The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - It wasn't plagiarism. In order for it to have been plagiarism, he would have had to have used something without someone's permission. That isn't the case. Also, it wasn't a speech, it was a bit part of a much longer speech. This is just yet another sign of Hillary's campaign getting desperate and trying to throw anything they can at him hoping something sticks.

2 - Speaking of desperation, the only reason Hillary is even campaigning in Wisconsin is because she finally got the advice that if she doesn't at least keep these races close, it simply won't matter if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, because she'll be too far behind in the delegate count for it to matter. If she loses yet another race by 20 points in Wisconsin, she'd have to win those races by an equal margin just to make up ground and draw even.

3 - My guess is that Gore, Biden, Pelosi, and company will be closely watching those races in Texas and Ohio. If Hillary doesn't win those and win big...they'll start to step in. They know what's at stake within the party, and they won't let her tear the party apart if she doesn't have a chance to win. If she won't drop out, I'd expect all three to come in heavily on Barack's side. That would pretty much spell the end, in my opinion.

Correct on the "plagarism". Sheesh. How desperate can the Clintons be?

Gore, Biden and Pelosi can't be impressed with the direction this election is going. It doesn't look very good for the Democratic party. Pelosi went on the record exactly opposite the Clinton position on superdelegates. I guess we'll have to see who's stronger and wields more power-Pelosi or Clinton.
 
Correct on the "plagarism". Sheesh. How desperate can the Clintons be?

Gore, Biden and Pelosi can't be impressed with the direction this election is going. It doesn't look very good for the Democratic party. Pelosi went on the record exactly opposite the Clinton position on superdelegates. I guess we'll have to see who's stronger and wields more power-Pelosi or Clinton.

Negative campaign tactics against a fellow Democrat probably aren't going to sit terribly well with them, either. Particularly when she seems to be echoing the Republican attacks the same day they happen. Siding with McCain over the campaign finance issue was just dumb, IMO.

And if she starts going after the previously pledged delegates in addition to the supers...she's basically cutting her own throat in the party.
 
1 - It wasn't plagiarism. In order for it to have been plagiarism, he would have had to have used something without someone's permission. That isn't the case. Also, it wasn't a speech, it was a bit part of a much longer speech. This is just yet another sign of Hillary's campaign getting desperate and trying to throw anything they can at him hoping something sticks.


Okay first let me say it's a stupid issue and I'm not thrilled with Hillary making it an issue. However I disagree with you assessment about plagiarism. A necessary step to avoid plagiarism is acknowledging your source and not taking credit for someone elses work. By not acknowledging that parts of his speech came from someone else's speech you are (by default) taking credit for it. All it would have taken is a simple "As my friend so and so said so eloquently..." and it would be a dead issue.

Is it a big deal? maybe, maybe not. For some, it speaks to his integrity. For some who already question his knowledge about issues - it may say a lot that he uses someone else's speech. I think it's important only because it's a really stupid mistake that shouldn't have been made. But I also don't think Hillary should have been the one to point it out. So for me it's kinda a wash.
 
Okay first let me say it's a stupid issue and I'm not thrilled with Hillary making it an issue. However I disagree with you assessment about plagiarism. A necessary step to avoid plagiarism is acknowledging your source and not taking credit for someone elses work. By not acknowledging that parts of his speech came from someone else's speech you are (by default) taking credit for it. All it would have taken is a simple "As my friend so and so said so eloquently..." and it would be a dead issue.

Is it a big deal? maybe, maybe not. For some, it speaks to his integrity. For some who already question his knowledge about issues - it may say a lot that he uses someone else's speech. I think it's important only because it's a really stupid mistake that shouldn't have been made. But I also don't think Hillary should have been the one to point it out. So for me it's kinda a wash.

Here is the problem with that 9/10 times the politician didn't write their speech either - they have writers for that. So before saying anything must that state, "My speech tonight is written by Tom Jones"???

~amanda
 

Great Op-Ed: Why must it always be about a fight?
....."So Clinton is certainly correct if she ends up winning the Democratic nomination for president. She seems to be saying the status quo of red versus blue, attack and counterattack, should be an accepted fact of American political life.

But what if Obama's campaign is telling us something else?

What if the electorate is actually fed up with the mentality that reduces every battle over every issue to the simple arithmetic of getting one more vote than the other side?....

...Just as Clinton rarely makes a speech without talking about her strength in wrestling Republicans, Obama rarely makes a speech in which he doesn't make an overt appeal to independents and even Republicans.
The real sweet spot for Obama is among independent voters, and the numbers in the early election contests don't lie: He is connecting with independents, and doing so in states like Virginia, which might actually become two-party competitive in the presidential race for the first time since 1964.

Those voters are the most likely to be weary of the sniping and carping that have been the signature of the last eight years in Washington, where you can almost count the moments of true comity on one hand.

So Obama is making an audacious bet, that he can cobble together a coalition of voters who think the fight Clinton wants to wage is not only tired but also destructive, .....

The hope-versus-fear calculus is typically framed in terms of Democrats against Republicans. Right now, it is a fight within the Democratic Party."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-finepoint_thinkfeb17,0,3156480.story
 
Okay first let me say it's a stupid issue and I'm not thrilled with Hillary making it an issue. However I disagree with you assessment about plagiarism. A necessary step to avoid plagiarism is acknowledging your source and not taking credit for someone elses work. By not acknowledging that parts of his speech came from someone else's speech you are (by default) taking credit for it. All it would have taken is a simple "As my friend so and so said so eloquently..." and it would be a dead issue.

Is it a big deal? maybe, maybe not. For some, it speaks to his integrity. For some who already question his knowledge about issues - it may say a lot that he uses someone else's speech. I think it's important only because it's a really stupid mistake that shouldn't have been made. But I also don't think Hillary should have been the one to point it out. So for me it's kinda a wash.

Which would be fine, if it weren't also his ideas. The person he's being accused of having "stolen" from openly admits that they bounce ideas off each other all the time, and hasn't said that the couple lines were something he alone came up with. If it's a collaborative effort, it's isn't plagiarism, even in that sense.

But again, by the definition of the word, permission is the key, not attribution. As long as permission is granted - such as from a speech writer when writing something for the candidate - attribution is not necessary. Period.


Fantastic article! Really puts out there one of the key differences between the candidates. Hillary wants to pummel the other side into submission, and while I've certainly had those feelings over the last 8 years and can sympathize, I also understand that this country gets an awful lot more done when it works towards a common goal. Much as we - particularly on this thread, but really in most debates - like to paint the other side of the aisle as the enemy, the reality is that the vast majority of this country falls somewhere between me and, say, Joe, on the political spectrum. The only way we move forward is by cooperating and compromising...finding common ground.

In my opinion, Barack Obama is the best person to achieve that ideal. He can move our agenda forward, but do so in a way that doesn't make the other side dig in their heels on every little issue that comes along. Can any Hillary supporter honestly say they feel she can do the same?
 
Please don't "flame" me - I just thought I'd share another opinion other than the "I'll vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee" opinion.

I don't think anyone knows what will happen with these "if" scenarios. And so much is written.......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/vaporous_obama_turns_off_many.html

February 19, 2008
Cult of Obama Will Turn Off Independents
By Froma Harrop

Despite the hard contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, party leaders keep telling Democratic-leaning voters that they have two good candidates. They are right, but one of them may well be a Republican.

Far from the pumped-up Obama rallies, centrists who voted for John Kerry last time now say they are considering John McCain -- especially if the Democrat is the vaporous Obama. At least that's what many are telling me -- and I'm telling myself.

One friend said he'd vote for the New York senator, and if she's not the candidate, then McCain. When I reminded him that he doesn't like Hillary, he shrugged. Another acquaintance e-mailed, "Hillary is to me extremely unlikable, but I do not regard likability as a qualification."








The notion that many Clinton voters cannot be easily transferred to Obama contradicts much "expert" opinion. But a Super Tuesday exit poll suggested there is something to it. While 52 percent of Obama's supporters were amenable to a Clinton candidacy, only 49 percent of Clinton voters said they'd be happy with the Illinois senator, according to the survey by Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

And at that time, the news media were still lavishing love on Obama. That situation is about to end. "He's the fashion plate of the moment," an editorial page editor remarked, "but fashion week is over."

Sophisticated commentary now notes the growing creepiness of the Obama campaign: Its aversion to substantive policy discussions. The sermonizing -- "In the face of despair, we believe there can be hope." And the messianic bit -- "At this moment in the election there is something happening in America." (That would be he.)

Volunteer trainees at Camp Obama are told not to talk issues with voters, but to offer personal testimony about how they "came" to Obama. Makes the skin crawl.

Centrists generally do not find cults of personality entertaining. The mass hypnosis reminds them of the mortgage frenzy -- all these people buying into a dream and not caring about the fine print.

The Republican Party, meanwhile, has given them a choice. This is despite the best efforts of its right wing to pick a candidate against whom any Democrat would be better. And the more the radicals beat up on the Arizona senator, the more he looks like a contender to moderate Democrats.

Why might this group like McCain? Count the ways. He had the fiscal discipline to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the decency to complain that they unfairly favored the rich. He's OK on the environment, concerned over global warming and against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He supported tighter fuel-economy standards and opposes torture. John McCain is not an embarrassment.

Of course, much could happen before November. To try to make up with the right, McCain might hedge on the very positions that moderates admire. He's already vowed to make permanent the tax cuts he once opposed.

And there's the war in Iraq. McCain courageously slammed the Bush administration's early handling of it, and the troop surge he supported has calmed things in Iraq, at least for now. But he has yet to adequately explain why going to Iraq was ever a good idea.

On the Democratic side, Clinton might prevail and thus offer a serious alternative to McCain. Or Obama might decide to get serious and apply critical thinking to real issues in a way that appeals to wonky centrists.

What Democrats must understand is that their moderates now have another candidate to consider. And this slice of the electorate is big enough and grumpy enough to swing a general election to John McCain.

fharrop@projo.com
 
I really have to wonder about people who don't realize where these quotes come from:

1) We have nothing to fear but fear itself

2) I have a dream

3) We hold these truths to be self-evident

4) Ask not what your country can do for you ..........

Out of all the stupid non-issues raised by Hillary Clinton, this has to rank right up there with the best of them. She is responsible for what her campaign peddles whether it's from her staff or her husband who ought to get the hell off the stage.

Hillary Clinton would be a helluva lot better off if she studied those quotes and their meaning instead of looking for some more piss-ant stuff to complain about.

I would wonder how many super-delegates this act of stupidity cost Hillary Clinton. Of all the issues we have facing us today, she throws plagiarism out there. Good grief, how desperate can one be.

This entire episode has nothing to do with Barak Obama, but it has everything to do with Hillary Clinton. Small wonder her negatives are so high.
 
Please don't "flame" me - I just thought I'd share another opinion other than the "I'll vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee" opinion.

I don't think anyone knows what will happen with these "if" scenarios. And so much is written.......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/vaporous_obama_turns_off_many.html

This op-ed piece is from the delusional wing of politics. John McCain is a dream candidate for the Democrats. He's running against hope and change when the country is screaming for hope and change.

Centrists feel the pinch in their wallet. Centrists see the neverending war in Iraq and McCain's having no problem with 100 more years of it. What is there about John McCain that would appeal to a centrist? Maybe someone could explain that and not in terms of the Clinton/Obama tussle.

Run, John, run. :cheer2:
 
This op-ed piece is from the delusional wing of politics. John McCain is a dream candidate for the Democrats. He's running against hope and change when the country is screaming for hope and change.

Centrists feel the pinch in their wallet. Centrists see the neverending war in Iraq and McCain's having no problem with 100 more years of it. What is there about John McCain that would appeal to a centrist? Maybe someone could explain that and not in terms of the Clinton/Obama tussle.

Run, John, run. :cheer2:

I agree. The media's running out of things to talk about. After months and months of polls showing that Obama's got a comfortable lead against McCain, we now have to read about how Democratic party "centrists" feel that Obama's too "airy" to be elected. Give me a break. The Democratic party has been punched in the gut so many times over the last 7 1/2 years that they're spitting blood. Massive voter turnouts nationally proves to me that they desparately want to take the country back. This year, the Republicans could run Lincoln, for godsakes, and the man wouldn't get elected.
 
I agree. The media's running out of things to talk about. After months and months of polls showing that Obama's got a comfortable lead against McCain, we now have to read about how Democratic party "centrists" feel that Obama's too "airy" to be elected. Give me a break. The Democratic party has been punched in the gut so many times over the last 7 1/2 years that they're spitting blood. Massive voter turnouts nationally proves to me that they desparately want to take the country back. This year, for godsakes, the Republicans could run Lincoln and the man wouldn't get elected.

I hope you're right, but I also don't think that the Democratic party can afford to be too comfortable. I'd rather everyone think it's close and get out there and create a landslide rather then seeing President McCain because people thought it was in the bag.
 
I agree. The media's running out of things to talk about. After months and months of polls showing that Obama's got a comfortable lead against McCain, we now have to read about how Democratic party "centrists" feel that Obama's too "airy" to be elected. Give me a break. The Democratic party has been punched in the gut so many times over the last 7 1/2 years that they're spitting blood. Massive voter turnouts nationally proves to me that they desparately want to take the country back. This year, the Republicans could run Lincoln, for godsakes, and the man wouldn't get elected.

Hmm, that's a a fresh idea for the Republicans. They haven't had one in ...... in ...... hell, Herbert Hoover would feel right at home in this Republican party. But, I digress.

Since the Republicans are having such a hard time raising "Saint Ronnie" from the dead, maybe they ought to try their luck with "Honest Abe". :lmao:
 
I hope you're right, but I also don't think that the Democratic party can afford to be too comfortable. I'd rather everyone think it's close and get out there and create a landslide rather then seeing President McCain because people thought it was in the bag.

See...I believe in common sense way more than I believe in jinxes. The Democratic Party, the middle, and even some Republicans want change, and this time, noone's staying home, hoping for the best. If the huge Democratic turnouts mean anything, it's that the Democratic Party is energized and is lookin' for a fight. Besides, I wouldn't be too concerned about people staying home this November. People are excited about being a part of history, and all American voters, especially Democrats, have a chance to make history here. Would you want to be the liberal who, when asked which first female or first black candidate you selected in 2008, said, "Meh. I liked Obama/Clinon, but I just didn't feel like showing up"? IMO, that just ain't going to happen.
 
I agree. The media's running out of things to talk about. After months and months of polls showing that Obama's got a comfortable lead against McCain, we now have to read about how Democratic party "centrists" feel that Obama's too "airy" to be elected. Give me a break. The Democratic party has been punched in the gut so many times over the last 7 1/2 years that they're spitting blood. Massive voter turnouts nationally proves to me that they desparately want to take the country back. This year, the Republicans could run Lincoln, for godsakes, and the man wouldn't get elected.

It isn't just Democrats who've been punched in the gut. The country has been punched in the gut. The country feels it's slipping away. The percentage numbers of people who feel the country is heading in the wrong direction hovers around 70%.

And these political gas bags want us to believe a candidate who's running against hope and change has a chance? Here's the real problem: The political pundits have been wrong about everything to do with this current election. Hillary Clinton did NOT have the nomination sewed up. Super Tuesday did NOT settle the nominations. The sorry record of the political gas bags just goes on and on.

But McCain, who is neither a centrist, nor a maverick and hasn't had a fresh idea in years, is going to take it all. :lmao:
 
See...I believe in common sense way more than I believe in jinxes. The Democratic Party, the middle, and even some Republicans want change, and this time, noone's staying home, hoping for the best. If the huge Democratic turnouts mean anything, it's that the Democratic Party is energized and is lookin' for a fight. Besides, I wouldn't be too concerned about people staying home this November. People are excited about being a part of history, and all American voters, especially Democrats, have a chance to make history here. Would you want to be the liberal who, when asked which first female or first black candidate you selected in 2008, said, "Meh. I liked Obama/Clinon, but I just didn't feel like showing up"? IMO, that just ain't going to happen.

Exactly. There's a movement going on here. That's what the political gas bags, including the Clintons, don't understand.
 
It isn't just Democrats who've been punched in the gut. The country has been punched in the gut. The country feels it's slipping away. The percentage numbers of people who feel the country is heading in the wrong direction hovers around 70%.

And these political gas bags want us to believe a candidate who's running against hope and change has a chance? Here's the real problem: The political pundits have been wrong about everything to do with this current election. Hillary Clinton did NOT have the nomination sewed up. Super Tuesday did NOT settle the nominations. The sorry record of the political gas bags just goes on and on.

But McCain, who is neither a centrist, nor a maverick and hasn't had a fresh idea in years, is going to take it all. :lmao:

Wonder what Karl Rove's internal polls show?
 
Think he's working for McCain?

Well, he's got a job with Faux News....so, yes. :teeth:

As for that article, it's complete bunk. It's easy to find one or two people in a statistical group that includes tens of millions. But it that were true, then why does nearly every national poll show him leading McCain? Why do states like Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and many others lean so heavily towards him?
 
Iraq dossier 'based on spin doctors arguments'
Telegraph Newspaper

The Telegraph (aka. Torygraph), a conservative newspaper, has lashed out at the Government over the "dodgy dossier" that outlined the case for war against Iraq.

The "dodgy dossier" on Iraq which the Government claimed gave the intelligence agencies' case for war bore a striking resemblance to a draft by a Government spin doctor, it emerged on Monday.

The public was finally allowed to compare the two documents more than six years after they were drawn up after the release of a draft by John Williams, a former Foreign Office press officer.

Opposition politicians said the report proved that the case for war had been based on the arguments and rhetoric of spin doctors rather than an impartial analysis by intelligence experts.

When the final dossier was published on Sept 24 2002, six months before the start of the war, Tony Blair, then prime minister, said the intelligence services had left him in no doubt that Saddam posed a "serious and current" threat.

He also claimed the dictator was capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of giving the order. Neither allegation was later substantiated by the intelligence services.

Ministers were keen to stress that the dossier had been drawn up by the Joint Intelligence Committee. But critics last night seized upon the similarities between the draft written by Mr Williams and the final version. Ministers had fought for three years to block publication, saying advice from civil servants should stay confidential.

Source and full story - Telegraph Newspaper

As if we didn't know that all already :rolleyes:

What's interesting is that it's not only the Liberal Democrats taking up this stance - the Conservatives are too.



Rich::
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom