Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's called LYING Mr. Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:40 AM
Original message
It's called LYING Mr. Obama
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 05:41 AM by wyldwolf
Candy Crowley of CNN asked Obama why years ago Obama said he did not know how he would have voted on Iraq if hed been in the U.S. Senate. Obama essentially confessed to lying.

CROWLEY: I want to talk about your Iraq speech, because have you also said since then that youre not sure what you would have done had you been in the Senate because you werent privy to the intelligence.

OBAMA: The only time when I said Im not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate was right before the Democratic convention, when we had two nominees that obviously I did not want to be criticizing right before they got up and received the nomination.

CROWLEY: But you didnt mean it?

OBAMA: So well, no. What Im suggesting is, everybody had difficult choices to make. And I and these were difficult choices.

Uh, its called lying, Barack.

Obama was even lying while he was lying. Was this lie The only time when I said Im not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate. Obama thinks that by confessing to a deceptive calculation he can get himself out of the corner he painted himself into while attacking others for political calculation.

No, Barack, it was not the only time:

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think shes the most disciplinedone of the most disciplined peopleIve ever met. Shes one of the toughest. Shes got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, shes somebody whos in this stuff for the right reasons. Shes passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So its not clear to me what differences weve had since Ive been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although Im always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didnt have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test. (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_on... )

Hillayis44
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. That second quote you referenced doesn't say he doesn't know how he would vote.
He is just explaining that he thought it was a bad idea, but maybe the other senators voted the way they did because of the intelligence they were given.

Nowhere in that quote does he say that he might have voted for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Is this going to be another Obama supporter "Greg Brady exact words" moment?
Certainly you can see that:

So its not clear to me what differences weve had since Ive been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although Im always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didnt have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.

...is a elaboration of "he doesn't know how he would have voted."

But maybe you can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. BUSTED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. yeah, but watch the spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. No - it's called RUNNING for office
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 06:16 AM by Apollo11
First of all - thanks for posting the New Yorker interview with Obama from November 2006. I am interested to read more about Barack Obama since his brilliant speech in Chicago on Tuesday. Until I heard and read that speech - I was not even an Obama supporter. So I am kind of new to defending him.

The case you are making does not stand up. It is certainly no "Slam Dunk".

Obama has consistently said two things:
1) Back in 2002, while Obama was a State Senator in Illinois, he spoke out against giving President Bush the prior authorization for invading Iraq, because he did not believe Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld - who were arguing that Iraq represented an imminent threat to its neighboring countries and to US allies in the mid-east.
2) Obama cannot be certain how he would have voted if he had been a member of the US Senate in 2002, because US Senators had access to additional information about Iraq's "WMD". Even if that information was wrong (as we now know it was). Also, members of US Congress are put under all kinds of political pressures.

He has made these two points repeatedly and consistently. He has not changed his story.

Edited to add:

OK so those words "The only time" turn out to be inaccurate.

But that doesn't mean Obama is a liar.

Maybe he doesn't recall everything he has said in the past 5 years?

The New Yorker interview is on the record.

Obama hasn't explicitly denied expressing uncertainty about how he would have voted if he had been a US Senator in 2002.

However, it looks like he might not be able to recall every occasion on which he gave a version of that answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. LOL! A Hillary supporter dredging up a year old story and referencing Hillarywishesshewas44...
all to call Obama a liar.

Oh...the sweet irony! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. LOL! Were the quotes created by that website? Can you dispute them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Look back in the archives, wyld. This shit's a year old.
Shall we start digging out all those "old" smears against (B)illary and ask you to defend them now?

Oh...you'll have to if she wins the nomination. Don't worry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. so anything more than a year old shouldn't be spoken of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Feel free.
What was the deal with those Rose Law Firm billing records anyway?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. ok, so why are you complaining?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. You didn't answer my question.
Try again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. you didn't answer mine. And I asked it first.
Try again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
43. The IWR vote was 4 years old, that doesn't seem to stop you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
49. "Shall we start digging out all those "old" smears against (B)illary and ask you to defend them now?
Let me ask...when has that stopped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murbley40 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
62. Jefferson;
I am not a Hillary supporter; however it becomes relevent,no matter how old it is since Obama
constantly uses the war vote and the fact that he was agaist it in his speeches and in the debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
10. Black Hole Calling The Kettle Black (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
13. I think candidates need to point-out differences with their opponents
In 2004, Barack Obama was supporting John Kerry and John Edwards and did not want to say anything that would look like it was criticizing their support for the Iraq War Resolution back in 2002.

In November 2006, Barack Obama was supporting all the Democratic candidates running for Congress. Why would he hurt his own party by pointing to intra-party political differences on the Iraq issue - in this case between himself and Senator Clinton? At that time, neither of them was a candidate seeking the Dem nomination for 2008.

Now it is 2007 and the situation is different. Barack Obama is seeking the Democratic nomination for the Presidential election in 2008. Now he has the right (and I would say the responsibility) to tell us what are the differences between his position and that of Hillary Clinton (who according to the polls is the current frontrunner).

All this proves is that Barack Obama is a TRUE BLUE DEMOCRAT who believes in getting behind our chosen candidates and not creating problems in the run-up to an important election.

My guess is that Obama believes deep down that he would NEVER have voted for the IWR, because he did not trust Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell to present intelligence in a truthful way, and because he believed that there were other less risky ways for the US to deal with the supposed "threat" presented by Iraq. Don't forget - in 2002 there were UN inspectors (led by Hans Blix) in Iraq who said they wanted more time to do their work.

So maybe he was wrong in 2004 and 2006 to NOT tell us that he would NEVER have voted for the IWR? I think he was trying to be helpful to the Democratic Party in the context of national elections.

But now we are in October 2007 and the American People need to know where the candidates stand, and how one candidate is different from another candidate.

What kind of a race would it be if the main challenger (in this case, Obama) was not allowed to tell the voters where he stands and how his judgement is different from the frontrunner (in this case, Hillary)? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
15. I don't think he's wrong in saying
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 06:28 AM by wlucinda
"the only time" because it doesn't reference the number of occasions, it references the context in which he said it. The only time he made those comments was in conjunction with his assessment of what was known and when, and how that might have influenced the Senate.

The problem I have with it, is that he now wants to sidestep and use it as a campaign issue. He's not wrong in doing it. He was not in the Senate and did not vote to support and can legitimately claim that fact. It just seems a litle disingenuous to me to be attacking with it.

I dont think it will be effective either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. Excellent - I wish media analysis was as deep as yours (I was complaining
about the lack of media analysis this morning)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
16. Let's call it a "tactical shift"
In the past, Obama saw no reason to publicly criticize Democrats in both Houses of Congress who voted in favor of the IWR back in 2002 - at a time when he was not yet in the US Congress.

But that was then and this is now.

Now Obama is running for President and so he has to tell the American people what he believes and where he stands. In the context of the current race, it has now become necessary for him to implicitly criticize those Senators and Members of Congress who voted for the Iraq War resolution.

But that's not the same as "lying".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
39. Obama is lying when he doesn't admit to people, Bush would have gone to war with or without a Vote.
But that would make the Cornerstone of his campaign irrelevant wouldn't it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. Lying is when you say something you know is not true.
Who knows if the invasion of Iraq would have gone ahead without a vote in both houses of Congress?

Certainly the Iraq War Resolution made things easier for Bush-Cheney.

Especially in the lead-up to the 2004 election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Lying is Lying by ommission...when you fail to tell the "WHOLE TRUTH"
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 09:05 AM by Tellurian
the Truth as you know it to be. Which is an indication of how Obama would administrate his presidency.

for people screaming "Open Government," Obama is not the model for Open Government.

We'd never know if he were telling the "entire" Truth regarding an issue or just enough to placate the masses, as he is doing right now in his campaign.

On edit:

During the last debate, Russert asked the candidates: Can you give me a date as to when you will bring the troops home? If you remember, all of them agreed they couldn't say, as they won't know the situation until they assume the presidency.

I saw a video yesterday of Obama speech in Iowa. He's changed his tune. He's telling the people in Iowa, he will start bringing the troops home the day after he's elected. (In his own words): TOMORROW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. If that is your definition of lying then we are all liars
It looks like you must get some kind of pleasure out of telling people than Obama is a liar.

You are a real credit to Hillary Clinton and her whole campaign ...

