Beating Obama 2012 Poll

[Woodruff]

Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.

No, he cannot debate your points rather than twist them. He does this constantly. My advice would be to depart from any so called discussion that this pompous jerk engages in because he just uses it as a platform to declare his intellectual superiority and judge others who disagree with him.

I'm glad you stopped by the for the discussion, DangerBoy. I know you've got some sort of a mental problem with me, but you couldn't be more off-base in this case. Perhaps, for my own edification, you could outline specifically where I was twisting his points in any way.

Should you not be able to do so or should you in your eminently cowardly way refuse to respond, then kindly f*ck off.

[DangerBoy]

Can you even READ, DangerBoy? I know you've got some sort of a mental problem with me, but you couldn't be more off-base in this case. I did nothing of the sort, which you'd see quite clearly if you bothered to read.

Oh, and before you say "See?" you'll need to explain where you were engaging in the discussion rather than "judging others who disagree with you". Thanks.

A typical response from Woodruff. You intentionally twist what others say, argue against it, then feign disgust that the other person would dare call the original context of what they said back to the forefront of the discussion. You then behave as if someone would desire your approval if they would want to be taken seriously.

I wasn't involved in this particular discussion, but read it. I noticed your usual tactic of twisting what someone else was writing......again. You already have a pattern of doing this from previous debates.

[Woodruff]

Can you even READ, DangerBoy? I know you've got some sort of a mental problem with me, but you couldn't be more off-base in this case. I did nothing of the sort, which you'd see quite clearly if you bothered to read.

Oh, and before you say "See?" you'll need to explain where you were engaging in the discussion rather than "judging others who disagree with you". Thanks.

A typical response from Woodruff. You intentionally twist what others say, argue against it, then feign disgust that the other person would dare call the original context of what they said back to the forefront of the discussion. You then behave as if someone would desire your approval if they would want to be taken seriously.

I wasn't involved in this particular discussion, but read it. I noticed your usual tactic of twisting what someone else was writing......again. You already have a pattern of doing this from previous debates.

So as I requested above...perhaps you can specifically point out where I have "twisted" his words. Otherwise, I am afraid that it is only you that is doing the twisting. Thank you.

NOTE: I did edit my original post prior to DangerBoy's response...I decided it was uncalled for...I'm making this statement here to avoid claims that I post-edited after DangerBoy's response.

[DangerBoy]

perhaps you can specifically point out where I have "twisted" his words.

For starters, Viper's original post that you took issue with specifically cited a news story about how Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich were supporting efforts to end military involvement in Afghanistan & Pakistan by the end of the year.

Here's the complete quote:

RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.

http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/07/26/dennis-kucinich-and-ron-paul-unite-bid-challenge-obamas-war-expansion-pakistan

For all you sell-outs - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is fundamental. If you can't vote for a guy that believes in that then you're off. RP would not preserve the life part.

Which you selectively quoted and conveniently omitted the part about how Paul would not preserve life, one of the 3 pillars of our independence that our founders wrote about.

Woodruff's selective quoting method:

RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

Notice the omission of the story, providing context for Viper's critique of Paul. This is then followed up by a very general assertion that the terrorism garden has had the seeds sown for quite some time now. He doesn't define this length of time, which administration or administrations it could be, other U.S. allied governments that could have aided in this "sowing", or other defective policies.

Viper then tries to bring back the original context to U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks, because that was the context of the news story cited. This is because the original story cited showed that Paul was one of two representatives who believe that our presence in Afghanistan increased the threat of terrorism. Viper points out that he doesn't remember our soldiers being in Afghanistan when 9/11 hit. In Viper's view, this means that a non-presence of American forces did not prevent the terrorist attacks.

Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.

Which Woodruff then goes on to "twist" or add to Viper's argument words which he (Viper) never asserted. He (Woodruff) then proceeds to insert a 2nd question based on his own conviction that Viper's view is that terrorism was only based on one act - the 9/11 attack, and insinuates that Viper's position is that the 9/11 attack was the "sum total". Viper never said this, insinuated this, or came close to this claim. It was Woodruff inserting that as his position. I've bolded it in red.

So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.

Viper once again tries to bring the debate back to the original context of Afghanistan, and U.S. military presence there fostering and inciting terrorism. This was, after all, part of the original news story that Viper had cited:

You're presumption was that an American presence in Afghanistan fosters terrorism. I pointed out that they were not there when 911 hit. Try to keep up.

And here's the sneaky part. Woodruff replies by saying all the presumption lied with Viper. After all, "I never mentioned Afghanistan". Of course Woodruff didn't mention Afghanistan. That's because Viper did since he was trying to bring the discussion back to the original context of the news story, which Woodruff purposely omitted. This is followed by another sarcastic and condescending statement from Woodruff about "lapping him" (in fairness Viper started this with talking about "weak sauce" and "try to keep up"), and then trying to get Viper distracted with a question about his age, and how that is relevant. This is a typical Woodruff tactic of asking a totally different question than what was originally being discussed to frustrate the other person.

All "presumption" here lies with you. Where did I mention Afghanistan? Try again...this time without the presumption. I'm about to lap you...that must be why you think I'm not keeping up.

Serious question here...how old are you? Yes, I do believe that's a relevant question.

Viper finally catches on to Woodruff's technique of twisting and has had enough:

Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.

In fairness, Viper did go down the sarcasm route as well. The bottom line though is Woodruff has a habit of doing this. It gets people frustrated, and perhaps secretly Woodruff just gets pleasure out of aggravating other people with this method. I don't know.

[Frigidus]

perhaps you can specifically point out where I have "twisted" his words.

For starters, Viper's original post that you took issue with specifically cited a news story about how Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich were supporting efforts to end military involvement in Afghanistan & Pakistan by the end of the year.

Here's the complete quote:

RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.

http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/07/26/dennis-kucinich-and-ron-paul-unite-bid-challenge-obamas-war-expansion-pakistan

For all you sell-outs - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is fundamental. If you can't vote for a guy that believes in that then you're off. RP would not preserve the life part.

Which you selectively quoted and conveniently omitted the part about how Paul would not preserve life, one of the 3 pillars of our independence that our founders wrote about.

Woodruff's selective quoting method:

RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

Notice the omission of the story, providing context for Viper's critique of Paul. This is then followed up by a very general assertion that the terrorism garden has had the seeds sown for quite some time now. He doesn't define this length of time, which administration or administrations it could be, other U.S. allied governments that could have aided in this "sowing", or other defective policies.

Viper then tries to bring back the original context to U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks, because that was the context of the news story cited. This is because the original story cited showed that Paul was one of two representatives who believe that our presence in Afghanistan increased the threat of terrorism. Viper points out that he doesn't remember our soldiers being in Afghanistan when 9/11 hit. In Viper's view, this means that a non-presence of American forces did not prevent the terrorist attacks.

Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.

Which Woodruff then goes on to "twist" or add to Viper's argument words which he (Viper) never asserted. He (Woodruff) then proceeds to insert a 2nd question based on his own conviction that Viper's view is that terrorism was only based on one act - the 9/11 attack, and insinuates that Viper's position is that the 9/11 attack was the "sum total". Viper never said this, insinuated this, or came close to this claim. It was Woodruff inserting that as his position. I've bolded it in red.

So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.

Viper once again tries to bring the debate back to the original context of Afghanistan, and U.S. military presence there fostering and inciting terrorism. This was, after all, part of the original news story that Viper had cited:

You're presumption was that an American presence in Afghanistan fosters terrorism. I pointed out that they were not there when 911 hit. Try to keep up.

And here's the sneaky part. Woodruff replies by saying all the presumption lied with Viper. After all, "I never mentioned Afghanistan". Of course Woodruff didn't mention Afghanistan. That's because Viper did since he was trying to bring the discussion back to the original context of the news story, which Woodruff purposely omitted. This is followed by another sarcastic and condescending statement from Woodruff about "lapping him" (in fairness Viper started this with talking about "weak sauce" and "try to keep up"), and then trying to get Viper distracted with a question about his age, and how that is relevant. This is a typical Woodruff tactic of asking a totally different question than what was originally being discussed to frustrate the other person.

All "presumption" here lies with you. Where did I mention Afghanistan? Try again...this time without the presumption. I'm about to lap you...that must be why you think I'm not keeping up.

Serious question here...how old are you? Yes, I do believe that's a relevant question.

Viper finally catches on to Woodruff's technique of twisting and has had enough:

Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.

In fairness, Viper did go down the sarcasm route as well. The bottom line though is Woodruff has a habit of doing this. It gets people frustrated, and perhaps secretly Woodruff just gets pleasure out of aggravating other people with this method. I don't know.

tl;dr

[DangerBoy]

tl;dr

Woodruff was the one that requested it

[Phatscotty]

Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.

No, he cannot debate your points rather than twist them. He does this constantly. My advice would be to depart from any so called discussion that this pompous jerk engages in because he just uses it as a platform to declare his intellectual superiority and judge others who disagree with him.

hear here. This is exactly why Obama must be beaten and why he will be beaten.

[Woodruff]

perhaps you can specifically point out where I have "twisted" his words.

For starters, Viper's original post that you took issue with specifically cited a news story about how Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich were supporting efforts to end military involvement in Afghanistan & Pakistan by the end of the year.

Here's the complete quote:

RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.

http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/07/26/dennis-kucinich-and-ron-paul-unite-bid-challenge-obamas-war-expansion-pakistan

For all you sell-outs - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is fundamental. If you can't vote for a guy that believes in that then you're off. RP would not preserve the life part.

Which you selectively quoted and conveniently omitted the part about how Paul would not preserve life, one of the 3 pillars of our independence that our founders wrote about.

Woodruff's selective quoting method:

RP's winning the poll. That's just libs being mad that there is no Obama wins option lol. Again, RP has no spine. He'd be a great economic president but he'd just let the terrorism garden grow.

As opposed to sowing the seeds of terrorism in the garden like we have been for quite some time now?

Notice the omission of the story, providing context for Viper's critique of Paul. This is then followed up by a very general assertion that the terrorism garden has had the seeds sown for quite some time now. He doesn't define this length of time, which administration or administrations it could be, other U.S. allied governments that could have aided in this "sowing", or other defective policies.

Viper then tries to bring back the original context to U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks, because that was the context of the news story cited. This is because the original story cited showed that Paul was one of two representatives who believe that our presence in Afghanistan increased the threat of terrorism. Viper points out that he doesn't remember our soldiers being in Afghanistan when 9/11 hit. In Viper's view, this means that a non-presence of American forces did not prevent the terrorist attacks.

Excuse me but I don't remeber any American soldiers being in Afghanistan when 911 hit. That's just some weak sauce guy.

Which Woodruff then goes on to "twist" or add to Viper's argument words which he (Viper) never asserted. He (Woodruff) then proceeds to insert a 2nd question based on his own conviction that Viper's view is that terrorism was only based on one act - the 9/11 attack, and insinuates that Viper's position is that the 9/11 attack was the "sum total". Viper never said this, insinuated this, or came close to this claim. It was Woodruff inserting that as his position. I've bolded it in red.

So all of terrorism lies within that one act? That's is the sum total of terrorism in your view? THAT is some "weak sauce", though it would explain a lot.

Viper once again tries to bring the debate back to the original context of Afghanistan, and U.S. military presence there fostering and inciting terrorism. This was, after all, part of the original news story that Viper had cited:

You're presumption was that an American presence in Afghanistan fosters terrorism. I pointed out that they were not there when 911 hit. Try to keep up.

And here's the sneaky part. Woodruff replies by saying all the presumption lied with Viper. After all, "I never mentioned Afghanistan". Of course Woodruff didn't mention Afghanistan. That's because Viper did since he was trying to bring the discussion back to the original context of the news story, which Woodruff purposely omitted. This is followed by another sarcastic and condescending statement from Woodruff about "lapping him" (in fairness Viper started this with talking about "weak sauce" and "try to keep up"), and then trying to get Viper distracted with a question about his age, and how that is relevant. This is a typical Woodruff tactic of asking a totally different question than what was originally being discussed to frustrate the other person.

All "presumption" here lies with you. Where did I mention Afghanistan? Try again...this time without the presumption. I'm about to lap you...that must be why you think I'm not keeping up.

Serious question here...how old are you? Yes, I do believe that's a relevant question.

Viper finally catches on to Woodruff's technique of twisting and has had enough:

Can you debate my points rather than twist them. I will not be responding to you much longer if you insist on continually putting words in my mouth as a tactic to ignore what was just spoken.

In fairness, Viper did go down the sarcasm route as well. The bottom line though is Woodruff has a habit of doing this. It gets people frustrated, and perhaps secretly Woodruff just gets pleasure out of aggravating other people with this method. I don't know.

So then you agree with ViperOverlord that the only terrorism that matters is terrorism resulting from our presence in Afghanistan? Why? That is my argument...to look at the issue in the light of such limited information simply sets you up for failure and is a tactic of those who have an agenda in mind (in this case, to go after Obama), rather than in actually being informed citizens. If you're going to discuss the issue of terrorism, you should be prepared to discuss the issue of terrorism, NOT a very limited subset of it.

To do so completely ignores the whole reason why 9/11 happened IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Phatscotty]

If a foreign country were invading my country, and it was not to topple an oppressor or something justified, I would take to arms. The invaders would be the only ones calling me a terrorist. I wouldn't care what they called me. You know how I feel about name-calling

[DangerBoy]

So then you agree with ViperOverlord that the only terrorism that matters is terrorism resulting from our presence in Afghanistan? Why? That is my argument...to look at the issue in the light of such limited information simply sets you up for failure and is a tactic of those who have an agenda in mind (in this case, to go after Obama), rather than in actually being informed citizens. If you're going to discuss the issue of terrorism, you should be prepared to discuss the issue of terrorism, NOT a very limited subset of it.

To do so completely ignores the whole reason why 9/11 happened IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Once again, you insert something that was not said. Neither Viperlord nor myself ever said that the only terrorism that matters is terrorism resulting from our presence in Afghanistan. Nobody is making the case for isolating a subset as the sole criteria for viewing terrorism. Those are your words and nobody else is saying that.

The original context of what he (Viperlord) said was referring to Ron Paul. This thread is about possible candidates defeating President Barack Obama in 2012. Viperlord was referring to those who were voting for Ron Paul in the poll. You are the one trying to change the subject about how others are supposedly wanting to view terrorism through the narrow lens of 9/11.

[Woodruff]

So then you agree with ViperOverlord that the only terrorism that matters is terrorism resulting from our presence in Afghanistan? Why? That is my argument...to look at the issue in the light of such limited information simply sets you up for failure and is a tactic of those who have an agenda in mind (in this case, to go after Obama), rather than in actually being informed citizens. If you're going to discuss the issue of terrorism, you should be prepared to discuss the issue of terrorism, NOT a very limited subset of it.
To do so completely ignores the whole reason why 9/11 happened IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Once again, you insert something that was not said. Neither Viperlord nor myself ever said that the only terrorism that matters is terrorism resulting from our presence in Afghanistan. Nobody is making the case for isolating a subset as the sole criteria for viewing terrorism. Those are your words and nobody else is saying that.

The original context of what he (Viperlord) said was referring to Ron Paul. This thread is about possible candidates defeating President Barack Obama in 2012. Viperlord was referring to those who were voting for Ron Paul in the poll. You are the one trying to change the subject about how others are supposedly wanting to view terrorism through the narrow lens of 9/11.

Not accurate at all on your part, no. ViperOverLord specifically made the statement that Ron Paul would "just let the terrorism garden grow", which is clearly a statement based on his presumption of Ron Paul's FUTURE actions. I countered with the question asking about the seeds of terrorism that we've already planted...at which point ViperOverLord brought up Afghanistan and 9/11. Therefore, ViperOverLord clearly is the one attempting to narrow the focus of "the terroristic garden" to Afghanistan and 9/11. Would you like to try again?

[DangerBoy]

Not accurate at all on your part, no.

Yes, very accurate on my part, yes.

ViperOverLord specifically made the statement that Ron Paul would "just let the terrorism garden grow", which is clearly a statement based on his presumption of Ron Paul's FUTURE actions.

Yes, within the context of his previous record according to the news story which you selectively omitted.

I countered with the question asking about the seeds of terrorism that we've already planted...at which point ViperOverLord brought up Afghanistan and 9/11.

Yes, he did. Because that was the original context of the story that you selectively omitted in your partial quote.

Therefore, ViperOverLord clearly is the one attempting to narrow the focus of "the terroristic garden" to Afghanistan and 9/11.

No, that was you inserting that as his opinion and then arguing against it. When he called you on it you tried to feign disgust when he tried to call the original context back into the debate.

Would you like to try again?

Try what again? Every time you try to change the subject I think I'll just keep showing the original context and how much you don't like being caught playing your little games. Let's see, you've already used the "do you know how to read properly" tactic and "would you like to try again". I know you've got more little clever cliches to try to deflect attention away from when you get in a pickle. C'mon Woodruff, use them all. I'm sure somebody will fall for them. <evil grin>

[Bruceswar]

I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?

[Woodruff]

Not accurate at all on your part, no.

Yes, very accurate on my part, yes.

ViperOverLord specifically made the statement that Ron Paul would "just let the terrorism garden grow", which is clearly a statement based on his presumption of Ron Paul's FUTURE actions.

Yes, within the context of his previous record according to the news story which you selectively omitted.

I countered with the question asking about the seeds of terrorism that we've already planted...at which point ViperOverLord brought up Afghanistan and 9/11.

Yes, he did. Because that was the original context of the story that you selectively omitted in your partial quote.

Therefore, ViperOverLord clearly is the one attempting to narrow the focus of "the terroristic garden" to Afghanistan and 9/11.

No, that was you inserting that as his opinion and then arguing against it. When he called you on it you tried to feign disgust when he tried to call the original context back into the debate.

Would you like to try again?

Try what again? Every time you try to change the subject I think I'll just keep showing the original context and how much you don't like being caught playing your little games. Let's see, you've already used the "do you know how to read properly" tactic and "would you like to try again". I know you've got more little clever cliches to try to deflect attention away from when you get in a pickle. C'mon Woodruff, use them all. I'm sure somebody will fall for them. <evil grin>

That you believe this is a "little game" shows only the depths of your own disease. I responded to his statement in good faith, to which he responded with a bailout. He didn't even attempt to respond to the point I made, which was that Ron Paul's theoretical "garden growing of terrorists" is pretty immaterial given the vast array of very real and actual terrorist-growing we've done for quite a long time now. If he wants to hide behind theory instead of reality, I suppose that's his problem. I'd be surprised at you supporting such a thing, but I know what angst you have over my ultra-liberal stances and all...

It is nice how you're telling him what to think. That way he doesn't have to think up all the excuses by himself.

[ViperOverLord]

I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?

I forgot to put him lol. He's been quiet lately but I expect him to try to run at least one more time.

[angola]

I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?

Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.

[ViperOverLord]

I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?

Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.

So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.

[King Doctor]

So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.

Whoopsie!

Looks like you're doing the confusing 'wishful thinking' with 'actual facts' thing again.

[Woodruff]

I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?

Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.

So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.

I really don't think Obama's loss can be determined yet at this early stage. That being said, I don't think that Hillary would be a bad President, nor do I think she'd be a President that most Republicans (despite their claims otherwise) would have a real serious problem with.

[ViperOverLord]

I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?

Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.

So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.

I really don't think Obama's loss can be determined yet at this early stage. That being said, I don't think that Hillary would be a bad President, nor do I think she'd be a President that most Republicans (despite their claims otherwise) would have a real serious problem with.

You have got to be kidding me. Hillary Clinton is repulsive and no self respecting person wants anything to do with her.

[Woodruff]

I did not take the time to read this topic... but I opened it up and seen the poll. Where is Huckabee?

Not winning the Presidency in 2012, just like all the other people in the poll.

So you must think Hillary's going to run because the loss is in the bag for Obama.

I really don't think Obama's loss can be determined yet at this early stage. That being said, I don't think that Hillary would be a bad President, nor do I think she'd be a President that most Republicans (despite their claims otherwise) would have a real serious problem with.

You have got to be kidding me. Hillary Clinton is repulsive and no self respecting person wants anything to do with her.

So you don't like the military, then? Because her voting record for the military, military benefits and military retiree benefits is almost unparalleled. Yes, I am serious...look it up at the Congressional Records. I didn't realize it myself until the primary when it was looking like a two-horse race between her and Obama...I was stunned too. She made McCain look like a military-hater...then again, from his voting record, I suspect McCain DOES hate the military, as he's not at all supportive.

[ViperOverLord]

So you don't like the military, then? Because her voting record for the military, military benefits and military retiree benefits is almost unparalleled. Yes, I am serious...look it up at the Congressional Records. I didn't realize it myself until the primary when it was looking like a two-horse race between her and Obama...I was stunned too. She made McCain look like a military-hater...then again, from his voting record, I suspect McCain DOES hate the military, as he's not at all supportive.

Let me refer you to the horse's mouth. Back when HC was a senator and she politically grand standed herself to visit Afghanistan; none of the troops wanted to sit at her lunch table. Troops literally had to be ordered to eat lunch with her.

And you can pretend that she is in the military's corner all you want but there are plenty of examples where she has merely politicized miliatry affairs rather than take a firm stance:

From wikipedia:

In the second Democratic debate of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton said that she voted for the resolution under the impression that Bush would allow more time for UN inspectors to find proof of weapons of mass destruction before proceeding. However, reporter Carl Bernstein and others have questioned why Clinton would have voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have required President Bush to allow more time to UN weapons inspectors and also would have required a separate Congressional authorization to allow a unilateral invasion of Iraq, if her vote was simply a vote for strong diplomacy.

[Woodruff]

So you don't like the military, then? Because her voting record for the military, military benefits and military retiree benefits is almost unparalleled. Yes, I am serious...look it up at the Congressional Records. I didn't realize it myself until the primary when it was looking like a two-horse race between her and Obama...I was stunned too. She made McCain look like a military-hater...then again, from his voting record, I suspect McCain DOES hate the military, as he's not at all supportive.

Let me refer you to the horse's mouth. Back when HC was a senator and she politically grand standed herself to visit Afghanistan; none of the troops wanted to sit at her lunch table. Troops literally had to be ordered to eat lunch with her.

You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).

And you can pretend that she is in the military's corner all you want but there are plenty of examples where she has merely politicized miliatry affairs rather than take a firm stance:

I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.

From wikipedia:
In the second Democratic debate of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton said that she voted for the resolution under the impression that Bush would allow more time for UN inspectors to find proof of weapons of mass destruction before proceeding. However, reporter Carl Bernstein and others have questioned why Clinton would have voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have required President Bush to allow more time to UN weapons inspectors and also would have required a separate Congressional authorization to allow a unilateral invasion of Iraq, if her vote was simply a vote for strong diplomacy.

So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).

[ViperOverLord]

You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).

Nice way to spin it. No I showed you what the military actually thinks of her and any poll of military voters that has come out has been very unfavorable. Why is that? Because you can take her token votes and refer to the fact that she has politicized the wars in which they are risking their very lives. Also if you want to talk of voting records how about you actually give me some Hillary vs. high profile Republican contrast and then perhaps you might be on to something.

I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.

So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).

You're talking about her voting record huh?

How about her non vote (no yes or no) in 2008 on Defense appropriations bill to get the military 688 billion? This was as she was losing the primaries and she desperately tried to distance herself from the wars at the troops expense. Don't give me your shit about being dishonest. I know a person that politicizes war when I see one.

[Iliad]

You take one instance of anecdotal evidence instead of HER VOTING RECORD? Seriously? Never mind the fact that most of those who were refusing to sit with her ALSO probably weren't familiar with her voting record (as I, a member of the military, was not).

Nice way to spin it. No I showed you what the military actually thinks of her and any poll of military voters that has come out has been very unfavorable. Why is that? Because you can take her token votes and refer to the fact that she has politicized the wars in which they are risking their very lives. Also if you want to talk of voting records how about you actually give me some Hillary vs. high profile Republican contrast and then perhaps you might be on to something.

I'm not PRETENDING anything...I'm talking about HER VOTING RECORD. It has nothing to do with "politicizing" ANYTHING...it's how she CONSISTENTLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED.

So you've picked out ONE VOTE rather than looking at her entire VOTING RECORD? Could you be any more dishonest? The FACT of the matter is that during the last primaries, the vast majority of military retiree organizations supported Hillary Clinton (and spoke out loudly against John McCain).

You're talking about her voting record huh?

How about her non vote (no yes or no) in 2008 on Defense appropriations bill to get the military 688 billion? This was as she was losing the primaries and she desperately tried to distance herself from the wars at the troops expense. Don't give me your shit about being dishonest. I know a person that politicizes war when I see one.

So she hates the military because of one denial of a proposal, which to me seems ridiculous. 688 billion to the military in 2008, at the height of the GFC? Are you fucking kidding me? How can you even attack the Democrats for waste spending and hold less taxes, less spending as your economic thesis and not even bat an eyelash at the military demanding 688 billion?