• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Et tu Maureen?

ksen

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee.html?_r=0

Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don’t shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.

You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda,” repeating the Bush administration’s phony case for war.

If you want to carry the G.O.P. banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky.

As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, “the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee.”

And that’s how Republicans prefer their crazy — not like Trump, but like Cheney.
Click to expand...

Ouch.

Didn't Maureen Dowd used to like the Clintons?
 
ksen said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee.html?_r=0

Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don’t shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.

You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda,” repeating the Bush administration’s phony case for war.

If you want to carry the G.O.P. banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky.

As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, “the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee.”

And that’s how Republicans prefer their crazy — not like Trump, but like Cheney.
Click to expand...

Ouch.

Didn't Maureen Dowd used to like the Clintons?
Click to expand...

What bullshit. Trump wants to send in 30,000 US troops in Syria. Sorry, but I'm going to challenge propaganda as much as I can:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-30000-troops-isis/

Dowd has had a 21 year feud with HRC. During that 21 years, 72% of her articles on HRC have been negative. 9% have been positive. To answer your question, no Dowd is not a fan of HRC.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-r...ongstanding-animosity-towards-Hillary-Clinton
 
Dowd is the NY Times gift to the RW, especially wrt the Clintons.

She likes to feminize Dem prez candidates; she said Gore was "practically lactating". Obama was "Obambi", and Edwards was the "Breck girl".

She's best ignored.
 
Didn't Maureen Dowd used to like the Clintons?
Click to expand...

History has shown the damage done to many by the policies of putting corporate interests over the interests of ordinary working people endorsed and carried out by the Clintons.

They are not what anybody would call "New Deal" Democrats.

They are corporate Democrats.

Fuck working people I need money to run my campaign.

But fucking working people over always with a smile.
 
untermensche said:
Didn't Maureen Dowd used to like the Clintons?
Click to expand...

History has shown the damage done to many by the policies of putting corporate interests over the interests of ordinary working people endorsed and carried out by the Clintons.

They are not what anybody would call "New Deal" Democrats.
Click to expand...

This guy does. Hillary's New Deal: How a Hillary Clinton Presidency Could Transform America - Rolling Stone

Coincidentally, he also talks about Dowd.

The administration also persevered despite baseless vitriolic attacks on First Lady Hillary Clinton. A chief source of the character assassination, interestingly, was The New York Times, which legitimized the caricature of Clinton in the political mainstream, distant from the fever swamps of the right and left. William Safire, the former Nixon propagandist, filled his Times columns with anti-Hillary calumny, most notably in a column in 1996, when, with no apparent evidence, he blasted her over the Whitewater pseudoscandal, calling her "a congenital liar" who "had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends." Under editorial-page editor Howell Raines, the Times became something of a whipping post for the Clintons. Maureen Dowd outdid herself and everyone else on Hillary (as she continues to do today), writing scores of columns attacking the Clintons as a couple – "like a virus or an alien that needs a host body to survive" – and Hillary above all, as a power-hungry cynic and a betrayer of feminism who with her husband had "chosen tactics over truth with such consistency that it's impossible to accept anything they say." Thus was established the abiding myth of Hillary Clinton as a deceitful harridan, a fiction that seems to have become hard-wired in our politics despite all the evidence to the contrary, including the recent report by the distinguished and authoritative fact-checking project PolitiFact that Clinton was the most truthful candidate, Democratic or Republican, in the 2016 primary season.
Click to expand...
 
blastula said:
untermensche said:
History has shown the damage done to many by the policies of putting corporate interests over the interests of ordinary working people endorsed and carried out by the Clintons.

They are not what anybody would call "New Deal" Democrats.
Click to expand...

This guy does. Hillary's New Deal: How a Hillary Clinton Presidency Could Transform America - Rolling Stone

Coincidentally, he also talks about Dowd.

The administration also persevered despite baseless vitriolic attacks on First Lady Hillary Clinton. A chief source of the character assassination, interestingly, was The New York Times, which legitimized the caricature of Clinton in the political mainstream, distant from the fever swamps of the right and left. William Safire, the former Nixon propagandist, filled his Times columns with anti-Hillary calumny, most notably in a column in 1996, when, with no apparent evidence, he blasted her over the Whitewater pseudoscandal, calling her "a congenital liar" who "had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends." Under editorial-page editor Howell Raines, the Times became something of a whipping post for the Clintons. Maureen Dowd outdid herself and everyone else on Hillary (as she continues to do today), writing scores of columns attacking the Clintons as a couple – "like a virus or an alien that needs a host body to survive" – and Hillary above all, as a power-hungry cynic and a betrayer of feminism who with her husband had "chosen tactics over truth with such consistency that it's impossible to accept anything they say." Thus was established the abiding myth of Hillary Clinton as a deceitful harridan, a fiction that seems to have become hard-wired in our politics despite all the evidence to the contrary, including the recent report by the distinguished and authoritative fact-checking project PolitiFact that Clinton was the most truthful candidate, Democratic or Republican, in the 2016 primary season.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Here's what I take from that nauseating emotion based piece.

The defeat of Clinton's health care reform paved the way for the election in 1994 of a more ideologically driven conservative Republican House majority, led by the new House speaker, Newt Gingrich.
Click to expand...

That's Hillary in a nutshell.

Ineffectual to the point of being dangerous.
 
ksen said:
Damning with faint praise?
Click to expand...

You mean because it's easy to do better than Sanders and the other liars?

Yes, they all lie, but some people act as she is uniquely dishonest and the worst of them all. They're wrong.
 
Hillary is not more truthful than Sanders.

If politifacts did determine that then they're full of shit.
 
untermensche said:
Here's what I take from that nauseating emotion based piece.

The defeat of Clinton's health care reform paved the way for the election in 1994 of a more ideologically driven conservative Republican House majority, led by the new House speaker, Newt Gingrich.
Click to expand...

That's Hillary in a nutshell.

Ineffectual to the point of being dangerous.
Click to expand...

Right, damn her for trying. But why should you care if it helped bring on a Republican Congress, since you think they're all the same anyway?

- - - Updated - - -

ksen said:
Hillary is not more truthful than Sanders.

If politifacts did determine that then they're full of shit.
Click to expand...

Right, don't let evidence get in the way of your bias.
 
blastula said:
untermensche said:
Here's what I take from that nauseating emotion based piece.

That's Hillary in a nutshell.

Ineffectual to the point of being dangerous.
Click to expand...

Right, damn her for trying. But why should you care if it helped bring on a Republican Congress, since you think they're all the same anyway?
Click to expand...

Is this a defense?

As ineffectual as a Hillary Clinton proposal.

Hillary did not come out for universal health insurance only.

She created a convoluted and contorted system to protect insurance corporations. A system for corporations, not people.

So it is not just trying and failing. It is harming the effort for universal heath insurance because you create a system that can easily be attacked as uselessly complex.
 
untermensche said:
blastula said:
Right, damn her for trying. But why should you care if it helped bring on a Republican Congress, since you think they're all the same anyway?
Click to expand...

Is this a defense?

As ineffectual as a Hillary Clinton proposal.

Hillary did not come out for universal health insurance only.

She created a convoluted and contorted system to protect insurance corporations. A system for corporations, not people.

So it is not just trying and failing. It is harming the effort for universal heath insurance because you create a system that can easily be attacked as uselessly complex.
Click to expand...

Now you're backtracking since you said she was ineffectual in reference to her plan being rejected. If you hated the plan, then you should be happy it failed your self-defeating purity test.

And you failed to answer why do you care if it helped bring in a Republican Congress when you believe there is no difference between the parties.
 
ksen said:
blastula said:
Right, don't let evidence get in the way of your bias.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-2016-democratic-presidential-candida/

Sanders Mostly True to True: 51.8%
Clinton Mostly True to True: 50.2%

I accept your apology.
Click to expand...

Meh, they were referencing a different point in time. Sanders and Clinton have been close in their percentages there and you're also probably be picking different categories for your tally.

It must bring you comfort that even using your number, Sanders is a whopping 1.6 points more truthful than the worst liar ever.
 
blastula said:
ksen said:
Uh huh.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-2016-democratic-presidential-candida/

Sanders Mostly True to True: 51.8%
Clinton Mostly True to True: 50.2%

I accept your apology.
Click to expand...

Meh, they were referencing a different point in time. Sanders and Clinton have been close in their percentages there and you're also probably be picking different categories for your tally.

It must bring you comfort that even using your number, Sanders is a whopping 1.6 points more truthful than the worst liar ever.
Click to expand...

Worst liar EVER? Not.
That honor goes to the rarely esteemed Donald Trump.
 
Should have used quote marks.

This reminds of hearing Robert Price ("Bible Geek" and Jesus myther) defending Trump on a podcast recently. He believes Trump is truthful and hates Clinton as much as anybody I've ever heard, especially that she's an inveterate liar.

It's made me question the objectivity of his positions on NT scholarship.
 
blastula said:
ksen said:
Uh huh.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-2016-democratic-presidential-candida/

Sanders Mostly True to True: 51.8%
Clinton Mostly True to True: 50.2%

I accept your apology.
Click to expand...

Meh, they were referencing a different point in time. Sanders and Clinton have been close in their percentages there and you're also probably be picking different categories for your tally.

It must bring you comfort that even using your number, Sanders is a whopping 1.6 points more truthful than the worst liar ever.
Click to expand...

Wanna bring it back down to earth some? I've never claimed she's the worst liar ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom