Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
43 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,900 Year: 18,936/19,786 Month: 1,356/1,705 Week: 162/446 Day: 58/104 Hour: 13/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help me find a hypocrite!
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 151 of 160 (416270)
08-14-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by nator
08-14-2007 11:19 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
You have used the expression "fuck you" on this board, rat.

I never got paid to say it, and I never said there was anything wrong with saying it.

That expression has nothing to do with rape. That was a bad comparison.

Look, you can read into it, anyway you want. And you are defending her.
I choose to read it the way I described, and I see her as a hypocrite.

I am sure if I dig, I could produce many more instances of her being a hypocrite, and a liar. She's a money/power hungry bitch IMO.

In her own words, she says she loves politics, and so does her husband(that's how they met). But loving politics, does not make you a good leader, what this country needs right now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by nator, posted 08-14-2007 11:19 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 08-14-2007 11:46 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 153 by kuresu, posted 08-15-2007 1:03 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 152 of 160 (416271)
08-14-2007 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by riVeRraT
08-14-2007 11:41 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
If I told you that I knew someone who was directly involved in international prostitution, what kinds of things would pop into your mind?

What sorts of things would you suppose this person might do in relation to international prostitution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 11:41 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-15-2007 1:33 AM nator has responded
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 08-15-2007 9:39 AM nator has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 153 of 160 (416285)
08-15-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by riVeRraT
08-14-2007 11:41 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
Then dig. I'm doing some.

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/sg_distro/comments/hillarys_hypocrisy_on_iraq/

This one is about how she said she would never vote against funding the war while troops are in danger, or vote for a specific withdrawal date. This article claims she has now done both. Whether this is real hypocrisy is a little difficult to tell. It's easy to see this being an oppurtunistic vote. It's also possible she's had a change of heart.

All the other stuff I'm finding about the hypocrisy of Sen. Clinton is built off of inuendo and a lack of understanding about how politics work.

I don't doubt that somewhere Sen. Clinton is a hypocrite. We all are, somewhere. The trouble is, all the supposed cases that I see are piss poor. None approach the quality of hypocrisy (or the solidness of the case) of people like Ted Haggard or the florida representative that helped start this thread.

The reason it might be so difficult to find solid cases of hypocrisy in the news online is because most who report the hypocrisy don't like Sen. Clinton to begin with (such as worldnetdaily), or they like her and don't want to tarnish her image.

Unlike science, politics is notorious at not removing bias.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 11:41 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by riVeRraT, posted 08-15-2007 9:40 AM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 159 by Jaderis, posted 08-15-2007 11:21 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3896
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 154 of 160 (416293)
08-15-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
08-14-2007 11:46 PM


Why does this message exist?
If I told you that I knew someone who was directly involved in international prostitution, what kinds of things would pop into your mind?

What sorts of things would you suppose this person might do in relation to international prostitution?

I haven't been following this topic very closely, but I can't begin to see the relevance of the above to the topic theme.

I think you need to answer the subtitle question, or perhaps you need to answer your own questions. Or perhaps you should withdraw the message. Such probably can and should be done in this topic.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 08-14-2007 11:46 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 08-15-2007 8:48 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 155 of 160 (416328)
08-15-2007 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Adminnemooseus
08-15-2007 1:33 AM


Re: Why does this message exist?
Well, What I thought I was doing was going back to the original subject that Rat brought up, which was that Senator Clinton is a hypocrite in the way that the OP describes.
His contention is that by accepting a campaign contribution from a rapper who uses the word "hos" in his lyrics, she and he are both personally participating in international prostitution.

I have challeneged that idea as ridiculous, but he has thus far refused to debate honestly.

This latest message of mine is an attempt to pin him down. Another angle, if you will.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-15-2007 1:33 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 156 of 160 (416345)
08-15-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
08-14-2007 11:46 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
What sorts of things would you suppose this person might do in relation to international prostitution?

Well, I know what I wouldn't do.

If I was a political figure, I would do my best to have no ties at all, directly, or indirectly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 08-14-2007 11:46 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by nator, posted 08-15-2007 10:41 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 157 of 160 (416346)
08-15-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by kuresu
08-15-2007 1:03 AM


Re: Hillary Clinton
The reason it might be so difficult to find solid cases of hypocrisy in the news online is because most who report the hypocrisy don't like Sen. Clinton to begin with (such as worldnetdaily), or they like her and don't want to tarnish her image.

Unlike science, politics is notorious at not removing bias.

True, very true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by kuresu, posted 08-15-2007 1:03 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 158 of 160 (416354)
08-15-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by riVeRraT
08-15-2007 9:39 AM


Re: Hillary Clinton
Avoidant and unresponsive reply.

If I told you I knew a person was directly involved in international prostitution, what sorts of things would you imagine they would do, in their directly involved capacity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 08-15-2007 9:39 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 159 of 160 (416359)
08-15-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by kuresu
08-15-2007 1:03 AM


Re: Hillary Clinton
This one is about how she said she would never vote against funding the war while troops are in danger, or vote for a specific withdrawal date. This article claims she has now done both. Whether this is real hypocrisy is a little difficult to tell. It's easy to see this being an oppurtunistic vote. It's also possible she's had a change of heart.

All the other stuff I'm finding about the hypocrisy of Sen. Clinton is built off of inuendo and a lack of understanding about how politics work.

Exactly. Congressmen vote against bills that they would have passed if it was worded differently, excluded completely unrelated amendments (like attaching controversial items or pork to an education bill, for instance) or any number of reasons. The downside is that your opponents then get to say that you are against the troops or our children or something silly because you could not accept the provisions, wording or amendments in the specific bill passed. That's politics for ya.

For example Hillary explains why she voted against the funding bill back in May in her blog. She states that she voted against it because it did not include a provision for phased redeployment which was in the original bill but rejected by Bush.

The page you linked to also does not provide any evidence that Sen. Clinton ever said that she would "never" vote against funding for the troops only that she said back in January that she wouldn't vote against it "right now." Furthermore, the quote used in that page does not indicate that in the next breath Clinton continued by saying "“But what I do want to do is to send a message to the Iraqi government — the funding for their security forces and personal security is at risk — and to send a message to the White House that there are certain conditions that we expect them to meet, or they have to come for new authorization for troops to remain in Iraq.” (NYTimes article.

This evidence is questionable at best and it is almost reminds me of that dumbass line used in '04 and '06 against Democratic candidates, especially Kerry - "I voted for the war before I voted against it." It doesn't mean that the people who are now against the war when they formerly supported it are hypocrites, it means they changed their minds about the war in light of all the evidence we now have that Bush and Co. lied to us. It also means they are a little slow on the uptake since I and many others figured he was lying to us from day one, but they can be forgiven for that.

In order to correctly gauge hypocrisy it is important not to rely on prejudiced sources.


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by kuresu, posted 08-15-2007 1:03 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 160 of 160 (416368)
08-15-2007 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by riVeRraT
08-14-2007 10:34 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
That source (I believe it is the same one that you used at the begining of this whole debate on Hillary) is probably not the best place to get your news, rat. Sorry to break it to ya.

I am not just going to dismiss it, however, since I found out who Ng Lap Seng is and what exactly he did.

He was a businessman from Macao who gave money to the DNC in 1994(which was returned). He is connected, as a business partner, to a Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie who schemed to get foreign businessmen, including Ng, to give him and his business money to contribute to the DNC "legally" since foreigners are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns. He also used other individuals as conduits for the foreign funds. Trie and his associates raised $2.2 million for the Democrats, including Pres. Clinton in 1996 and all of it was returned (as far as we know). Trie also contributed money to Clinton's legal defense fund, but that was also returned after the fund did an investigation.

According to a Congressional report "both Trie and Ng attended DNC-
sponsored events with President Clinton and made a number of
visits to the White House." Clinton was a friend of Trie's dating back to his time as governor when he frequented Trie's Chinese restaurant in Little Rock and Clinton also encouraged him to develop his other businesses. They remained friends and Clinton later appointed him to a Commission on United States-Pacific Trade and Investment which employed people with backgrounds in financial dealings/trade with East Asian entities (Trie ran an import-export business and had extensive ties to East Asian businesses). The website at the end of this post states that Trie didn't influence our foreign policy in any significant manner, if at all during his time on the Commission, although that was probably his goal.

The Congressional report makes note of Ng's ties to the Chinese government (as an advisor) and to his criminal activities in Macao (relabeling garments to circumvent import quotas). They make no mention of either of them being involved in international prostitution. In fact I can't find any mention of Ng Lap Seng being involved in international prostitution or in any major criminal activity anywhere except on the kinds of sketchy sites like the one you linked to. Some of the sites also mention NG as being involved in the Chinese organized crime syndicate, Triad, but the only mention of "Triad" in the Congressional campaign finance investigations is in reference to Triad Management Services which was a corporate shell group started by Tom DeLay and was found to be "channel[ing] millions of dollars from its backers to two tax-exempt groups it had established for the sole purpose of running attack ads against Democratic candidates under the guise of 'issue advocacy.'" (WaPo article on investigations). Maybe Ng really is involved with them or maybe your conspiracy sites just took the name of a company which made the Republicans look bad and decided to twist it into another unfounded conspiracy revolving around the Clintons.

The evidence just isn't there. And even if it was you would still have to show that the Clintons knew about Ng's involvement in such activities in order to show any wrongdong or hypocrisy.

So far all we have evidence for is that the Clintons and the DNC received money from some pretty shady guys. Most or all of it was returned and we have no evidence that they knew of the scheme at the time.

For further reading go here.

Edited by Jaderis, : fixed link


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 10:34 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019