Klinton's Selective Amnesia

[TraderJack]

Hillary Klinton and her selective amnesia:

It's a story Hillary Clinton loves to tell, about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

And it's a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but didn't.

If she were president, she says, she'd fight to protect those jobs. It's just the kind of talk that's helping her win support form working-class Democrats worried about jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country's security.

What Clinton never tells in the oft-repeated tale is the role prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese.

She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company, or that the sale was approved by the administration of her husband.

"Hillary Clinton must have been hoping we Hoosiers have short memories," Ed Dixon of Valparaiso said in a letter to a local newspaper after a recent Clinton visit. "Her husband was president at the time and allowed this to happen."

Article

 

[jrogers]

Anyone who is surprised to find that a politician running for office is willing to distort the truth for political gain should probably reevaluate their understanding of the way campaigns are run.

 

[TraderJack]

So... We're all supposed to be as cynical as you are, and not read anything about the candidates or what they say?

 

[Disposable Heart]

I dont read what they say, I read what they do (voting history). Actions speak louder than gibberish (though some gibberish is loud and powerful).

 

[Disposable Heart]

What I think is funny (now this is what I heard) is that the AWB had nothing to do with crime, but mostly trade disparity. China was not importing as much as we wanted them to. So whats the easiest thing (media friendly) to restrict import on? (in addition to any cars or similar heavy machinery coming from china) GUNS! And nice cheap (relatively accurate, powerful) Norinco or China Sport Ammo! Not Im HOWLING MAD! Off to kick over a partition wall!

 

[IUGradStudent]

Nice Find

 

[jrogers]

So... We're all supposed to be as cynical as you are, and not read anything about the candidates or what they say?

Cynicism is mandatory when it comes to politics and doesn't necessarily imply willful ignorance. I encourage everyone to read as much as they can about the candidates and to maintain said cynicism while doing so.

Just don't think that this incident is some rare breed.

On an unrelated note, intentionally misspelling names is a low form of criticism. It's entirely unproductive.

 

[TraderJack]

Sorry you're too much of an elitist to appreciate low humor.

I just felt the article was relevant because of her reference to Indiana jobs and her criticism of President Bush allowing them to be sent to China. It was a piece of clarification.

If it offends you I'll edit the post and remove the link?

 

[jrogers]

Sorry you're too much of an elitist to appreciate low humor.

I just felt the article was relevant because of her reference to Indiana jobs and her criticism of President Bush allowing them to be sent to China. It was a piece of clarification.

If it offends you I'll edit the post and remove the link?

I'm not an elitist. Intentionally misspelling names has never been funny or clever. At least you didn't call her "Hitlary." Nevertheless, it's really not a big deal. This sort of thing is pretty standard on gun forums

The article is relevant, and nothing in your post offends me. Why would you edit your post on behalf of some random malcontent? Do whatever you like, but in your position I'd leave it as it stands.

 

[scully]

I find "Hitlery Klinton" not to be funny but apt. As in my opinion she is a facist socialist.


And just marginally better than Senator McCain.

 

[TraderJack]

I wonder why mispelling a leftist liberal's name bothers you? Maybe you're a Klinton supporter?

I assume you failed to grasp my sarcasm about editing the post???

And, from where I sit, your comment about, "This sort of thing is pretty standard on gun forums", belies you denial of elitism. What are we to you? A bunch of neanderthals with knuckles dragging?

For 7 years, their side has called our sitting President every name under the sun, and no one has come to his aid! I don't agree with all he has done, but I won't sit by and allow the left to go unchallenged, whether it's from the likes of you or anyone else.
???And you're offended that I intentionally mispell a candidates name??? How nobel of you.

I believe that the times of being Politically Correct are over. The gloves are off. The left has thrown down the gauntlet with their constant criticism of President Bush and I for one am ready to accept the challenge. Maybe you are offended by those kind of 'street tactics' but don't criticise me, criticise the left.

John McCain just got his wake up call about this with the ad being run by the North Carolina Republican Party. North Carolinians told him to take a seat. Conservatives need to point out every flaw in the candidates from the left.

And, I see nothing wrong with calling the Klinton's by their real communist moniker. Beside being the worlds biggest bunch of liars they want big government, more taxes, revenue re-distribution, and they advocate a losing strategy in the War of Terror!

You can sit on the sideline and criticise folks like me for playing by the rules that the dems use everyday, or you can join the fight. I reckon it's your country too. You are an American aren't you?

I'm fed up with the likes of this woody meyers character wanting to 'fix' George Bush's problems. I'm fed up with democrats telling everyone that the government is broken and they need to 'fix it'. I'm fed up with the left and their culture of hate and I plan to talk about it wherever and whenever I can.

Have a nice day.

 

[jrogers]

I find "Hitlery Klinton" not to be funny but apt. As in my opinion she is a facist socialist.


And just marginally better than Senator McCain.

I'm reasonably certain the National Socialist party was socialist in name only, but that's an argument for another thread.

Quite honestly, McCain seems like a better choice than Clinton, but not by much. It would come down to running mates IMO.

I wonder why mispelling a leftist liberal's name bothers you? Maybe you're a Klinton supporter?

I assume you failed to grasp my sarcasm about editing the post???

No on both counts.

And, from where I sit, your comment about, "This sort of thing is pretty standard on gun forums", belies you denial of elitism. What are we to you? A bunch of neanderthals with knuckles dragging?

I frequent a number of gun forums and generally enjoy the spirited discourse. Bear in mind that most forums are open to anyone, regardless of their view on weapons. Aren't we obligated to portray ourselves as the reasonable people we are?

And I certainly don't believe that gun owners in general are a bunch of neanderthals.

For 7 years, their side has called our sitting President every name under the sun, and no one has come to his aid! I don't agree with all he has done, but I won't sit by and allow the left to go unchallenged, whether it's from the likes of you or anyone else.
???And you're offended that I intentionally mispell a candidates name??? How nobel of you.

If you object to the tactics of those who attack George W., why do you defend your own use thereof?

I'm neither offended nor a member of "the left."

I believe that the times of being Politically Correct are over. The gloves are off. The left has thrown down the gauntlet with their constant criticism of President Bush and I for one am ready to accept the challenge. Maybe you are offended by those kind of 'street tactics' but don't criticise me, criticise the left.

There's an entirely different debate to be had as to what "politically correct" means. I don't think that it's the appropriate term, to be honest.

Has it occurred to you that a portion of the criticism George W. receives may be perfectly valid and not entirely the product of political rivalry? If you're really so intent on the "He did it first!" argument, perhaps you would be better served by an example for whom the bulk of the criticism is inappropriate.

John McCain just got his wake up call about this with the ad being run by the North Carolina Republican Party. North Carolinians told him to take a seat. Conservatives need to point out every flaw in the candidates from the left.

No, voters need to research every facet of the candidates. Unfortunately, a great many of them lack the will to do so, and so the parties get away with mudslinging and underhanded tricks (e.g., Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) instead of solid and verifiable positions.

And, I see nothing wrong with calling the Klinton's by their real communist moniker. Beside being the worlds biggest bunch of liars they want big government, more taxes, revenue re-distribution, and they advocate a losing strategy in the War of Terror!

I regret to inform you that the bolded section above applies to both parties equally (although "world's biggest" is debatable). The Republicans are no more the party of small government than the Democrats, although they continue to make that claim.

The "War on Terror" is a rhetorical device and nothing more. There is no way to win or even wage a war against against a concept. Like the "War on Drugs," it is a thinly veiled grab for power and funding. There will always be people and groups in the world who wish to harm Americans and American institutions, and I emphatically advocate continued effort on our part to prevent such elements from taking any more lives. We do not need transparent, bombastic rhetoric from any member of the government in order to accomplish this. What's next, Bar on Prime Time urging us to "Just Say No to Terror?"

You can sit on the sideline and criticise folks like me for playing by the rules that the dems use everyday, or you can join the fight. I reckon it's your country too. You are an American aren't you?

This is known as a false dilemma fallacy. I choose instead to decry the tactics used by both sides.

I'm fed up with the likes of this woody meyers character wanting to 'fix' George Bush's problems. I'm fed up with democrats telling everyone that the government is broken and they need to 'fix it'. I'm fed up with the left and their culture of hate and I plan to talk about it wherever and whenever I can.

As is your right. We'll just have to disagree on some points.

Have a nice day.

I shall. You do the same.

 

[TraderJack]

I frequent a number of gun forums and generally enjoy the spirited discourse. Bear in mind that most forums are open to anyone, regardless of their view on weapons. Aren't we obligated to portray ourselves as the reasonable people we are?

And I certainly don't believe that gun owners in general are a bunch of neanderthals.

Your replys seem to indicate otherwise with your holier-than-thou rhetoric. You seem to believe that you are above the fray - that you have all the answers - you are such a fine citizen that you wouldn't bother getting your hands dirty with this 'political mess'.

If you object to the tactics of those who attack George W., why do you defend your own use thereof?

I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty, that's why. We've been civil to those on the left for far too long. As I mentioned earlier, McCain just got a taste of our frustration with being Politically Correct. It's over.

Has it occurred to you that a portion of the criticism George W. receives may be perfectly valid and not entirely the product of political rivalry? If you're really so intent on the "He did it first!" argument, perhaps you would be better served by an example for whom the bulk of the criticism is inappropriate.

I could fill pages and pages of specific examples. But I'll just cite a few for your pleasure...
First was the "all the votes must be counted" fiasco and ALgore demanding the SOCTUS review the election. What a waste of taxpayer money that was. Algore and his cronys still haven't gotten over that and continue to slam the President. They even tried to convince Americans that Mr. Bush 'stole' the 2004 election, as well! They just can't stand to lose!

Then there was the Bush Lied, Soldiers Died. Remember that one? Every intelligence source that was consulted affirmed the WMD that Saddam had. Now they all have selective amnesia and say the war is an unjust war.
But some of us remember - evidently you don't...

Here are just a few:
‘We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.’
—Sen. Ted Kennedy, on Sept. 27, 2002.

‘It is clear... that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
—Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
—Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

... and so the parties get away with mudslinging and underhanded tricks (e.g., Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) instead of solid and verifiable positions.

Where have you been for the last 200 years? American Politics has always been a dog-eat-dog enterprise. Spirited debate has nearly always led to dirty tricks.
The recent bunch of democrats have just taken it to new heights.
Here's a sample on YouTube, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN_nQOHj__s"]UTube[/ame] where Klinton advisors call Indianans "S---, and "White Nig-----". Ready to get your hands dirty yet?

I regret to inform you that the bolded section above applies to both parties equally (although "world's biggest" is debatable). The Republicans are no more the party of small government than the Democrats, although they continue to make that claim.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. The Klintons are liars, period. If you don't want to call them 'the world's biggest', so be it. I'm not interested in changing your mind, that would take far too long. You seem to be entrenched in your ivory tower.

The "War on Terror" is a rhetorical device and nothing more. There is no way to win or even wage a war against against a concept. Like the "War on Drugs," it is a thinly veiled grab for power and funding. There will always be people and groups in the world who wish to harm Americans and American institutions, and I emphatically advocate continued effort on our part to prevent such elements from taking any more lives. We do not need transparent, bombastic rhetoric from any member of the government in order to accomplish this. What's next, Bar on Prime Time urging us to "Just Say No to Terror?"

Yeah, that's right. Um-hum, sure. Where are you advocating this point of view? On the street corner? In the Congress? On neanderthal gun boards? You're living in a dream world, sir.
Here's your 'rhetorical device' -

This is known as a false dilemma fallacy. I choose instead to decry the tactics used by both sides.

And if you think this is a false dilemma, you do have your head in the clouds!

It must be very conforting to sit on the sidelines and use meaningless rhetoric to offer high minded solutions to the poiltical process or criticise 'regular' folks like me in the name of civility, while you sip your tea and munch on finger sandwiches. Heck, I'm just a poor working stiff with 4 years of college. I don't pretend to be as educated and high bred as you sir.

This is going to be a very dirty election. Whether it's McCain and his borderline phycotic behavior, or someone else... Whether it's Mrs. Bill Klinton or the obamination... There's going to be blood! If you can't stomach it you'd better sit this one out.

 

[epsylum]

What I think is funny (now this is what I heard) is that the AWB had nothing to do with crime, but mostly trade disparity. China was not importing as much as we wanted them to. So whats the easiest thing (media friendly) to restrict import on? (in addition to any cars or similar heavy machinery coming from china) GUNS! And nice cheap (relatively accurate, powerful) Norinco or China Sport Ammo! Not Im HOWLING MAD! Off to kick over a partition wall!

That wasn't the AWB but the importation ban of "military style weapons" from China and Russia. That is why we can now only get sporterized Saigas from Russia and old west knock-offs from China.

 

[TraderJack]

My appologies to all. The YouTube in the middle of my post above has been pulled. I can no longer find it on the net. Evidently the Klinton Kampaign was made aware of it and yanked it down. Sorry.

 

[Windwalker]

Enjoyed the posts from both of you. Thanks for keeping them civil.

 

[TraderJack]

Finally found a reference to the 'video' that was removed. Klinton advisors call Indiana voters S--- and Worthless White Nigg---!
Here

 

[Disposable Heart]

I agree with Jrogers. Too many people stoop to using politically and emotionally charged words/concepts rather than facts. We are more apt in an anti-gun environment to bring images of raped bodies and killed children, rather than cold hard statistics. What if someone broke into your house or what not is usually the best defense I've heard used by us on many occasions. The Anti-s do it too, but with words they know to motivate the masses, such as cop killers, etc...

The real fact is that many people on both sides do not know what they are talking about, or understand "discourse" (the ability to make one's point in an eloquent and direct, effective fashion). "Hitlery" and bringing up Obama's middle name are prime examples of this. They do not understand what they oppose, so they demonize it. Do you hear of Anti-gun crowds doing that with our candidates? As far as my research goes, no. Elitism? Scared of something arent we? Scared someone that has more education or persuasive power than another? Gibberish with a capital gibber. Fear of someone actually doing research into anti-gun mentality and the political system as is now.

While the anti-gun crowd is grown to fear guns, crime and other LEGITIMATE things (I mean legitimate because look around you! People are offing one another in record numbers, its not guns fault, but society's), we are cultivated to fear the government, bans and "liberalism". We throw the term liberal around like its a cuss word. Im a liberal. Does that make me a goon? Maybe, however, I'm for gun rights, so what is your point of using the term liberal like a kid that found dad's gun? The gun industry has been fraught with other industries making money on fearmongering. Buy magazines or gold now to hedge against a future agressor. Sign up now to prevent gun takeaways. And so on. Just look around you at your next gunshow. Fear mongering haven! Lets stop the foolishness now. Prepare, but dont make it one's livelihood.

9/11? Boy that's original! That is once again people scapegoating liberals for something that was going to happen due to a political quagmire. Also, this is once again, using graphic scenes and emotion to govern others in fear. Your derogatory language regarding your points is also flawed. The reason 9/11 happened is because the Clinton administration was so bogged down with the Lewinski scandal (perpetrated by the "conservatives" to clean out house based on morality) they could not react to terrorism at that time. The congress going for the WMDs? Uh, who gave them the info on the potential for WMDs? Bush and his brain bunch. They had to go on the info that was made up for them.

I have also seen an explosion of commericals that are not approved by the candidate, but air in support (and often detriment) to the candidate. Mostly democrat, but hey, its the Primary. It gets really bad during the actual election.

Lets keep the emotion in our hearts and not in our politics. Same goes for religion too. As I say before, PM me for free kicks in my rear. These represent my opinion, with some fact. To attempt to sway my INFORMED opinion now is like trying to win against an insurgency (damn, OUCH!).

 

[TraderJack]

I considered not replying to your long winded, mish-mash of a rant, but I felt the issues you raised muddied the water far to much and were insulting to me and to anyone that has posted here.

Your sense of fair play and insistance on being non-emotional is the kind of perspective one would expect from a person with a heart condition, not from an active, concerned defender of truth, as you want us to believe you are...

In times past, most Americans used to be very calm and collected and some seldom bothered to even vote unless there were REAL issues at stake because they felt that 'things would happen' with or without their vote. But they trusted that everything would work out OK because people were generally 'fair' about such things. Yeah, fair play used to be BIG in America.

Then we experienced the Klinton years. We watched and discovered that our Commander-In-Chief cheated on his wife with the likes of Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Monica Lewenski(And I'm sure countless others!). We were horrified that he would bomb the Balkans! And, we were mystified that while he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, all he got ws a slap on the wrist! And of course, who could forget the Assault Weapons Ban? This guy was a closet communist!

And when Mr. Bush was elected there were allogations of misconduct and voter fraud. He was accused of stealing the election! Republicans and Conservatives were reviled as cheats and evil doers! Where was that sense of fair play then?

These past few years have really soured many Americans, especially conservatives like me, about your 'fair play' doctrine. I doubt if our sense of trust will ever return! From what you have said in your post, our concerns are well founded!

For you to say that ["many people on both sides do not know what they are talking about, or understand "discourseI"] is just a tactic to try and set yourself above the fray. Putting us down just because you see your self as a defender of civility and courtesy is so 19th Century.

You certainly don't give me or any other posters here very much credit for being intelligent do you? I find your remarks just as offensive now as when they came from jrogers.

jrogers said 'that The "War on Terror" is a rhetorical device'. I stated that I strongly disagreed with that sentiment. In our present world, that kind of perspective is naive. It also speaks to ELITISM.

Anyone can look down their nose at a statement or another person or a particular phylosophy. That doesn't make them right or wrong - it just makes them an elitist. And yes, elitism does scare me. As long as we have people like you who accuse us of being beneath you, we need to be vigilant for our rights, our livelyhood and our place in the world.
I wonder why you feel you are 'better' than the rest of us?

This thread was about the 'selective amnesia' of Mrs. Bill Klinton. You and others have seen it appropriate to demean anyone who has chosen to use the written word or written characterizations thru the use of intentional misspelling or slang as uneducated and of low standing.

I don't believe it is necessary to convince you or anyone that we all think alike. I don't believe it's necessary to convince you with any proof the the Klintons are liars. If you want to vote for her, go right ahead, it's a free country.

But, looking down your nose at me or other people doesn't make you smart, intelligent or well read. It just makes you look stupid.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Well, okay.

I dont believe anyone to be stupid. Potentially (let me resay that POTENTIALLY) misguided (in MY VIEWS, not the society at large), however, I am not in office, neither are you. To resort to yelling and exageration is simply brutish, even for the internet. This is apparently the Oreily hour, where people arent allowed to give their OPINION, because if you try, then you will be shouted down or talked over b/c its not what "I believe". However, resorting to tactics by exagerating my words and concepts is an age old idea that, while maybe influencing others, fails to make me understand your position. I would need better clarification on this. The idea that "if you dont believe what MY OPINION is, then your stupid and I will now scream at you and pound it into your head" is barbaric to me, a relic of no civilized time. Now that I have given my opinion, now to the fact.

I agree with you. You have defeated me. I think I understand your position. I never meant to "offend" anyone, but apparently I did. I offended you on a personal level, to which you have my apologies. You deserve far more in retribution in regards to my behavoir, however, this is all I can bring to the internet. I think that is the reason why I put, PM me for kicks in the rear. I understand what I believe may not be reasonable or acceptable to most if not alll people, but that is why the claim it is an opinion, not stated fact.