--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, > > I believe in a Judy who addresses issues. Where is she now? > I raised several concepts that you've simply brushed aside > as "idiotic." > > That's a personal comment about my brain's ability to be logical > that is unfounded by anything I've ever posted here.
Well, er, I disagree that it's unfounded by anything you've ever posted here. <snip> > So for you to use the word "idiotic" has > me thinking that I've got you on the ropes if you're just throwing > "blurbs from other minds" and nurturing unprovable fears about > Obama at me as you've done in the two posts you sent so far. The "blurbs" weren't in response to your post, Edg. Only the one in which I quoted your post to me and responded in my own words. As to my being "on the ropes" about your Hillary/Bill qualms, let's look at your list: a. 11th hour pardons of Bill b. Bill's do-nothingness about the African genocidal slaughter c. the sleazoid business dealings d. the hundreds of "people who associated with Bill" that died in mysterious manners/timing e. the blow job f. the "didn't inhale" g. the "definition of 'is'" h. Bill's using of presidential coattails and breaking of tradition and quasi-co-candidacy campaigning i. the general all around same-ol-same-ol political pork and smoke-filled-backroomizing of these two smarmy money-rats I don't think a, e, f, or g have a whole lot to do with anything and certainly don't qualify as reasons to reject Hillary. The one that really provoked the term "idiotic" is d. b and c are at least discussable with regard to Bill's presidency but don't have anything to do with Hillary's candidacy. I'm not really sure what you have in mind by h. If you hadn't added "of these two smarmy money-rats," i might be worthy of discussion regarding Hillary's candidacy. If you want to discuss i without the automatic assumption that Bill and Hillary are "smarmy money- rats," let me know. > The below quotes ignores Hillary's failures in the past to > "guide/lead/influence" congress. "Lead," definitely. But she's done quite a bit of guiding and influencing, and Obama has done even less than she has in the way of leading, so her failure to lead doesn't give Obama any points. Remember, if we want a Democrat in the White House, we have only two choices. <snip> > But to endorse Hillary by saying she's the only one who can face > the repugantcans' when the war funding, the wire tapping, the > destruction of the Bill of Rights are all issues that she's taken > no leadership position about. Neither has Obama. Remember, only two choices. How well would each of them do when they become *the* leader? Where's Hillary saying she'll > repeal/undo/negate all the presidential powers that Bush has > simply made "law" by fascistic edict? Hillary responded to a questionnaire from ace political reporter (and Pulitzer winner) Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe regarding her positions on a bunch of issues. Here are her responses on presidential powers: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ClintonQ A/ http://tinyurl.com/2slfo3 <snip> > She as corrupt as can be. I cannot for the life of me figure why > she's fooled you. I don't automatically swallow any accusation the right wing hurls against her, Edg. You do realize a lot of what you're spouting are right- wing talking points about her, don't you? <snip> > Now, here's a reason to support Hillary that I wish you'd get > into Judy: that she's a woman and that despite the many examples > to the contrary, women in general are far far more sensitive to > the abuses of men, and men have been raping this planet for 10,000 > years. I think she'd be very good for women's interests as president. Whether she'd be better than Obama, I couldn't say. I think he's a pretty strong feminist too. But I have more faith in her ability to get things done for women than he does. I don't want to see her making speeches demonizing men, though. That would turn me right off.
