A question to supporters of Senator Clinton

[Voice for Peace]

How do you explain or justify her vote against the banning of cluster bombs?

I would sincerely like to hear your explanation for this. Thanks.

[rodeodance]

1. STOP WITH THE POSTS CALLING OUT CLINTON SUPPORERS--FLAIMBAIT

[redqueen]

3. You're joking, right?

This isn't calling out - this is asking a question.

Jesus.

[Voice for Peace]

4. Not flamebait -- I'd really like to hear the explanation. nt

Flaming or baiting isn't something I'm interested in.

[faithfulcitizen]

6. I DON'T LIKE ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON A DISCUSSION BOARD.

what the hell...

[cooolandrew]

31. He just asked a civil quesiont wooooo. He didn't make an accusation. Unless edited.

[purji]

2. if you talk about her votes or policies

you are just flame baiting.
I'd like to hear the rational my self.

[LizW]

5. I'll need more information before answering.

I need to see the full text of the bill, the date it was voted on, and a list of who voted aye and nay.

Got links to any of that? If not, then you are just flame baiting.

[Voice for Peace]

8. No, I am not flame baiting.

Here is a link:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ban+on+cluster+bombs+senate+vote&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


in case that doesn't work, just go to google and type in "ban on cluster bombs senate vote"

[ExtraGriz]

7. prob the same explanation as obama on HEAB

Obama disclosed the 2006 request on a long list of earmark requests his campaign made public today. The $8 million was for something called a "High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program." The request led to $1.3 million in funding for the program. According to the campaign's earmark disclosure, the defense project was overseen by General Dynamics, one of the nation's largest military contractors. Obama's Illinois finance chairman, James S. Crown, serves on the company's board of directors and his family holds a sizable stake in the company.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/13/a_military_earmarks_ties_to_th.html

i also would like to see an obama explanation for this.

[Voice for Peace]

11. thanks for the link. yeah, I can't justify that vote.

There's a lot I like about Obama but not everything. I do prefer him as a candidate to Clinton and have a lot of reasons for this but probably you don't want to know them -- in case you do, please pm me.

[ExtraGriz]

13. i grew up in a war

it wasnt a pretty sight to witness three men blown up in front of me, and having their body parts spattering all over my clothes..i was 7 at the time........war is evil, pure and simple. terrorist acts were quite common too, and trust me, its nothing similar to what you see in the movies.

[Voice for Peace]

22. Wow. Where did you grow up?

I wonder how people can ever get over those kinds of shocks.

[ExtraGriz]

30. saigon...the capital of s.vietnam

my mother was half french-half asian and my dad is an american...he was born and raised in maine. guess i'm a franco-amerasian :) no, you dont ever get over something like seeing people blown up in front of you, i've spent years in therapy to deal with the flashbacks and nightmares......but that was only the tip of the iceberg, cuz i also witnessed a few monks setting themselves on fire to protest the war, going to bed every night and hearing rockets and missiles flying over the house....using grenades and machine guns as toys, until my father caught me and hid them so i cant play with them anymore........so you know, now its ptsd on the brain.

[Voice for Peace]

32. Wow, I can imagine, no actually I can't, not really.

Thanks for responding, I am sorry for these experiences and their effect
in your life.

http://www.brainstatetech.com/

In case this is of any interest to you: these people are having much success
with treating ptsd. It's a relatively new application of neurofeedback, called
"brain state training" or brain balancing.

There are trauma imprints in the brain itself, and ptsd happens when the
brain reverts to those trauma networks whenever there is any real or imagined
threat to survival.. apparently this technology is a direct way to heal
trauma directly in the brain.

[ksquire]

33. wow ty for posting and ty for the link

in general -- this is an informative exchange -- thanks to both of you for setting it off.

[invictus]

9. How do you justify Hillary's vote for the Iraq War? n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. What's The Point?

It would be like trying to explain evolution to the creationist crowd. No real point there. You are set in your ways and have not the slightest interest in actually understanding someone else's point of view or perception anyway, so do you really think we'd be convinced you're looking for sincere discussion?

Sorry, but ya ain't really foolin anybody. Nice try though.

