You heard what was said to Pres Clinton-but MSM didnt tell you what was said to Obama:

" With the next primary, in Clyburn's state, just five days away, Mr. Clinton needs to chill, as the Congressman put it, a little bit. Mr. Clyburn also said Mr. Obama needs to be circumspect in invoking Ronald Reagan, whose "agenda for this country caused angst for African-Americans in this country... Just be careful you don't cross the line."

but you didnt hear any part of that...all you heard again and again and again
Clyburn told Bill to chill, bring it down a notch.

Still dont think the MSM is brainwashing you as to who your candidates are?

and Clyburn made the mistake of believing the Clintons. When he figure out they've been doing nothing but lying, he won't be making statements like that again.

there's a third alternative. learned from MSM that repeating a thing often enough it becomes the truth.

dont think that will work here..but you can keep trying

You seriously think that a legislative LEADER like Clyburn hadn't seen the tape AND the transcript before he shot off his mouth?

The man has TWO staffs--one for his leadership job, the other for his legislative offices both in DC and at home---believe me, he has the people to bring that shit to him. They probably brought him coffee while they popped in the DVD for him.

He wasn't speaking from a position of being "uninformed." And he wasn't "believing" anyone. He had his facts in order.

:eyes:

He made remarks about the MLK comment too, and apparently got that wrong, so people want to pretend now. It's natural for him to believe Bill Clinton, he's just mistaken to do it because Bill Clinton has proven to be a liar. I'm thinking he is as surprised about that as I am.

:banghead:

He's not the fool here, Sunshine.

That man has been around the block, and he never--EVER--is unprepared. He is sharp as a box of new tacks, and swift on the uptake.

You think he got that WHIP job on his good looks?

You haven't a clue what he's about, and it shows.

:rofl:

"Apparently got that wrong....!!!"

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Let's clip a copy of that beaut of a post for posterity--it really sums you up:

And you're just like the 'candidate' you support
Posted by sandnsea
Just lie lie lie because you've got nothing to say unless you do.

that is a rude and tired dis.

You can make your point without offending the mentally ill, I'm sure.

thanks~

When invective is hurled, I return the favor. I won't be swiftboated by a rank amateur with a poor command of the facts.

But your post diplayed a bit of bias that I feel compelled to point out to you.

Why would you assume that all 'medications' are for 'mentally ill' people? Medications that, if not taken, have potential to impact behavior, are not always those that are prescribed for 'mental' conditions.

For example, ever seen an uncontrolled diabetic? They can get profoundly obstreperous, uncooperative, angry and combative.

Turn on HARDBALL sometime--Tweety, who is a diabetic, is very lax about taking his meds. When he's foaming at the mouth, that's often a clue that he's been noncompliant. He ended up in the hospital awhile back because he didn't follow his medication schedule.

aware of the many uses for medicine- I'm also well aware of the intent behind the use of your dis,- and I know you are too.

You are right- you didn't light the fire. But you stoked it- And you are not the only person I've heard hurl this kind of invective in the last several days- that still doesn't make it right.

If I were to say "that's so "Gay"- I might excuse myself, and claim that there is more than one meaning to the word, which would be true, but disingenuous.-

I have a niece who is a fragile diabetic- so I understand the implications you refer to.

The stigma around mental illness will only end, when people confront this head on.

It is not you that frustrates and angers me, it is the casual, negative stereotyping in that put-down, that I'm addressing.

:hi:
peace~

(don't have cable- never seen "hardball"- but I've heard a lot about him)

And that's a mistake. You may think you are "well aware" but all you are doing is speculating. And your speculations aren't correct. My use of 'diabetic medication' was just one example, and not the only medication which, if stopped or not taken, can adversely affect the patient. I could give you a litany of pharmaceuticals if you'd like, none of which have ANYTHING to do with "mental illness." Some migraine meds have major "withdrawal" symptoms, as does even those scary and ill-advised AMBIEN sleeping pills if you take them regularly.

You should talk to some old folks who take five or ten or twenty pills a day, none of them having anything to do with "mental illness." They have to deal with that crap all the time, if they miss a pill they often know just which one based on the symptoms they suffer--everything from anxiety to nausea to dizziness to irritability.

Your "that's so Gay" comment definitely wouldn't fly--especially if you put that "G" and not a "g" on that gay word. As it is, the expression is a popular one amongst grade school brats, and it has an unambiguous meaning. And of course, if you were Gay yourself, the use of the comment could well be wry or amusing. Context is always everything!

And I didn't "stoke" any fire. I simply responded forcefully to an overabundance of snark combined with untruths. If you let people pull that crap without a response, they become emboldened. And when they become emboldened, they become insufferable.

You aren't missing much by not watching HARDBALL. MSNBC has a video archive of their shows up now--you can go over to their site and have a look at the putz if you have a fast connection ....and a strong stomach.

Peace backatcha...!

:hi:

the freepers. No matter what is said, what is reported, what is printed,
they refuse to accept it.

That's why I said kool-aid

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA Obama on Ronnie Reagan

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mbaszmcpesc Obama: GOP is the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years

Please. They beat that horse to death, of course after they beat it to death they are realizing oh wait a minute thats not what he said at all so now the story is turning.

People calling out an ex president is News. Especially when so many agree with the congresmen.

:sarcasm:

:shrug:

here, have another cup o MSM koolaid

also Rahm's inside man - if you remember Pelosi wanted the guy who wanted the troops out immediately, the dlc wanted this guy.

I dont think he would have unless Pelosi okayed it.

Personally I think there's a power struggle going on between Pelosi and Hillary
the same way there was between Pelosi and Jane Harmon - these people are beyond money - what they want is power

Peolosi is Speaker of the HOUSE.

Clinton is the junior US Senator from NY and Presidential candidate.

There's no 'power struggle' there. There's no INTERSECTION.

Just because they are females, there is no need to shop that tired old catfight theme. It is demeaning, more to you than them.

So everyone will STOP with the bullshit reasoning, here's why he did it.

The debate was co-sponsored by....drum roll....THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS, of which he is a leading member.

He was cautioning the candidates not to leave blood on HIS stage.

Pelosi had jackshit to do with it.

over who is going to lead the Democratic party. Clintons have been defacto leaders since Gore -

Clue #2: Pelosi and the DLC are backing Obama - which is why all the senators and congressman are following orders and endorsing him.

If you cant see the forest for the tree, you're not very accomplished at their political games.

Maybe you should just keep quiet with your dirty mouth.

Thank you.

For someone who seems to be suggesting that you are "accomplished at the political game," you're making quite a few rather SUBSTANTIAL errors of fact.

My favorite: The DLC is backing Obama? :rofl:

That would be funny as hell--he'd lose ALL his support here, since half of the participants in this forum seem to think that the D in DLC stands for "DEVIL'S."

That's news to me. I'll bet it is news to Obama, AND the DLC. And every Democrat who posts here.

Do provide a cite, for our edification. Since you so cleverly "see the forest for the tree," and all.

Here, let me help you out a bit. The DLC, beyond ignoring John Edwards, hasn't endorsed anyone. Read and learn: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/dlc-leaders-cut-edwards-out/

And perhaps YOU should stop telling people what to do. Thank YOU...


:eyes:

:hi:

at that time because they were afraid to be called unpatriotic, they wouldnt elect Murtha

Her endorsement of him was almost extracted, and it wasn't terribly enthusiastic.

Hoyer is way better at the job. He also had done the grunt work to EARN the position. He had friends all over the Democratic caucus. Murtha is too old and lazy, and he doesn't always go out of his way to be cordial to his peers. He's a nice enough guy, if grumpy, a rightwinger on every issue save the war, FWIW, but he is too old to do the work that the job requires. That's why he got almost NO VOTES.

It's a job that requires a lot of hours, too. Steny has the time since his wife died. The job keeps him busy.

You come up with a lot of fantasy scenarios, there. That's not how it happened.

want Hoyer.

Murtha is too old ?

Have you taken a look at most in the senate and house?

What's too old for you? 45?

You have opinions, recently formed which are not necessarily correct

I'm warning you to stop insulting people on MY thread and maybe the discourse on the entire website will be raised to a higher level

freshman year together, and he was (briefly) a challenger to her authority, but she did not WANT Murtha. She felt she OWED it to him but only because he ASKED. I will not do your homework for you--you go look up the whole history of that caucus election. And dig below the surface.

