Oh, missed it. You said: > > The one that really provoked the term "idiotic" is d.
d. Yeah, that is a conspiracy-nutter thingie, and it didn't belong on my list nearly as much as the other issues cited. But read that list of those who died, and it stinks I tell ya. I know about the statiticall likelihood of any president knowing someone who dies is HUGE, just because any president will necessarily "know" ten thousand supporters, associated, enemies, etc. So I expect such a list could be made for any president, but given all the other sleazy aspects of Bill, emotionally speaking, I find the list germane or at the least a karma-esque tell about what to expect in the future if any more Clintons get into office. And dismissing anyone who is a conspiracy nut by using the word "idiotic" without first seeing if there's any room for re-education of the unreasonable fears of the nut, is a rush to judgment that I simply didn't deserve. I know how crazy my resonance with conspiracy theories are, and that's why I air them here -- to get my balloons deflated if possible by calmer minds. But calling my ideas idiotic just because you're tired of the issue or not wanting to take on the burden of disabusing me of my paranoia is a cheapass trick. Just tell me that you don't think it's worth your time, or that I'm sure to "not get it," but stoop the name calling. Edg --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My replies in blue: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung no_reply@ 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. > > Want to re-start old debates? Fine with me, but to just assert without > proofs or examples that I have been supporting idiotic positions is > un-Judy-like, and if you're saying that I am indeed an idiot -- meaning > "low IQ," well, fuck you. > > I often shoot from the hip, and that's not a good thing, but for you to > summarize the productions of my mind so grossly while being an IQ > elitist is not doing your image here any favors. If I really am low-IQ, > then shame on you, right? But I'm not, and you know it, so pick better > words for your descriptions of me. > > > > > <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. > > Hillary is Bill when it comes to issues and tactics and power and money. > > a. The 11th hour pardons could not have been done without Hillary's > input on all of them. They're as much hers and his decisions. > > e. The blow job shows that Bill's someone who can live with a > disconnect -- seen in his fiddling while Africa burns too. Hillary > forgiving him is a woman's right, but given how much it would cost her > to have dumped him, I cannot see how one could expect that "woman's > right to forgive" was the operative dynamic -- her lust for power surely > seems to be the main reasons for her to stick to Bill. > > f. If Bill still insists that he didn't inhale, then he's still lying > to the public about something that Obama and many others, EVEN GEORGE > BUSH, have been able to handle politically with forthright confessions. > It shows a basic willingness to spin rather than to achieve closure or > clarity. If Hillary puts up with this guy, she has to be resonant with > the same diversionary tactics. > > g. The definition of "is" shows that Bill cannot abide with being human > and fess up when so much money and power is at stake. Again, if Hillary > can still live with this guy, she has to be resonant with his methods. > If she's not, she should divorce the guy, since it is such a sign of low > integrity. > > > > > 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. > > b. China hires Arabs to hack a million women and children to death, and > Bill was silent. Where was Hillary's heart? She'll do the same damned > thing. She's silent right now about it. > > c. The Clinton business deals go to core morality. Hillary made a ton > of bux from insider info, but Martha Stewart had to do time behind bars > for the same crime. > > > > > > I'm not really sure what you have in mind by h. > > h. Who are we kidding? Bill wants to run the U.N. as "president of > the world." No ex-president in history has stumped on the campaign > trail like Bill is doing. It's low, and Hillary has only seemingly > pulled back on his reins when the press snarks at him about it. First > Bush didn't campaign anywhere near to what Bill is doing for his son W. > That's integrity! > > > If you hadn't added "of these two smarmy money-rats," > > i might be worthy of discussion regarding Hillary's > > candidacy. > > Okay, so I threw a negative blurb at them. Given the many open > questions about the morality of these two, it is to be expected. For > you to latch onto my excesses without addressing the meat and potatoes > is a tell that you really are, as I said, on the ropes. > > > 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. > > Failure to lead sure doesn't qualify her for office, and I'll take the > devil I don't know over her brand of poor leadership. > > > 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? > > There's no way that Hillary gets into the White House with a landslide, > but Obama's got a chance to ride a huge wave of "yes we can" that could > possibly scare the elitists enough to undo a lot of the BushCo > abuses....and not incidentally: keep Obama honest and held to his > promises. > > > 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 > > I read this article and find most of her answers "okay," but there's > some real slippery replies. > > > <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? > > I don't care who is championing integrity. I've defended my points > above, so it doesn't matter who else might agree with me -- just answer > MY objections with truth -- not with "oh, you're with the bad guys." > > > <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. > > Okay, me too, but I'm counting on Obama's wife to hold his feet to the > fire on these issues -- she's got class dripping off of her. I'd vote > for her instead of Obama! > > > I don't want to see her making speeches demonizing > > men, though. That would turn me right off. > > >