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. I'm no Liar...
Just put yourself on the witness stand and tell it to the judge. If you think for a moment that is not a serious defect in someone running for the presidency; then your powers of comprehension are seriously compromised. It's a gross violation of the Public Trust!

Was Gore ever caught in a Lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. "serious defect"?
Obama had the civility and class to refrain from openly questioning Hillary's judgement during an interview with New York media in the final days of her campaign for re-election to the Senate.

And here is a Hillary supporter trying to tell me that is a "serious defect"?

You should be THANKING Barack Obama for giving Hillary a helping hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. So, again you condone Obama's hiding of facts that *might* have made a difference
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 09:24 AM by Tellurian
in a re-election campaign. Whats-more, Hillary had a *real* opponent a Republican who brought up everything under the sink to discredit her chances of re-election. She won in a landslide.

So, tell me again how a candidate is allowed to LIE to the General Public because his name is Barack Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #56
63. Obama neither hid facts nor told lies
He was careful with his choice of words in a way that is consistent with his responsibilities as a Democratic member of the US Senate during the days leading up to the Congressional election in November 2006.

Maybe you would respect Obama more if he had called Hillary a "Bush-loving war-mongering b!+ch"?

But somehow I doubt it ... :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. If he had relevant facts that he didn't disclose that *might* have made a difference
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 10:00 AM by Tellurian
in the outcome of an election. That is the essence of 'lying by omission', *IF* it would have made a difference in the outcome of the election.

In other words, you're saying, Obama has no problem building political capital (favors) with politicians with or without their knowledge, in an unsaid,
QUID PRO QUO, for use on another day, when he would call in the favor for a favor of his own..

You are avoiding answering about Gore.

Has Gore EVER been caught in a LIE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #66
69. GORE-OBAMA is my dream ticket for 2008
And that's the TRUTH! B-)

Al Gore is on the same page as Barack Obama. They both spoke out against the march to war back in 2002.

Gore is a TRUE BLUE DEMOCRAT who does not make a habit of dissing other Dems.

But sometimes he does speak out, when the occasion demands it.

Like for example when Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean back in December 2003.

Gore publicly praised Dean for having the good judgement to oppose the invasion of Iraq.

I guess implicitly he was criticizing other candidates like Senator Kerry for their not-so-good judgement.

But then when Kerry won the nomination - Gore was very actively involved in his campaign.

So endorsing Dean in 2003, then supporting Kerry in 2004. Maybe you think Al Gore is a "liar"?? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #69
72. GORE would NEVER soil his hands joining with OBAMA..
Show me where AL GORE is on the same page with Obama!

You go off on a tangent changing the subject, bringing up other candidates that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

NICE TRY:

===="Maybe you think Al Gore is a "liar"??"===

No, don't ever attempt putting words in MY mouth to back your argument.

I asked, and I'll ask you again. HAS AL GORE EVER BEEN CAUGHT IN A LIE? And I'll continue to ask you, Why, when Obama promotes BOLD FACED LIES, they are acceptable to you?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Take a chill pill, Tellurian
I'm outta here for today ... B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. You're the one refusing to answer the question...
If fine with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
17. He didn't say he wasn't sure what he would do in that second quote where he was covering for Hillary
He just says that perhaps Hillary and others had access to intelligence that he didn't have which led them to a different choice.

Of course, we know know Hillary didn't read the NIE, so I guess that's not true. Hillary was just wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I agree -- Obama was helping Hillary in the days leading up to her re-election
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 06:33 AM by Apollo11
I just noticed that the New Yorker interview quoted in the OP was published just a few days before the November 2006 elections, when Hillary was standing for re-election to the US Senate.

Given the political circumstances and the sensitive timing, for Senator Obama to criticize her judgement in the New Yorker would have been unthinkable (and politically suicidal).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. If true, that kind of makes it worse for me
There are lots of ways out of making a negative comment. I'm not sure that saying something he didn't mean is a wise solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #19
30. Is it dishonest to fudge your answer?
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 07:38 AM by Apollo11
It's not like he was defending Hillary's vote on the IWR.

Obama has never said "I agree with the Senators and Members of Congress who voted for the IWR. I think they made the right decision on the basis of the intelligence that was available to them at the time."

What he HAS done in the past is kinda fudged the answer to avoid criticizing his colleagues.

On the one had - Obama believes in his heart that he would not have voted for the IWR.

On the other hand - he was not in the US Senate in 2002, so he cannot be certain about it.

The only thing that has changed is which side of the coin he choses to highlight.

So it means Obama has been guilty of maybe too much loyalty and not enough courage?

He has put the interests of the Democratic Party before his desire to speak the whole truth.

But that does not make him a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #30
73. Isn't that what we have now? A Fudging President?
A pretender of protecting the country when all along he wanted a WAR?

A candidate named Obama thats a NO SHOW for Senate VOtes?

If Obama lacks the COURAGE to take a stand on his PRINCIPLES... it means he has NONE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
20. Obama not my choice but your choice VOTED FOR THE WAR
and SUPPORTED THE WAR UNTIL QUITE RECENTLY.

I think you should continue this little smear campaign of yours. It makes your candidate look even worse than she normally does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
21. LOL! You are so desperate to try to hide Clinton's war postering...
I won't bother to post links to Obama's speeches and interviews before the Iraq War Resolution where he solidly would not have voted during the time for the war. You don't look at the stuff and you don't get it.

Your candidate VOTED for the war in Iraq AND now the possible war in Iran.

I like it when you're scared.

:rofl:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hard_Work Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #21
58. Hey, Zulch
Off topic, I just want to say that the pic in your sig is my dream ticket. Although I would be happy with either one of them as pres. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
22. With experience, Obama will learn how to deal with tough-as-nails Cindy
Off script, he's not so good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. With this? What about all of the other stuff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. honestly, Wesdem, have you insulted THESE posters --->
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Because if any Democrat said anything different
during a General Election, something that could have damaged the ticket - YOU would be the first one to call them on it. You know too much about politics for this horse shit simple minded psyop.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. so what you're saying is
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 07:36 AM by wyldwolf
... all the conspiracy mongering/thruthiness posts are ignored by you because it fits the level of those posting it? Right. "Horse shit simple minded psyop" is all DU is these days. Makes one wonder why we're (you included) are here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. I wonder why I'm here myself lately
Feh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #33
40. Anyways, about truthiness, not guilty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. a post by Quixote1818?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. uh... ok...
Did you:

Call any other poster an asshole? No. You chose my anti-Obama thread, out of a sea of hate hillary threads, to insult someone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. Jesus Christ
Enough with the tears already.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. Let me ask you this
Did it just seem safer to attack a Clinton supporter since there aren't as many here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. Give me a break
Since when do I attack "Clinton supporters"? Only never. I was talking to YOU, because one of the things I've admired about YOU, is that you speak your truth no matter who doesn't like it. In this case you are not. You know that Dems were giving cover for the IWR throughout the GE in 2004 and that's what Obama did. You know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. no, you give me a break
A sea of some of the vilest anti-Clinton crap on DU and you choose my post to comment on. And insult me for good measure.

SOMETHING made you pass on those threads and choose mine to wag your finger in. Wonder what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:28 AM
Original message
First of all, I am not responsible for every thread on this board
and don't even read all of them. Secondly, I have defended Hillary Clinton (and her supporters) many times. Third, if you wonder why my finger wagged maybe you should look at YOU.

Fourth, I'm out of here :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
59. First of all, no one said you were
You may not read all of them, but the numerous vile threads on Hillary are hard to miss. I don't think you have missed them.

Secondly, out of the sea of vile Hillary threads on the first page of this forum, you went after the lone anti-Obama thread. Wonder why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #59
64. I went after it because I'm sick of seeing it
Not just because it's total bullshit, although, that certainly. I have not said I have missed EVERY vile Hillary thread. I have said I have DEFENDED Hillary in vile Hillary threads. They are not the threads you want me in, apparently, but since I'm not supporting Hillary in the primaries, I don't see it as my job to go into every single anti-Hillary thread with a defense. That's your job. But you should do it with the truth. And the truth is that Obama was DEFENDING the Dem 2004 ticket, not lying. I just hate to see you being so lame, maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. So it took an anti-Obama post out of the sea of vile anti-Hillary posts to spur you to action
And the truth is that Obama was DEFENDING the Dem 2004 ticket

And when he said it in 2006?

But now he's KNOCKING Democrats for 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #23
61. Thank you. No matter what Obama said, Clinton voted FOR the war. Period. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uberllama42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
25. Don't you see the irony in criticizing Obama for lying
When your avatar is Clinton 42?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
28. Yeah, this is much worse than what Hillary did when she voted for the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
83. and all the other 'vile' bush/rw things she has gone along with.
good cripes I can't see how anyone who calls themselves a democrat can vote for her. What the heck are you smoking?
Something that interferes with memory, it seems.

She will Never get an ounce of my support because she went along with the Iraq war. I Do have a memory, and nothing, nothing will change on that. She is either fully complicit in these crimes, or a truly bad judge of character. Either one makes her a big loser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
32. A Hillary supporter accusing other candidates of lying?
That's rich.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
34. K & R for truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
36. Wyld- You are obsessed with Obama and it needs to stop.
It's not healthy, wyldie! Get a new hobby or do more exercise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
37. If Sen. Clinton wins the nomination she will not be able to win without the support of Sen. Obama's
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 08:04 AM by Douglas Carpenter
supporters and vice versa.

Is this kind of language helpful?

When all is done and said the differences of substance and actual policy between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are minor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Douglas Carpenter, did you also make that point - - - - ->
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #38
68. frankly, until now I never read those specific threads...but I did point out on a number of threads
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 10:16 AM by Douglas Carpenter
that as much as we in the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Obama for that matter and as much as we may oppose of some of their positions -- let's NEVER forget the catastrophic consequences of a Giuliani Presidency which would be an absolute nightmare:

Here are just a few relating specifically to Sen. Clinton's campaign I have posted to make that point in just the past few days:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
41. playing the game
The individual may have been at conflict with the party and made a choice on what do say based on that. Not nearly as bad as saying there are certainly wmds and then bombing a country. Lets try to sling mud on W. Any "lie" my senator has said so far pales in comparison to those of W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
57. And Hillary was LYING when she said that she trusted Bush
to exhaust all diplomatic options before going into Iraq. Or is her judgment so poor, she actually did trust Bush when she voted for the IWR?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
60. It's called trying to help his fellow Dems in the 2004 election
A lot of them, including the Presidential candidate, had voted for it and him being critical of them at that time would have harmed them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #60
70. and then again in the 2006 Congressional election
This is the part he forgot to mention to Candy Crowley on CNN.

According to Hillary's supporters, this makes Obama a "liar". :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
67. Hillary supporters calling out Obama about "lies"....not a very smart move...
..an obvious move, but not a smart one....

More bullshit from a serial bullshit artist....colour me surprised... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
71. Well, at least he explains why he's been skipping votes...
"casting votes is always a difficult test"

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
76. Sometimes it's not called lying...
A young lady at work asked me some time back if I thought the new dress she bought to wear for her anniversary was pretty. I said I thought it was.

Sometimes it's not called lying...

Although I've yet to either choose, or rule out a candidate yet, I'd never piss on someone's choice of candidate because from my perspective-- it would gleefully advertise the basest and most ugly parts of who I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewHampster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
78. Great find wyldwolf
As a confirmed Hillary supporter I will not comment or post further on this thread, unless I change my mind in which case you will have heard me wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
79. How Rovian of you to keep attacking an opponent's strength.
And it still doesn't change the fact that Hillary threw in with a resounding YES vote on the IWR for war and the Kyl-Amendment as a precursor for more war.
"And we need to ask those who voted for the war: How can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?"

* Barack Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
80. I must say, I'm disgusted by this post
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 07:05 PM by maximusveritas
and especially some of the comments from Hillary and Edwards supporters. Obama was covering for your candidates' support for the Iraq War when he made these statements. And this is what he gets in return? Being called a liar?

It's amazing to me that it's against the rules here to calll out another member's statement as a lie even if it was clearly a lie, but you can have a post on the Greatest threads list where you accuse a Democratic Presidential candidate of lying, when the evidence is clearly not there to support your charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. When Obama gets nominated...
I wanna see the reactions here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. I think most will fully support him when it happens
It's just that they are so committed to helping their candidates that they will resort to taking very cheap shots like this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
84. no, you are lying. he is not lying and this has been discussed over a year ago.
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 07:25 PM by illinoisprogressive
Maybe you should get your facts straight, first before making wild accusations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec 12th 2018, 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC