton's high negative ratings in opinion polls. Politicians "all think Obama will stimulate African-American turnout, and they all know there's no way she gets independents or Republicans," says the strategist, who is unaligned in the presidential race.
...
[Obama's] campaign also just announced a 50-state voter mobilization. That reflects another pitch to nonelected party officials: That Sen. Obama would work to build the party even in Republican "red" states, and has the money to do it, while Sen. Clinton focuses only on Democratic "blue" states and battlegrounds such as Ohio.

Interviews with party officials suggest this appeal has effectively exploited lingering resentments that the DNC, under President Clinton, abandoned the red states. "Obama has made it absolutely clear he's committed to the 50-state strategy, and the Clintons obviously aren't," says Nebraska party chairman Steve Achepohl, who endorsed Sen. Obama last week. "That's a major factor for all the party people in smaller states."
So where does Clinton's lead come from?
When the year began, about 200 of the superdelegates had taken sides, most for Sen. Clinton. Her campaign, including Mr. Clinton, had quickly signed up Clinton-administration veterans, others on the DNC and elected officials in Arkansas and New York, so that she initially led Sen. Obama by more than 100.

But the Obama campaign correctly figured that she had gotten the easy pickings and that the rest were up for grabs. Once he began winning more states than she did, her endorsements slowed to a trickle, and her lead eroded to less than two dozen now.

This goes to what I've been saying, that even in states he's not likely to win outright, his presence and infrastructure will help the candidates down ballot and start to build a party that can one day turn the state blue. That's how you build a party, not by plus minusing an election in a game you've already lost twice to Bush of all people...

This goes to what I've been saying, that even in states he's not likely to win outright, his presence and infrastructure will help the candidates down ballot and start to build a party that can one day turn the state blue. That's how you build a party, not by plus minusing an election in a game you've already lost twice to Bush of all people...

which again is one of the things i find most interesting about the obama campaign. it seems to take a real interest in strategy and securing gains in the future. it acts like a legit political party/movement, rather than the joke that dems have been since they scared off the racist fucktards.

speaking of which, hey, did you guys see how map-changing he is actually looking in the latest polls? almost nothing on his map is really playing defense of the kerry states, but he is instead within 1% in texas and new mexico, 3% in south fucking carolina, tied in north carolina and indiana, getting at least one of nebraska's ec votes, ahead in colorado and iowa. clinton, instead eeks out a win using the exact same old set of barely democratic 'swing states'

in what way, is Obama needing to talk about Wright? Obama said he disagrees. He said he said that the most agregious of the comments were inappropriate and condemnable. What else is he supposed to say? Should he call him a poopie-head?
He should call him a troll-brigade cheerleader!

Chillax dude. CH and I do this all the time. Just that its a refresher seeing him on the heavy end of the hammer being schooled by Jocabia, CNTOAN, you, and others, including me.

Relax my brother/sister.

Relaxation for 1. and it's brother/brotha.

Fun conspirecy theory for anyone who cares.

But now, it turns out, we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at....

who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.

But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Their supporter, Reynolds, helps arrange a speech by the outspoken and egocentric Wright which receives blanket national coverage to the disadvantage of Clinton's opponent. As Louis writes: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted."




http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/wrightsetup.html



Meh. Wouldnt put it past the Clintons. But Im not gonna start wearing the tinfoil just yet.

Your avoidance skills are impeccable. My question to you was:

Where in her comments does she state or even give the "impression" that "Iran DOES have nukes"?
I also stated in the same post:

Now, if you can provide me a direct quote where she claims that "she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point", then I will gladly retract my claim.
Even if we are referring to two different interviews, the fact remains that I asked you for a source or a direct quote. You haven't done that, because it will defeat your argument?

Instead of going off on a tirade, all you had to do was back up your talking points.

Recap:

So instead of being straight up and saying "Iran doesn't have a nuke", she gave a reply that both gives the impression that Irad DOES have nukes, but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point about how "tough" she is.
Do you have a direct quote that backs up these talking points?

Your avoidance skills are impeccable. My question to you was:

I said what gave me that impression in my initial post (that she didn't point out the question was impossible and she said they might consider nuking Israel in the next 10 years). Unfortunately, you're not even aware of those comments. You admitted it, suggesting I made them up.


I also stated in the same post:


Even if we are referring to two different interviews, the fact remains that I asked you for a source or a direct quote. You haven't done that, because it will defeat your argument?

The source has been given repeatedly. It wasn't a written interview. So you'll have to find a video if you wish to see it. The quote with context has been linked repeatedly. At this point you're not just ignorant, but willfully so.

You have both a source AND a direct quote. At this point, saying you're not sure if it happens requires willful ignorance. You're on the internet. You've been given a link, the sourcee of the quote and the quote.

Instead of going off on a tirade, all you had to do was back up your talking points.

A tirade? I demonstrated your hypocrisy. It's entirely relevant since we're talking about how Clinton supporters jumped all over a made-up claim that Obama would invade (that was the conversation), but ignore a direct statement that her response would be to "totally obliterate Iran".

Recap:


Do you have a direct quote that backs up these talking points?

I do. I gave it to you several times. Here it is again.

And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

That is a direct quote. It's from Good Morning America. There is my source and the quote. Here's the part where you astonishingly tell me I still haven't provided the source and the quote.

Incidentally, here is BOTH replying to the question.

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=876

Incidentally, Obama clarified saying that it would require a failure in order for them to get a nuke. Hillary, of course, rather just said "because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program" and then suggested if they did launch that we are capable of obliterating them when asked what "massive retaliation" means.

Hmmm... whatever stage? That's not saying they don't have a nuke. That's not saying they don't have a current program. That's saying whatever stage the program is in.

But, hey, those are just direct quotes with the questions she was asked.

Wow, Wright really was looking to bring Obama down for what he had said against Wrights comments. It must have really cut deeply when he insinuated that Wrights every statement isn't straight from the mouth of the Lord.

I think Obama is doing and saying the right things though.

I think this could be a perfect opportunity to really put distance between them by challenging Wright to a public debate. It would get huge media attention. Obama could tear into his statements and make him look like a fool because the general public doesn't just take Wright at his word as Wright believes his congregation did.

Wow, Wright really was looking to bring Obama down for what he had said against Wrights comments. It must have really cut deeply when he insinuated that Wrights every statement isn't straight from the mouth of the Lord.

I think Obama is doing and saying the right things though.

I think this could be a perfect opportunity to really put distance between them by challenging Wright to a public debate. It would get huge media attention. Obama could tear into his statements and make him look like a fool because the general public doesn't just take Wright at his word as Wright believes his congregation did.

Not tear into him. That's not his way. However he could very easily just challenge some of the notions.

No, I meant as in shedding light on the silliness, not angrily attack him, but rather question Wrights tin foil hat ideas. I'd ultimately like to see him get Wright to see his side of things and agree with him that what he is saying is racially divisive.

No, I meant as in shedding light on the silliness, not angrily attack him, but rather question Wrights tin foil hat ideas. I'd ultimately like to see him get Wright to see his side of things and agree with him that what he is saying is racially divisive.

Eh. People would assume it was staged.

Eh. People would assume it was staged.

Not if it was genuine, IMO.

I said what gave me that impression in my initial post (that she didn't point out the question was impossible and she said they might consider nuking Israel in the next 10 years). Unfortunately, you're not even aware of those comments. You admitted it, suggesting I made them up.
No, this is what you said (bold and colour emphasis mine):

So instead of being straight up and saying "Iran doesn't have a nuke", she gave a reply that both gives the impression that Irad DOES have nukes, but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point about how "tough" she is.
You were reluctant to supply me with a direct quote, and certainly supplied no link. You supplied a partial quote that didn't support your claim. You told me that it was a quote from a Chris Cuomo.

Well, I found the transcript part, plus the video. Here is where your argument flies off the track (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-considerin.html):

CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be 'massive retaliation." Scary words. Does 'massive retaliation" mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.
After comparing your comment with the actual quote, it is easy to see that you truly took her out of context and that my claim that you were being melodramatic was right on the money.

No, this is what you said (bold and colour emphasis mine):


You were reluctant to supply me with a direct quote, and certainly supplied no link. You supplied a partial quote that didn't support your claim. You told me that it was a quote from a Chris Cuomo.

No, it was a reply to a question from Chris Cuomo. The quote was of her. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

Meanwhile, my claim was that she claimed she'd kill every civilian, which fits perfectly with "obliterating Iran". Amusingly, Obama did exactly what I said would be reasonable, he mentioned the question was silly because they don't currently have nukes and we should talking about preventing that from happening.



Well, I found the transcript part, plus the video. Here is where your argument flies off the track (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-considerin.html):


After comparing your comment with the actual quote, it is easy to see that you truly took her out of context and that my claim that you were being melodramatic was right on the money.

Um, I gave you that quote several times. Who do you think you're fooling? Now, you're just straight out lying.

She specifically calls her own response terrible. "That's a terrible thing to say." She specifically refers to obliterating Iran as an explanation of her "massive retaliation". She also specifically says we don't know what state their program is in, the opposite of your claim.

But, hey, of course, you're dismissing it. It's not like it's the first time we've proven you a hypocrite. Time for some quotes.

Hmmm... did I refuse to offer the direct quote? Let's see...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13655343&postcount=1048

Well, maybe I only quoted her that once.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13652918&postcount=1028

I mean twice.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13653019&postcount=1031

Oh, well, that's only three times.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13653008&postcount=1030

Oh, well, only four times since twenty-four hours ago. Gee, you're right, I absolutely refused to offer the exact quote you eventually provided. Shall I point to the various times that quote has been provided in news articles in this thread next?

And the coup de grace. Time for an examination as to the honesty of your argument.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13475239&postcount=363

Hehehe. Hypocrite. Most amusingly. Let's see. What is closer?

And once again he is stating his willingness to attack terrorist camps within Pakistan, if Musharraf will not take action himself; at no point does he state that he will definitely invade Pakistan.
He is playing you like a fiddle.
He's playing me like a fiddle? I think not, I am not an Obama supporter, I have simply been pointing out the fact that you are twisting his words to suit your own ends.
No, they are his words and he has to live with them. I don't think diplomacy is his strong suit.

Several DAYS later you admitted they weren't in fact his words.

Now let's compare that to what I said.
Most people would call that lying. So instead of being straight up and saying "Iran doesn't have a nuke", she gave a reply that both gives the impression that Iran DOES have nukes, but also that she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point about how "tough" she is.

So I said her statements "give the impression" of what I said and in order to be correct I have to quote her using the specific words. Perhaps you don't know what "give the impression" means, but it's not the same as "they are HIS words". Hehe.

Oh, and what did she really say?

And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

I wonder what happens to civilians when you 'totally obliterate' a country. I wonder what she meant when she said that in the next 10 years Iran 'might foolishing consider launching an attack'. Boy, I sure stretched that statement.

A tirade?
Yeah, a tirade. That is what I would call the following:

Oh, look, what a surprise. You jump right over all the arguments to call more people names. That hardly ever happens.

Like I said, no one expects you to suddenly be honest or consistent.

That is the context or do you not know what context is.

You, my dishonest friend, are so easy to bait into hypocrisy that it's just too easy.

I can't help if you don't know how definitions work, but they reflect the COMMON usage. But keeping telling me that lying doesn't mean lying. It wasn't amusing enough the first time.

It's not irrelevant to your hypocrisy.

See the problem here is one of ignorance. Her quote about "obliterating" Iran was not from that interview. I gave you the quote. Look it up.

Amusing. Kind of like the entirety of your response for several pages being "troll". I called you a hypocrite and dishonest because you are one and you are. You reply by proving me right.

Again, wrong interview, Bubba. What she said is quoted in my post. Read it. Educate yourself. Ignorance is to knowledge like dark is to light. Here's knowledge. Shine on.

Don't blame your ignorance on me.

I would want to forget were I you. Especially since, I've proven just how silly you can be. I've refreshed your memory and everyone else's. Your rather sad attempts to obfuscate are exposed.

Now, for those playing along, notice what we see here.

1. Canuck calls several people names, calls them trolls for pointing out his rather spurious history on some of these issues, history very similar to the attacks he makes on other posts.

He then complains when I point out that requiring me to provide an exact quote stating the precise words I said were my impression is dishonest and hypocritical and provide evidence for why it's dishonest and hypcritical.

2. He asks for an exact quote when I say her statements "give the impression" but argued for weeks that Obama would "invade Pakistan" and claimed they were Obama's words.

3. He calls things irrelevant if they hurt his argument. Pretty common. I bet I could quote it no less than a dozen times, representing about half of his posts. The other half call people names and offer no substance.

4. Notice that when we are talking about the Chris Cuomo interview of Hillary, he quotes an entirely different interview to claim I misrepresented what she said. In the Cuomo interview she pointed out that Iran might consider nuking Isreal, and that we had the ability to obliterate them and said in the same interview that we would if they did.

(a summary for you, since his other rather obvious tactic is to break a post up into so many repetitive parts that no one will read it. Why? Because if he does, then no one will notice he's not debating.)

And here is what Hillary actually said, for those who are curious as to whether I'm exaggerating -

Of course, but I tend to pull out the lantern and expose the dark corners where he hides. I utterly despise the kind of tactics he's using (note: this is not the same as despising him). Ducking and dodging the facts isn't debating. It's not even rhetoric. I quite enjoy exposing it for what it is.
And after going through all that evasive behaviour, you didn't even have the courtesy to supply a link. Naw, that would have been too easy....or would it?

Hmmm... did I refuse to offer the direct quote? Let's see...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13655343&postcount=1048

Well, maybe I only quoted her that once.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13652918&postcount=1028

I mean twice.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13653019&postcount=1031

Oh, well, that's only three times.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13653008&postcount=1030

Oh, well, only four times since twenty-four hours ago. Gee, you're right, I absolutely refused to offer the exact quote you eventually provided. Shall I point to the various times that quote has been provided in news articles in this thread next?
You supplied a partial quote, and when I asked for the source, I wanted a link. The partial link did not support and still does not support your argument. Unless of course you like taking people out of context?

Yeah, a tirade. That is what I would call the following:

And after going through all that evasive behaviour, you didn't even have the courtesy to supply a link. Naw, that would have been too easy....or would it?
Actually, I supplied several. But then you also claimed I refused to supply a direct quote.

And how honest is your claim that I didn't have the courtesy to supply a link?

Incidentally, here is BOTH replying to the question.

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=876

What's the next accusation? I don't have a nationstates nation?


I love when you play this little game, because you always lose. So. My turn...

I see the troll brigade has a straggler. Grab your pom poms and get in line. :p

Ahhh.....it looks like the regular trolls are out in full force.

Ahhh, if challenged in a debate, toss out a few insults. That should work. That should help you win the debate? :rolleyes:

...

Another salvo huh?

....

Too easy? Too easy for you to fling about insults...yes indeed.

Your avoidance skills are impeccable.

So you can cry all you like about "tirades" but you're not fooling anyone.

You supplied a partial quote, and when I asked for the source, I wanted a link. The partial quote did not support and still does not support your argument. Unless of course you like taking people out of context?

Hehe. A partial quote? We've been talking about the interview for days. We've linked to news articles about it. We've told who gave the interview, in fact you quoted me giving his name. We've told you where the interview was given. And most recently I gave you a link with the transcript of the comments and videos of both her comments and Obama's reply to both the comments and the question.

You claimed I refused to give a direct quote no less than half a dozen times a day after I'd given the quote four times. You claimed I refused any links despite there being a link to the origins of those comments on about every other page of the last ten pages of this thread. You implied I made up the quote despite it being the specific point of the conversation and already having several links to stories on it in the thread.

You, like us, linked to a news article on it (actually a blog). You added nothing new. You offered no new evaluation of her comments. All you did was lie for 24 hours about me, about others, about what she said, about what you said and about what it implies. So complain all you like, but what happened here is obvious to all.

You supplied a partial quote, and when I asked for the source, I wanted a link. The partial quote did not support and still does not support your argument. Unless of course you like taking people out of context?

I have been reading this discussion for several pages now.

CH you have missed the link that supplies the information several times, either deliberatly or perhaps accidentally in your rush to carry on the argument. Here it is for you again;

Link for article mentioned before (http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=876)

Personally as a UK citizen who's watched snippets of the coverage from the US, I find it hard to get beyond Hilary's 'mispeak' claim. I couldn't trust anyone who felt they could do that, or anything they said afterward.

Which is backed up in this discussion as one quote says she will do one thing to Israel and then with the other 'if' they do.

And the coup de grace. Time for an examination as to the honesty of your argument.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13475239&postcount=363

Hehehe. Hypocrite. Most amusingly. Let's see. What is closer?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with our argument on this thread. Stay focused.

You posted this earlier in this thread, or had you forgotten?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with our argument on this thread. Stay focused.

You posted this earlier in this thread, or had you forgotten?

I guess you missed what we were talking about when you jumped in, huh? Not the first time. You didn't even know what interview we were talking about or that we'd linked to the quotes and relevant references several times.

That you are dishonestly claiming I'm hyperbolizing her statements that if she were President and Iran nukes she'll nuke back when you claimed that Obama was going to "invade Pakistan" in his own words and claimed that wasn't hyperbole is quite relevant. So keep accusing me. I'll keep proving exactly how honest you're being. Every single time you make the accusation, I'll point out the comparison. You're welcome.

CH (paraphrased): "Stop pointing out that I've been proven to make dishonest assertions in the past. It's not relevant to whether I'm making dishonest assertions now."

So you remember what debate you jumped into -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13653104&postcount=1036
Also notice this post includes a link that sparked the debate including sourcing the interview and mentioning that it was a reply to Chris Cuomo (long before you claimed you didn't know the source of the quote and tried to claim we were discussing a different interview. Whoops, there's that evidence again.)