While you are at it, take a look at Murtha--do you understand what the job he sought entails? He's FAT and he is OLD. He's also a right-to-life, pro-DOD, pro-business, pro-lobbyist rightwinger, a Bright Blue Dog and then some, except on the war. Do you think a leader with those credentials can be effective heading up our caucus in the legislature?

The man isn't a tad over 'forty five,' as you seem to aver--he will be SEVENTY SIX next June. And he's rode all those years HARD, too.

He has NEVER held a caucus leadership position in the ENTIRE time he has served in the House. That's why he was shut out on the first ballot. If you want the top dog slot below the Speaker, you're expected to pay your dues. He didn't.

I've also interfaced with him on a number of issues back in the day, he's a nice enough guy and a hard worker, but he doesn't work "leadership" hard. So I know of what I speak. He was not only not the best candidate for the job, he was not a GOOD candidate for the job. And his peers in the House let him know that with their vote. That does not make him a bad person or a bad Congressman. He just doesn't have the people skills to soothe an often contentious caucus, and his peers told him so.

I am not 'insulting people,' when I don't join a "Me Too" chorus, and it's not your position to "warn" me of anything. Lack of agreement is NOT 'insulting.' I might ask--as opposed to the dire "WARN" that you rather immaturely employed--you to cease telling me what I can and cannot do on this forum, as that is NOT your role. If you have a problem, take it up with a moderator.

Now, you go and have a nice day.

:hi:

let everyone know MSM did it again

Jimmy Carter is the only Democratic president of the '70s. Now just what was excessive about him? Was it the solar panels he put on the White House roof? Reagan took those down you may remember. Was it the 55 p.h. speed limit Carter put on cars on freeways (through incentives not a law)? That limit conserved a lot of gas.

And look at Carter's career since Reagan stole the presidency. Carter is a hero because of the humanitarian work he has done.

Carter was the real revolutionary. Carter was the man who brought true change.

So why do I claim that Reagan stole the presidency from us? Remember Iran-Contra? Remember how Reagan sold arms to Iran and used the proceeds to fund the Contras? Why did Reagan, who said he would never negotiate with terrorists, agree to sell the arms to Iran in the first place? I do not have proof, but here is the only explanation for that sale that I have been able to figure out: the arms were Reagan's payment to the Iranian government for waiting to release the American hostages in Iran until after Reagan was elected and safely inaugurated. Means, motive, opportunity, three elements suggesting guilt or culpability for a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_(law)

We had two Democratic presidents in the '60s. The first was Kennedy. He remains one of the most beloved of our presidents. Although he served less than one term, he is credited for sponsoring the Civil Rights Act, creating the Peace Corps and starting the program to go to the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

And then there was Johnson. Johnson is responsible for expanding the Viet Nam War, a horrible chapter in our history. He oversaw the enforcement of civil rights laws at the difficult time during which our country began the long road toward integration, the first step toward racial harmony and equality. Johnson also brought the Great Society and Medicare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/2000%20Files/Aug%2000/FTR-08-04-00MedCarHistry.htm

What is Obama talking about when he refers to the excesses of the '60s and '70s? He can't be talking about Democratic excesses. Nixon was the president of excesses of that era. Remember Watergate?

And you are going on with the lie. Shame on you.

of agreeing with him. I said my say. And I'll probably say it again, FrenchieCat, so just get used to it. Obama should have apologized to us real Democrats for his comments. More important, Obama should apologize to Jimmy Carter. Obama's statement is an insult to Jimmy Carter.
Obama is simply wrong on Reagan.

Obama was talking facts...you just don't know what that means...which is why you move the goal post by addressing Reagan's policies, not the fact as to what Obama actually said.

He didn't say good ideas.

He didn't say he admired Reagan.

Everything else is you speak is bullshit that is true, but doesn't link to what Obama said.

Sorry.

for now, he gets the spinning award. It's pretty obvious to me why he draws the people he does as his supporters. They are just like him. Hillary let him talk, and restate his position again last night. If you noticed, he changed his position once again. This is the "third" version of his Reagan/Republican story. I would venture a guess and say, he is not going to get away with his lies. He will be called on it, even though we are forced to listen to him whine like a cry baby. Obama possesses all the elements of a pathological liar and refuses to be pinned down when caught in a lie. What obama doesn't realize his statement is on video and been transcribed into print iow, his statement is carved in stone.

Obama's personality is seriously flawed and why I would never trust what he has to say as "fact"..or that he would keep his word. He is able to mislead with ease, because he believes the lies himself until someone comes along and slaps him back to reality...thats when the denials and back-peddling begin accompanied with the whining eventually shifting the blame elsewhere, anywhere but where it originated. Obama refuses to take responsibility for his words.

He is a dangerous man.

Don't let them shout you down, they'll try anything just to make you go away.

Obama never talked about Reagan's policy, foreign or domestic, just Reagan's political skill, and how it worked for them, not for us. Obama is simply correct on Reagan. Edwards is wrong on Reagan, if he believes Reagan was a president to be trusted or respected by the world. Obama never said anything about Jimmy Carter. Reaganite ideas, however, did overtake Carter's ideas as the driving force, because the country was ready to hear them and ready to change; and change it did, because Reagan was convincing as a communicator. Obama never said the changes were for the better, only that they took place.

September 2007:





http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

The difference is this: Obama points to Reagan as an example of someone who changed the course of our country after what he describes as "the excesses of the '60s and '70s." I may be wrong, but I believe that is a quote from Obama's book Audacity of Hope. Edwards points to Reagan as one of a long list of presidents who continued the same basic foreign policy. Obama presents Reagan as a man with new ideas. Edwards presents Reagan as a man who followed the old ideas.

Obama is ignorant of history because the political course of the '60s from 1960 to 1968 was in the hands of the Democrats who held the line on Cuban missiles and the airlift to Berlin to keep it free and also who passed Medicare, the bills that created the Great Society, the civil rights legislation and enforced Supreme Court decisions on integration. Nixon was the president from 1969-1976. Carter was the president from 1977-1981. Carter was a great president. The next president of the United States is going to find out what Carter was up against. Nixon let the dollar fall as Bush is doing. Nixon continued the Viet Nam War thereby depleting our treasury just as Bush is doing in Iraq. Carter had to pick up the economic pieces. That is a nearly impossible task. Had Carter prevailed in 1980, he would have been the president of really positive change, especially with regard to the environment. Thus far, he is the most environmentally conscious president we have had.

In the quote you cite, Edwards is talking not about a change by Reagan but to the contrary about the fact that Reagan CONTINUED the policy of the Democratic and Republican presidents who preceded him. I do not know the context from which you have cut these statements. But, your analogy is thus incorrect: Obama presented Reagan as an example of someone who stepped in at the right moment and brought change. Edwards spoke of Reagan as someone who continued the policies of his predecessors. That is a world of difference. Obama looks upon Reagan as a powerful president who brought new ideas (although he was a weak man of few ideas compared to Jimmy Carter). Edwards looks at Reagan as an unremarkable president who just continued to do what others had done before him.

As I also stated, I strongly believe that Reagan manipulated the American people's emotions during the 1976 election with a major dirty trick. There is no explanation for the sale of arms to Iran during his presidency other than that he was paying the Iranians back for something -- probably their agreement and performance of an agreement to delay the freeing of the American hostages in Iran until after Reagan's election and inauguration. I do not have documentary evidence to back my belief. But there is no other explanation for Reagan's sale to the Iranians.

Reagan stated that he would not negotiate with terrorists. I believe that Carter had negotiated with the Iranians for the release of the terrorists, and Reagan negotiated for the delay of that release. Carter may know more about what happened his negotiations and may be able to shed light on the true history of the time.

lying by ommission is still lying.

he lumped President Clinton' s performance with Nixon.

Hillary answered him correctly: "You implied Raygun had the only good ideas for the last 15 years"

and I'm not a Hillary fan

"Still dont think the MSM is brainwashing you as to who your candidates are?"

so no evidence of brainwash on that issue anyway.

I dont know where you got this business that "both reported"

Today CNN is still mentioning President Clinton's being told to chill, but nothing about Obama being told not to cross the line in his admireation of Reagan.

And the FULL quote ought to be sent to MSNBC and CNN

sick of their partisan manipulation of the public

:kick: