Hillary accepted and signed DNC rules barring MI & FL delegates if they moved their primaries up

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
On this forum anybody who dares say anything against Obama is trolling.

We could all be one big happy family if we'd just listen to you Obamaites.

Hey, look at this little spin trick you learned from McOwen! You pulled it off quite well, considering that I didn't think that anyone else here would be stupid enough to copy it so exactly to the way Dave does it.

I called you a troll because your post was so ridiculously inaccurate and inflammatory, and I would have done so regardless of who or what candidate you were speaking against. You were clearly just fishing with your comments of "taxation without representation" applying to a PARTY PRIMARY, or hate comments like the "nuttieness of [Obama] supporters" or "Mr. Change need to change his underwear because he's shit in them again."

Oh, but wait, there was nothing inflammatory or trollish about those comments... what was I thinking! :roll:

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk
-snip-
The rules said nothing about pulling off a ballot. They did however agree not to publicly campaign in those states and Obama was the only one to run an ad that appeared in FL.

We're talking about the "4 State Pledge" here.

It said no "participating in the primary", and also said "no campaigning". Two things, not just one.

By putting/leaving her name on the ballot she broke her pledge. Having your name on the ballot is "participating".

Fern

Obama breaks pledge and holds press conference in FL

We already went over this. Obama was the one who broke the pledge by campaigning in Florida with his press conference pandering to voters there promising to seat their delegates if he was the nominee. The part I really am disturbed about is that Obama claimed he sign something he didn't read.

Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. ? If that's the case, then we won't do it again."

This on top on his campaign's claim that someone filled out a questionnaire for him that said he supports a total ban on handguns in Illinois. What kind of President are we going to get in Obama if he is signing things he isn't reading? Details aren't important?

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
What kind of President are we going to get in Obama if he is signing things he isn't reading? Details aren't important?

Couldn't the same question be asked of Sen. Clinton regarding her not reading the NIE report?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: chowderhead
What kind of President are we going to get in Obama if he is signing things he isn't reading? Details aren't important?

Couldn't the same question be asked of Sen. Clinton regarding her not reading the NIE report?

She was fully brief on that report by the people who wrote it. People who read it like Jay Rockefeller still went ahead and voted for the authorization.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: chowderhead
What kind of President are we going to get in Obama if he is signing things he isn't reading? Details aren't important?

Couldn't the same question be asked of Sen. Clinton regarding her not reading the NIE report?

She was fully brief on that report by the people who wrote it. People who read it like Jay Rockefeller still went ahead and voted for the authorization.

Obama may have been briefed as well.

My point is that if you want to make an argument of one person not reading something and questioning their leadership ability, at least be fair in scrutinizing all.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: chowderhead
What kind of President are we going to get in Obama if he is signing things he isn't reading? Details aren't important?

Couldn't the same question be asked of Sen. Clinton regarding her not reading the NIE report?

She was fully brief on that report by the people who wrote it. People who read it like Jay Rockefeller still went ahead and voted for the authorization.

Obama may have been briefed as well.

My point is that if you want to make an argument of one person not reading something and questioning their leadership ability, at least be fair in scrutinizing all.

State senators are briefed on NIE's?

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

State senators are briefed on NIE's?

I was referring to the issue of Sen. Obama holding the FL press conference.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Doesn't matter. Both democrat candidates are only willing to do what is more politically expedient for themselves. Hillary wants them counted because they would give her delegates. Obama does not want them counted because they would be for Hillary.

But only Obama's position requires no rule changes, so you can't really fault him for it. He wants the election to keep going as was agreed, Clinton is trying to change things for her benefit. I don't see them as being ethically equivalent in this situation.

Sort of like saying a motorist and carjacker and equally at fault at trial, since they are both doing what is best for themselves (the carjacker to get a free car and avoid jail, the motorist to keep his car and to put away the carjacker). However the only one trying to change the rules is the carjacker.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
On this forum anybody who dares say anything against Obama is trolling.

We could all be one big happy family if we'd just listen to you Obamaites.

Hey, look at this little spin trick you learned from McOwen! You pulled it off quite well, considering that I didn't think that anyone else here would be stupid enough to copy it so exactly to the way Dave does it.

I called you a troll because your post was so ridiculously inaccurate and inflammatory, and I would have done so regardless of who or what candidate you were speaking against. You were clearly just fishing with your comments of "taxation without representation" applying to a PARTY PRIMARY, or hate comments like the "nuttieness of [Obama] supporters" or "Mr. Change need to change his underwear because he's shit in them again."

Oh, but wait, there was nothing inflammatory or trollish about those comments... what was I thinking! :roll:

Oh please give me a little credit, I'm older then Dave so he must have learned it from me.

If my comment about taxation without representation is so far off base then argue the merits of it instead of attacking me and backhandly trying to call me stupid. Or perhaps I'm not so far off the mark??

I may be "stretching" it a little, but I'm not wrong. Florida and Michigan are getting raked over the coals and if I was a Hillary supporter in either of those two states I'd be pissed and feel like it was "taxation without representation". Everybody's vote should count and if Obama was half the beacon of hoipe he trys to make himself out to be he'd do something about it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Corbett
Doesn't matter. Both democrat candidates are only willing to do what is more politically expedient for themselves. Hillary wants them counted because they would give her delegates. Obama does not want them counted because they would be for Hillary.

But only Obama's position requires no rule changes, so you can't really fault him for it. He wants the election to keep going as was agreed, Clinton is trying to change things for her benefit. I don't see them as being ethically equivalent in this situation.

Sort of like saying a motorist and carjacker and equally at fault at trial, since they are both doing what is best for themselves (the carjacker to get a free car and avoid jail, the motorist to keep his car and to put away the carjacker). However the only one trying to change the rules is the carjacker.

Yeah, but don't forget that if the positions were reversed Obama would want to change the rules. There's a whole bunch of assholes here who will assure you of that. It's what they, as scum, would do themselves.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
On this forum anybody who dares say anything against Obama is trolling.

We could all be one big happy family if we'd just listen to you Obamaites.

Hey, look at this little spin trick you learned from McOwen! You pulled it off quite well, considering that I didn't think that anyone else here would be stupid enough to copy it so exactly to the way Dave does it.

I called you a troll because your post was so ridiculously inaccurate and inflammatory, and I would have done so regardless of who or what candidate you were speaking against. You were clearly just fishing with your comments of "taxation without representation" applying to a PARTY PRIMARY, or hate comments like the "nuttieness of [Obama] supporters" or "Mr. Change need to change his underwear because he's shit in them again."

Oh, but wait, there was nothing inflammatory or trollish about those comments... what was I thinking! :roll:

Oh please give me a little credit, I'm older then Dave so he must have learned it from me.

If my comment about taxation without representation is so far off base then argue the merits of it instead of attacking me and backhandly trying to call me stupid. Or perhaps I'm not so far off the mark??

I may be "stretching" it a little, but I'm not wrong. Florida and Michigan are getting raked over the coals and if I was a Hillary supporter in either of those two states I'd be pissed and feel like it was "taxation without representation". Everybody's vote should count and if Obama was half the beacon of hoipe he trys to make himself out to be he'd do something about it.

Their votes will count. Their delegates will be seated at the convention. This has been promised. No one is implying otherwise except the Hillary supporters.

You and the other Hillary supporters are just trying to distract from the actual issue here, which is that the rules were broken, that Hillary was complicit in that and is seeking to take advantage of that rule breaking, while the rest of the party (along with the party leadership) is trying to fix the situation in a manner that will please everyone.
It's your little transparent act of obtuseness that is causing you to be "attacked." If you think you're being called stupid, that's only because you're acting it.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, not only did Hillary verbally agree with the DNC's decision on MI and FL, she also signed the pledge as well. But of course now that she's behind Obama, she wants to go back on her word.

This is why Hildabeast should not be allowed to be president. Her word is worth less than nothing and she has no honest bone in her body.

She's a politician, I don't understand why you are surprised. It's not like BHO hasn't stretched a few when it suited him.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
She's a politician, I don't understand why you are surprised. It's not like BHO hasn't stretched a few when it suited him.

What about John Sidney McCain III?

 

[ScottMac]

Same same. If nothing else, he's not quite so blatant and stupid about it.
I'm no McCain fan either.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Doesn't matter. Both democrat candidates are only willing to do what is more politically expedient for themselves.

Bullshit it doesn't matter. It matters as much as George W. Bush raising his hand and swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution.

The current lying POS Traitor In Chief has already ruined the country for at least the next century. The best thing about AtHillary The Hun is that she hasn't had the chance to do as much damage as Bush already has. The lesson is clear. Don't vote for known liars.