How does she have so many delegates?
I don't know a single person whom actually likes this lady.

:P

At first I thought her running for office provided some much needed comedy. Although she is hysterical, it is not humorous, it is scary. What flucktard would vote for that ridiculous megalomaniac only the foreskin-loving Yahweh knows.

She is definitely a scary, polarizing figure. We dont need another 4 years of Clinton. We've had enough with 12 years of Bush Jr. and Sr and 8 years of slick Willy.

A Hillary Clinton administration would nail the final coffin for America. Social programs for the minorities and the poor would pretty much balkanize whats left of the US.

Hillary is a total whore-bag. Don't know anyone that voted for her either. But go back to 2000 and the debates going on between bush and Gore supporters... man... how the opinions of Bush have changed!

302RIZ: "..Social programs for the minorities and the poor would pretty much balkanize whats left of the US."

I can't believe you just trot out this GOP propaganda without thinking it through. What the Hell is wrong with the US? Before Bush started borrowing and spending, it was the richest country in the world and politicians could discuss social programs without being tarred as "communist" or "liberal" or "tax and spend"(yeah, that's pretty funny..).

If you seriously think that Clinton's ONLY idea is social programs you need to read some campaign literature from the Dems not just parrot what Rush or Savage tell you.

For what it's worth I'm not a Clinton supporter, but this kind of hysterical nonsense needs addressing.

How does she have so many delegates?


Because baby boomers,working class women and Latinos vote for her.


I don't know a single person whom actually likes this lady.

:P



You probably don't know many baby boomers,working class women or Latinos.:doh:

I know no one who will vote for that person! And as far as hearing of people who want her to be president... they happen to be women who dont know anything about what is going on and believe that it just so awesome that we will have a female in office. That is all that they are basing their vote on... now that is scary.

I know no one who will vote for that person!


Well,there obviously are some people who do [especailly in the big states].


I think we all hang out with people who are like us and then myopically think that all people in the world are like those in their world.


And as far as hearing of people who want her to be president... they happen to be women who dont know anything about what is going on and believe that it just so awesome that we will have a female in office. That is all that they are basing their vote on... now that is scary.

:rolleyes:

I'm going to vote for her [I'm in that baby boomer demographic that supports her] and most people I know are going to vote for her ,they are male as well as female and we all are voting for her because we feel she is the best canidate for the job and because she has the best chance of beating Mc Cain in November.

IMO this anti-Hillary movment amongst the young is not political because she and Obama are virtually the same on all issues [in last night's debate they both actually moderated the few issues they disagreed on meaning the policies will be the same no matter who you support].

No this anti-Hillary movment amongst the young is about personality,absolutely nothing else.

1.The young want to punish her for her vote to authorize the Iraq War.

2.I think most young people see her as their mother and they don't want their mom in office.:D

1.The young want to punish her for her vote to authorize the Iraq War.

This entirely rational and legitimate rationale is not compelling only for "the young" but for people of all ages who actually possess some integrity.

Being a decent human being is not limited to "the young," and if you aren't, that has nothing to do with your age.

If she didn't regret her vote then I wouldn't be for her,but she does regret it and I think that [if anthing] would keep her from making a simular mistake again.

Remember,she cast that vote based on deliberate misinformation about WMD's that Bush gave her.

John Kerry cast the very same vote,yet there was no movement to punish him.

Obama's only out is that he wasn't in the Senate at the time,he says he would have voted against it but we really don't know.

Remember that all the fear and hysteria at the time made it hard on progressives [who were in the minority] ,even my hero the late Paul Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act.

Anyway,I believe in forgiveness and redemption.

If she didn't regret her vote then I wouldn't be for her,but she does regret it and I think that [if anthing] would keep her from making a simular mistake again.

Remember,she cast that vote based on deliberate misinformation about WMD's that Bush gave her.

John Kerry cast the very same vote,yet there was no movement to punish him.

Obama's only out is that he wasn't in the Senate at the time,he says he would have voted against it but we really don't know.

Remember that all the fear and hysteria at the time made it hard on progressives [who were in the minority] ,even my hero the late Paul Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act.

Anyway,I believe in forgiveness and redemption.

You're weird. I seem to recall Swillery refusing again and again to "regret" her vote, unlike John Edwards.

But apart from that, it's obvious to most people that Swillery will vote for/against and say anything that her advisors advise, because she doesn't have any convictions or principles. This, more than any particular vote, explains why she's lost to Obama.

I wouldn't even consider voting for a worthless idiot politician who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq -- not ever -- and I certainly wouldn't accept said politician's totally lame, ridiculous, stupid, weak, gutless excuse about being "duped" by Bush.

It should be noted that the ACLU,Americans For Democratic Action,Planned Parenthood and every progressive/liberal organization that I know of gives Senator Clinton's voting record a high rating.

It should also be noted that Senator Obama supported pro-war Joe Lieberman while Senator Clinton supported anti-war Ned Lamont.

Why not punish Obama for supporting Lieberman?:scratch:

You're weird.


That's a compliment when someone like you says that.:p


I seem to recall Swillery refusing again and again to "regret" her vote, unlike John Edwards.


You are a telling a falsehood,she has said that if she had the information she has today she wouldn't have voted for the war ,that is the same as regret.


But apart from that, it's obvious to most people that Swillery will vote for/against and say anything that her advisors advise, because she doesn't have any convictions or principles. This, more than any particular vote, explains why she's lost to Obama.


And you claim to be an adult.:rofl:

She [and everyone else]miscalculated Obama's abiltiy to organize the youth and she didn't organize in caucus sates and Obama did.


I wouldn't even consider voting for a worthless idiot politician who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq -- not ever -- and I certainly wouldn't accept said politician's totally lame, ridiculous, stupid, weak, gutless excuse about being "duped" by Bush.


Are you saying that Bush didn't dupe the Congress and the public by lying about WMD's?

Are you saying that Bush didn't dupe the Congress and the public by lying about WMD's?

He didn't dupe me or anyone I respect.

You are a telling a falsehood,she has said that if she had the information she has today she wouldn't have voted for the war ,that is the same as regret.

I really don't care if she's just really stupid and gullible, or incredibly dishonest. She's probably a combination of both, although I think she's more dishonest than outright stupid, like her supporters.

The reason Swillery (and almost everyone else) voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with "WMD" or believing Bush's stupid lies. It had to do with the fact that almost no politician dares to oppose ANY war, because opposing a war (any war) suggests that one doesn't "support the troops," is "soft on defense," an "appeaser", "pro-terrorist," "anti-semitic," etc.

It's lack of guts, not gullibility, that explains Swillery's vote.

I don't know a single person whom actually likes this lady.
:P

Apparently a whole lot of women scorn do, yet she's still just about history. :D

It should also be noted that Senator Obama supported pro-war Joe Lieberman while Senator Clinton supported anti-war Ned Lamont.

It should be noted that Hillary has always been a Lieberman supported but when he clearly lost the Democratic primary, Hillary being a partisan hack, supported the actual Democratic candidate. In other words, Lamont's anti-war position was in no way shape or form a factor in her support of Lamont ya dip.

1.The young want to punish her for her vote to authorize the Iraq War.

2.I think most young people see her as their mother and they don't want their mom in office.:D

1. The young? I hope you know that a lot of "young", favor the war. They didn't expect Americans to sit back and watch until every last one of our buildings and planes came down.

2. Mother? Goodness... look at her. Watch her when she speaks. She's not the worst, but she is definetly not fit to be our president. The idea of being president vursus being an actual president... are two very different things.

1.The young want to punish her for her vote to authorize the Iraq War.

2.I think most young people see her as their mother and they don't want their mom in office.:D

1. The young? I hope you know that a lot of "young", favor the war. They didn't expect Americans to sit back and watch until every last one of our buildings and planes came down.

2. Mother? Goodness... look at her. Watch her when she speaks. She's not the worst, but she is definetly not fit to be our president. The idea of being president vursus being an actual president... are two very different things.

302RIZ: "..Social programs for the minorities and the poor would pretty much balkanize whats left of the US."

I can't believe you just trot out this GOP propaganda without thinking it through. What the Hell is wrong with the US? Before Bush started borrowing and spending, it was the richest country in the world and politicians could discuss social programs without being tarred as "communist" or "liberal" or "tax and spend"(yeah, that's pretty funny..).
All I hear Obama and Hillary utter in all their speeches is they have to tax the rich to give to the poor and unfortunate? I will create this, I will create that. I will freeze interest rates and use taxpayer money to bail you out of your decision to take out a mortgage you couldnt have afforded.
All social programs designed to help the poor and to protect them from themselves.


If you seriously think that Clinton's ONLY idea is social programs you need to read some campaign literature from the Dems not just parrot what Rush or Savage tell you.
Who is Rush? Despite what Rush and Savage "tell me" I can think for myself. Stop with the nonsense.

For what it's worth I'm not a Clinton supporter, but this kind of hysterical nonsense needs addressing.
Not unlike the hysterical ramblings of Obama of promising "change we can believe in" and Hillary's crying when she loses a few primaries?

Well,there obviously are some people who do [especailly in the big states].


I think we all hang out with people who are like us and then myopically think that all people in the world are like those in their world.


:rolleyes:

I'm going to vote for her [I'm in that baby boomer demographic that supports her] and most people I know are going to vote for her ,they are male as well as female and we all are voting for her because we feel she is the best canidate for the job and because she has the best chance of beating Mc Cain in November.

IMO this anti-Hillary movment amongst the young is not political because she and Obama are virtually the same on all issues [in last night's debate they both actually moderated the few issues they disagreed on meaning the policies will be the same no matter who you support].

No this anti-Hillary movment amongst the young is about personality,absolutely nothing else.

1.The young want to punish her for her vote to authorize the Iraq War.

2.I think most young people see her as their mother and they don't want their mom in office.:D

But if you've even admitted here that she and Obama are so very close on the major issues, why can't you take that leap of faith to begin a brand new era of American policy, and shed the comfortable and familiar status quo? Hillary simply represents more of the same, more beholding to the lobbyists and other concerns who ultimately hold the key to legislative policies because they've bought and paid for Congressional and Administrative acqueiscence.
Demographically I myself should be in Clinton's camp, given my own age and gender, but I honestly can't see how she will be able to break from Bill's policies ( NAFTA for one ), and not still be beholden to all those corporate raiders and crooks that Bill pardoned on his way out that screen door as it was shutting behind the both of them on their way out. The Obama movement is not exclusively about youth, it is about the belief that we can do better, if we all pitch in and work with one another.

How the hell did Hillary's motorcade end up with the death of a motorcycle officer. :confused:

How the hell did Hillary's motorcade end up with the death of a motorcycle officer. :confused:

Word is, crashed into a concrete barricade, in Dallas, no less.

1. The young? I hope you know that a lot of "young", favor the war. They didn't expect Americans to sit back and watch until every last one of our buildings and planes came down.

2. Mother? Goodness... look at her. Watch her when she speaks. She's not the worst, but she is definetly not fit to be our president. The idea of being president vursus being an actual president... are two very different things.
I'm just going on the young folk I know and their reasoning.:shrug:

I'l bet the ones I know are more in the manistream that the ones you know are.


But if you've even admitted here that she and Obama are so very close on the major issues, why can't you take that leap of faith to begin a brand new era of American policy, and shed the comfortable and familiar status quo?


Well,I could say the other way around to you too.

The fact is she is more experienced ,she has paid her dues and earned it and I think boomers [ myself included] go for her because we can personally relate to her.

And I think she can beat Mc Cain more easily.



Your logic confuses me ,if the policies are gong to be the same than why not her instead of Obama?:shrug:

You judging her on her husband?

That's pretty sexist if you ask me,besides we were better off when her husband was president than we are under the current president.



Hillary simply represents more of the same, more beholding to the lobbyists and other concerns who ultimately hold the key to legislative policies because they've bought and paid for Congressional and Administrative acqueiscence.
Demographically I myself should be in Clinton's camp, given my own age and gender, but I honestly can't see how she will be able to break from Bill's policies ( NAFTA for one ), and not still be beholden to all those corporate raiders and crooks that Bill pardoned on his way out that screen door as it was shutting behind the both of them on their way out. The Obama movement is not exclusively about youth, it is about the belief that we can do better, if we all pitch in and work with one another.



Look ,I like and respect Obama and though he is not my first choice I will do everything I can to help get him elected if he is nominated.

But,if you are my age [or around there] you [like myself] should have learned by this point in time to put your faith in principals,not in people.

Because even the very best of people will let you down eventually [even if they don't want to] and that's what concens me about these Obama fans,they are looking at the style and not the substance.

I don't expect either Hillary or Obama to wave a magic wand and make my life perfect.

Early this season I was leaning twords Obama because he had vision,what changed my mind was the debates.

Clinton has pragmatism and I want my president to have that before having anything else.

He didn't dupe me or anyone I respect.



I really don't care if she's just really stupid and gullible, or incredibly dishonest. She's probably a combination of both, although I think she's more dishonest than outright stupid, like her supporters.

The reason Swillery (and almost everyone else) voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with "WMD" or believing Bush's stupid lies. It had to do with the fact that almost no politician dares to oppose ANY war, because opposing a war (any war) suggests that one doesn't "support the troops," is "soft on defense," an "appeaser", "pro-terrorist," "anti-semitic," etc.

It's lack of guts, not gullibility, that explains Swillery's vote.


That's your extremist viewpoint,I have my moderate viewpoint.:shrug:

Look ,I like and respect Obama and though he is not my first choice I will do everything I can to help get him elected if he is nominated.

But,if you are my age [or around there] you [like myself] should have learned by this point in time to put your faith in principals,not in people.

Because even the very best of people will let you down eventually [even if they don't want to] and that's what concens me about these Obama fans,they are looking at the style and not the substance.

I don't expect either Hillary or Obama to wave a magic wand and make my life perfect.

Early this season I was leaning twords Obama because he had vision,what changed my mind was the debates.

Clinton has pragmatism and I want my president to have that before having anything else.
We can agree to disagree, but what turned me off to her permanently was the pardons Bill issued on their way out the door, specifically to aid her in her own turn at the brass ring. She's a carpetbagger who had no ties to New York State before she decided to reside there and run for Senator. If you only consider her own Senate career, she has comparable experience with Obama. And yes, I believe that we will get a "two-fer" if she wins the nomination. Bill will be along for the ride, as her closest advisor, as she also was for him in his Presidency. Do we need more of his drama and/or distraction as a backdrop?

My main point is she's just as tied in to the Washington inside track as he was ( NAFTA for one thing ), and it will be to the detriment of ordinary constituents, certainly not the corporate shill lobbyists who continue to buy and pay for our supposed representation in the Administration and Congress.

Her campaign has been spending like a coronation party, and is now experiencing a shortage of necessary funding to keep her message going. Do you want a President that can't even apply fiscal responsibility to a simple campaign for DNC candidacy? For myself, I prefer the tortiose to the hare as the wisdom of the old parable points out.

And, she also can't seem to decide what exactly her message is? "Ready from day one" hasn't exactly been working for her, and now her new slogan of "Yes we will" is a very transparent rip of Obama's "Yes we can". Her convictions seem to shift with the latest polls lately. If that's pragmatism, it also seems strangely similar to rudderless drifting as well.

We can agree to disagree,

Cool.



but what turned me off to her permanently was the pardons Bill issued on their way out the door, specifically to aid her in her own turn at the brass ring.


1.That was him ,not her.

2.These are your opinions,they are not fact.



She's a carpetbagger who had no ties to New York State before she decided to reside there and run for Senator.

The same could be said about Bobby Kennedy and I think he was one of the five greatest Americans in all of history.


If you only consider her own Senate career, she has comparable experience with Obama. And yes, I believe that we will get a "two-fer" if she wins the nomination. Bill will be along for the ride, as her closest advisor, as she also was for him in his Presidency. Do we need more of his drama and/or distraction as a backdrop?


You are sounding pretty sexist to me.

Besdies,I'd like to go back to the Clinton years,the only thing bad about those years was the conservatives.:D



My main point is she's just as tied in to the Washington inside track as he was ( NAFTA for one thing ),


Actually ,she and Bill differ on NAFTA.




Her campaign has been spending like a coronation party,

And Obama's hasn't?

As Tip O' Neil said "Money is the mother's milk in politics",that's the world adults live in.

please never let john mccain get into power, can you imagine, i bet he has stars and stripes bed sheets and pjs, i bet he wakes in the morning to the rocky soundtrack and has made up deluded plans to bomb the middle east into yesteryear.

I predict that if Hillary wins one or two big states, she will take it all the way to the convention and split the party.

please never let john mccain get into power, can you imagine, i bet he has stars and stripes bed sheets and pjs, i bet he wakes in the morning to the rocky soundtrack and has made up deluded plans to bomb the middle east into yesteryear.

Hillary and Bill could very well make that happen. I think she would be willing to destroy the party to get the nomination.

The same could be said about Bobby Kennedy and I think he was one of the five greatest Americans in all of history.

Ok, your valid point taken.

You are sounding pretty sexist to me.

How? Bill has a personality that craves the limelight, which could wind up being a terrible problem for her if she wins. She could very easily be distracted by any domestic upheavals he has been known to cause, and become seriously blunted in her effectiveness as commander-in-chief.

Besdies,I'd like to go back to the Clinton years,the only thing bad about those years was the conservatives.:D

Seriously, any Democrat will deliver better than GW.

Actually ,she and Bill differ on NAFTA.

Not at the time. It was only lately, after she considered a run for the Presidency, that she has voiced any negativity on the policy.

And Obama's hasn't?

No, not at all to the tune of practically being stripped bare after Super Tuesday. Clinton and her camp of supporters didn't plan ahead effectively at all, and assumed her "inevitibility" as an absolute certainty, thereby running far short of funds for further campaigning. Very poor planning on their part.

And you're entitled to your opinion about Bill's pardons, etc., it's ultimately your own perceptions against mine, but I feel that the Clinton exit was classless, and showed an arrogance and entitled attitude that was really off-putting to me. I would have expected and hoped they would have been a lot less "rude" on the way out than they showed at the time.

Besdies,I'd like to go back to the Clinton years,the only thing bad about those years was the conservatives.:D


The ONLY thing bad? Have you forgotten that war on an enemy that posed absolutely no threat to us in which we bombed the crap out of civilians? Forgotten the economy propped up by hot air which collapsed? Forgotten the blissful ignorance of the threat posed by militant Islamism? Forgotten the Lincoln bedroom and influence being on sale to the highest bidder? There were a lot of things bad about those years.

Hillary and Bill could very well make that happen. I think she would be willing to destroy the party to get the nomination.

Has she promised more wars like McCain has?

You sure are deluded..


The ONLY thing bad? Have you forgotten that war on an enemy that posed absolutely no threat to us in which we bombed the crap out of civilians?


Like Iraq.


Forgotten the economy propped up by hot air which collapsed?

Who did it collapse under?


Forgotten the blissful ignorance of the threat posed by militant Islamism?

You mean how the Bush administration ignored terrorism, OBL, and every warning about 9-11? How much does the Republican party pay you to write this nonsense?


Forgotten the Lincoln bedroom and influence being on sale to the highest bidder? There were a lot of things bad about those years.

The funny thing is, the worst things Clinton did never got one word of criticism from the right, and of course, when Bush sold out the rest of our government to the energy cartels, and every other industry lobbying group, you had nothing to say.

You sure throw a lot of stones for someone living in a glass castle..

Word is, crashed into a concrete barricade, in Dallas, no less.

Wow. He died in his line of duty protecting a politician like Hillary Clinton. Very sad, but heaven forbid I go out like that.

You sure are deluded..

No, I actually survived the Clinton years, and remember them.

Like Iraq.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Try Kosovo.

Who did it collapse under?

Bill Clinton. Were you even aware during those years? The economy was clearly tanking during the election. Don't you remember how mighty and powerful Bush was? He was able to single-handedly talk the economy down, and the supposedly most powerful man in the world, Bill Clinton, couldn't talk it back up.

You mean how the Bush administration ignored terrorism, OBL, and every warning about 9-11? How much does the Republican party pay you to write this nonsense?

The Clinton administration treated the attacks we suffered as police matters, thus putting a band-aid on a tumor. They encouraged the American people to remain blissfully unaware of the threat. They either did this deliberately, in which case they put their own political fortunes ahead of the nation's well-being, or they did it ignorantly, in which case they were glaringly incompentent. Of which do you think they are guilty?

The funny thing is, the worst things Clinton did never got one word of criticism from the right, and of course, when Bush sold out the rest of our government to the energy cartels, and every other industry lobbying group, you had nothing to say.

You sure throw a lot of stones for someone living in a glass castle..

You're going to have to do better than that. Yelling "But Bush" doesn't make the Clinton years better. I noticed that you offered no defense of them. You're deflecting, and it's not working.

Has she promised more wars like McCain has?

If she is taking the position that if she is elected, there will be no more wars, she's incredibly stupid or thinks that her supporters are. Perhaps both are true. No president can promise they will never go to war.

Hillary's a robot. She's a soulless shell of a human being. She'll do whatever her advisers tell tell her to do, and say whatever they tell her to say, in whatever tone of voice they tell her to use, so that she can win. Her singular purpose is to repay the favors that the special interest groups have given her, and she's the ideal candidate for that job, give her complete lack of inconvenient principals that might otherwise get in the way if she were a human being.

I predict that if Hillary wins one or two big states, she will take it all the way to the convention and split the party.


If there is a tie [which I hope is the case and I'm a Dem] either a Clinton/Obama ticket will come out of it ,or a brokered convention will nominate Al Gore.

Either option suits me just fine.:cool:

Hillary and Bill could very well make that happen. I think she would be willing to destroy the party to get the nomination.
I don't get this insane hatred/obsession you conservatives have with the Clintons?:scratch:

After all,they are just two people .:shrug:



Ok, your valid point taken.



How? Bill has a personality that craves the limelight, which could wind up being a terrible problem for her if she wins. She could very easily be distracted by any domestic upheavals he has been known to cause, and become seriously blunted in her effectiveness as commander-in-chief.



Seriously, any Democrat will deliver better than GW.



Not at the time. It was only lately, after she considered a run for the Presidency, that she has voiced any negativity on the policy.



No, not at all to the tune of practically being stripped bare after Super Tuesday. Clinton and her camp of supporters didn't plan ahead effectively at all, and assumed her "inevitibility" as an absolute certainty, thereby running far short of funds for further campaigning. Very poor planning on their part.

And you're entitled to your opinion about Bill's pardons, etc., it's ultimately your own perceptions against mine, but I feel that the Clinton exit was classless, and showed an arrogance and entitled attitude that was really off-putting to me. I would have expected and hoped they would have been a lot less "rude" on the way out than they showed at the time.



We're going to agree to disagree,and that's cool.:cool:

One thing:In 2004 Obama was as strongly for NAFTA as anyone could be.

I don't get this insane hatred/obsession you conservatives have with the Clintons?:scratch:

After all,they are just two people .:shrug:

They are two people who are more interested in amassing power, fame and fortune than they are in the welfare of the nation. I could ask the same of the anti's about George Bush. He's only one guy, and is nowhere nearly as bad as their insane hatred/obsession paints him to be.

After all,they are just two people .

That sounds like something Chris Crocker would say. :p

"Leave the Clintons alone! They are just two people!"

kHmvkRoEowc

That's your extremist viewpoint,I have my moderate viewpoint.:shrug:

You are probably the weakest debater in the history of DA.

If you think that refusing to vote for a politician who voted to authorize Bush's unprovoked, illegal and disasterous invasion of Iraq based on a mountain of lies constitutes "extremism," that's not because you're a "moderate;" it's because you lack principles.

Invariably, as soon as you run out of arguments (or slogans passed off as arguments) -- which is generally immediately after your opponent makes his/her first post -- you resort to name-calling, "extremist," "anti-semite," and so on.

After all,they are just two people .:shrug:


Stalin and Khrushchev were just two people, too...

They are two people who are more interested in amassing power, fame and fortune than they are in the welfare of the nation.


That is your opinion,I know very few people [including moderate-conservatives] who agree with it.



I could ask the same of the anti's about George Bush. He's only one guy, and is nowhere nearly as bad as their insane hatred/obsession paints him to be.


Hey ,I don't care if he was an alkie,did coke and boned women other than his wife.:shrug:

The only thing I hold against him is that he's a bad president [not to mention the most incompetent president ever].

My criticisms of him are political,not personal.

But you extreme conservatvies take the Clintons personally and I don't get it.:scratch:


You are probably the weakest debater in the history of DA.
[/QUOTE**

Coming from you that's a compliment.:D

[QUOTE]
If you think that refusing to vote for a politician who voted to authorize Bush's unprovoked, illegal and disasterous invasion of Iraq based on a mountain of lies constitutes "extremism," that's not because you're a "moderate;" it's because you lack principles.


No ,you are an extremist because you judge somebody on only one issue and are out to punish past mistakes.

I'm a moderate because I'm not a one issue voter,I can see the complexities to everything and because I believe in forgiveness and redemption.




Invariably, as soon as you run out of arguments (or slogans passed off as arguments) -- which is generally immediately after your opponent makes his/her first post -- you resort to name-calling, "extremist," "anti-semite," and so on.

If it walks likes a duck,quacks like a duck ,then it's gotta be a duck.

If it talks like an anti-Semite then it's gotta be an anti-Semite.


Stalin and Khrushchev were just two people, too...


TINFOIL HAT ALERT! :tinfoil:

You are probably the weakest debater in the history of DA.

Aside from being a personal attack, and thus violating the TOS, that statement is wrong.

Aside from being a personal attack, and thus violating the TOS, that statement is wrong.

Actually, when a do a personal attack, it looks and feels like a personal attack, rather than a comment on someone's debating style or ability.