[Voice for Peace]

12. That's a fair accusation but not entirely accurate.

Since you don't know the way I think and view life I accept that you see
it that way. I am genuinely interested in how supporters of Hillary would
explain or justify that vote; or if they can't, how they frame their choice
nevertheless.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Like I Said:

I wouldn't feel any need to try and explain evolution to creationists either. Waste. Of. Time.

[Voice for Peace]

16. You and I think differently. If a creationist wanted to better understand evolution

I would be interested in that conversation.

I'm interested in human beings, how they think, and why, what brought
them to where they are, how they see things differently than I do.

It's not about being right. I would much rather learn something new than be
right. I find that I can learn something from anybody, it's up to me.

If I want to influence someone else's thinking, moreover -- which I usually
don't, actually -- but if and when I do, it's first incumbent on me to
understand the other's point of view.

Every single person in the world has a unique perspective on the world, on
the facts, on everything. Just as there are an infinite number of unique
points on a sphere, so the human perspectives.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. Just Cause You Say It, Don't Make It True.

Forgive me for not finding your intentions genuine for even an iota of a second.

[Voice for Peace]

18. OK.. I forgive you.

[dionysus]

19. I Guess You Can't Answer The Question...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. I Could Answer It, It's Just That Your Small Mind Couldn't Comprehend It.

That's why it would be such a waste of time.

[Voice for Peace]

24. Please try; give my small mind a chance.

[dionysus]

25. Wow, You Sure Are A Blowhard, But Without The Wit To Back It Up...

Aren't You Just The Coolest :eyes:

[Voice for Peace]

29. OperationMindCrime likes to keep everyone in their place.

It's probably a useful function on this forum.

[redqueen]

26. "Your Small Mind"

Lovely.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Explaining and justifying are different acts

I bet there are people on this board who can explain why the U.S. feels that it "needs" nuclear weapons but that is not quite the same as "justifying" them.

The simplist explanation is that by and large the U.S. military wants them to remain in our arsenal. You will find many otherwise humanistic politicians who will not stand in the way of the military getting the weapons that they feel that they need. Currently Russia, China, India and Pakistan build and stockpile cluster bombs also and oppose efforts to eliminate them, which makes it more difficult to refuse to fund the U.S. buying them.

I have heard it argued that, when used "properly", cluster bombs are effective but also less destructive of infrastructure that also serve civilian uses. In other words they are designed to "take out" concentrations of enemy troops closely gathered without also destroying buildings and bridges, water treatment plants etc. in the way that conventionsl explosives would if used around them. The current U.S. position is that they have a legitimate place in warfare if carefully targetted against identified concentrations of enemy combatants engaged in military operations.

Supposedly the U.S. is advocating some type of international initiative that would rid areas of cluster bombs after conflicts end.

[Voice for Peace]

20. Thanks, a good point about the difference

between explaining and justifying. I guess I understand the explanation
but haven't yet heard a justification that makes sense to me.

[usrbs]

23. Honestly, it certainly disturbs me

I think Hillary often leans too much to the right for political reasons.

But life is compromise and I'm not getting my perfect candidate. I believe, based on the trajectory of her career, and my personal impression, that she's a decent person at heart, so I trust she'll fall mostly on the moral side of things when / if in office.

[Voice for Peace]

27. Thanks very much

for a fair and honest response.

[redqueen]

28. Thank you for giving a rational, reasonable response!

:hi:

[SaveAmerica]

34. Holy cow!! An answer!! I might faint!!! THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING!!

I went to a gathering of Democrats where Hillary and Obama supporters were going to speak ask to why their candidates were best to be nominated as our candidate. As an Edwards supporter, I was looking forward to learning about what it was about their candidates that lit these guys up. I was so disappointed to hear the same kind of silliness you read in this forum everyday (If my candidate doesn't win we are doomed, doomed I tell you, and worse).

Your response was very nice to read, thanks again!

[usrbs]

35. Glad to be of service

And thanks for your response.

I was fully expecting sarcastic replies about IWR and monstrosity.

Maybe there is hope that we can discuss issues calmly and without invective.