Hilary Clinton is trash...

[Ancient Mariner]

Bias? really? If the roles had been reversed and I was attacking Bush, I have a feeling that I wouldn't be getting pictures of ice dildo's. I probably wouldn't be called insensitive either...

 

Nope.

 

The good 'ol boys from the grand old party would be cocking their weapons instead. On here, Hilary bashing is easy.

[Say Ocean]

 

you guys have to keep in mind that you're viewing this whole situation from a western perpsective. of course it's going to seem backwards.... read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism

 

 

Cultural relativism doesn't mean every culture is right, always. A lot of the time if you look at cultures, many have the same type of ethics applied to vastly different circumstances, making them seem completely different. Cultural relativism isn't an excuse to take away human rights, some things are just {censored}ed up. Jesus, in my ethics class some students were claiming cultural relativism when it came to the holocaust. My teacher wanted to shoot himself in the face :poke:

[HKSblade1]

The overall law of this in question. But so much for not evoking western policy on other lands and cultures. Some said it was ok for Saddam to gas the Kurds or Darfur to go on with it's terrible ways.

 

We can denounce anything we want. We can't ask them to change policy just like Saudi's can't tell us what do do about marital partners.

 

OP suggests Hillary doing this for publicity. Yes

[-=Diz-Tortion=-]

{censored}in arabs and their {censored}ed up laws....

[Burn]

It's a sad affair that politicians have to polarize people and make them distrust each other just to win the election.

 

Oh and by the way: That whole, let's fix the Arabs thing is such a fairy tale and half the world swallowed the whole farce with such gusto it's kind of disgusting. Nobody will ever be able to change anybody. The more you try to interfere, regardless of your intentions, the more they'll resist it. And their hate for the outside world will get even more reinforced.

 

Change the rest of the world first, then they'll have no choice but to adapt. Or else, just leave them the f**k alone. Let them rot, the West has more important things to worry about IMO.

[Slunderfungus]

I hope she wins the Deomcratic nomination for president. That way I know Fred Thompson will be our next pres:D

[echodeluxe]

 

This is so ridiculous, and I think it shows her (slightly) hidden agenda. It's awesome that she's standing up for a rape victim, but why turn it into a political thing?

 

 

what? it is a political thing. what else is it? it was a high court ruling! its not like she can fly over there and do anything about it herself. what the hell is she supposed to do?

 

i think you should stop with the "hidden agendas" crap and look at what shes actually doing.

 

everyone has hidden agendas. i bet yours was "im gonna post this crap about hilary so the forum members would think i know what im talking about concerning politics." nice try.

[pir]

{censored} Hillary. I knew she was going to run a long time ago. The thing is, she has to be this way for a woman to get elected here, I believe. Obama is the best Democratic candidate but he's so far behind......The She-Beast.

 

Obama is leading in Iowa...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900940.html?hpid=topnews

[Syn Harvest]

{censored} the entire democractic party thats all i have to say as im tired of political arguments with liberal fools

[17 Tubes]

 

You took the bait boss... She is not being punished for being raped. It doesn't make it any less wrong, it just changes the argument.

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't take any bait.

 

 

 

 

There's not enough detail for you to admonish me about it, "boss". I'll check it again...but there's nothing to say they didn't go after her. *SHE* could have tried to "segregate"...but if a rapist doesn't want the victim segregated, they ain't gonna be segregated.

 

Dig, boss?

[FWAxeIbanez]

I didn't take any bait. There's not enough detail for you to admonish me about it, "boss". I'll check it again...but there's nothing to say they didn't go after her. *SHE* could have tried to "segregate"...but if a rapist doesn't want the victim segregated, they ain't gonna be segregated. Dig, boss?

 

Umm, she was in public with out a relative or designated gaurdian. She was in a car with an unrelated man which is already against the law when the rapists basically hijacked the car they were in. Both her and the man she was with got assaulted.

 

It's like I said, getting hit by a car when you have drugs in the glovebox. You could be driving along down the road obeying all traffic laws and doing just fine when some drunk slams into you, yet when the cops come they find the drugs. Except, like I said, there is a good an well defined reason not to be allowed to have drugs in the glove box

 

She got busted for breaking a stupid law, the rape really didn't have anything to do with her conviction, except for the fact that they wouldn't have known she was out alone if she hadn't been raped.

 

Seriously, how easy could it be for a man to go look for women out alone? You would know that you could "rape away" () and they couldn't report it to police without admitting to breaking the law and basically asking for 90 lashes. It's disgusting.

[FWAxeIbanez]

 

everyone has hidden agendas. i bet yours was "im gonna post this crap about hilary so the forum members would think i know what im talking about concerning politics." nice try.

 

 

I think you will notice that I have not resorted to personal attacks on anyone in this thread, except of course Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you are attacking my intelligence, and maintaining a condescending tone when you obviously were not able to read this thread completely. Your exact question has already been posed, and I answered it. If you have a point to make or see a flaw in my answer, feel free to post again.

 

Why don't you demonstrate to me how this whole thread is intended to put myself above forumites? When I make a personal attack on someone (like Hillary) I post the reasons for my attack and why I think it's justified. This is because I really believe in what I am saying, and I believe that I post a good argument against her actions. So do you have some examples to back your statement up or are you just lashing out because I pinched a nerve? You can vote for whoever you want, so can I, I also have a right to state my opinion.

[FWAxeIbanez]

Nope. The good 'ol boys from the grand old party would be cocking their weapons instead. On here, Hilary bashing is easy.

 

Ride that stereotype partner!

 

Who's bias is really showing

[17 Tubes]

Umm, she was in public with out a relative or designated gaurdian. She was in a car with an unrelated man which is already against the law when the rapists basically hijacked the car they were in. Both her and the man she was with got assaulted. It's like I said, getting hit by a car when you have drugs in the glovebox. You could be driving along down the road obeying all traffic laws and doing just fine when some drunk slams into you, yet when the cops come they find the drugs. Except, like I said, there is a good an well defined reason not to be allowed to have drugs in the glove box She got busted for breaking a stupid law, the rape really didn't have anything to do with her conviction, except for the fact that they wouldn't have known she was out alone if she hadn't been raped. Seriously, how easy could it be for a man to go look for women out alone? You would know that you could "rape away" ( ) and they couldn't report it to police without admitting to breaking the law and basically asking for 90 lashes. It's disgusting.

 

Okay...fair enough.....I couldn't find that much detail except I knew she was with another person.

 

 

Here's my reconsidered take: Middle East is basically religious dictatorships, and I'd like to believe that any religion has compassion as one of it's components.

 

People keep making excuses for the Muslim religion, but I for one would not want to be part of being a religiion that condones this action. Just the same as the Catholic religion that supported the priests that molested (raped?) children.

 

 

I know that sometimes an innocent act leads to maginfied consequences.....and things are sometimes out of your control and that's the way it is. But sometimes these things happen, and get notariety, for a reason.

[dicky sofa]

False...

 

Flex!

[Mike Honcho]

I wish the Democrats would nominate someone like Fov. Mark Warner from VA or Even Bayh from IND but they won't. I will, however, certainly vote for whomever they nominate. Whoever they put up can't be as bad as Bush has been. I think of him every time I fill up with gas, see the buget deficit, see the national debt, read the names of the brave service men and women who have died this week in Iraq. The Clinton 90s were way beter than the Bush 2000s. Any objective person would come to the same conclusion.

 

"Objective person"? You are a contradictory douche nozzle when you mention the concept of 'objectivity' and then follow it up with this gem-of-a- statement, "I will vote for whomever they nominate". Not much objectivity there.

 

You sound like a completely partisan cock holster!

[FWAxeIbanez]

People keep making excuses for the Muslim religion, but I for one would not want to be part of being a religiion that condones this action. Just the same as the Catholic religion that supported the priests that molested (raped?) children.

 

I know what you mean, and it's a tough stance to take. No one wants to be the guy to say "your religion is wrong". In this case, I would argue that the government that is enforcing these fundamentalist based laws is probably (at least I'd hope) not representative of good Islamic practice.

 

Consider the "Holy Roman Empire" for one of the bigger black eyes in Christian history... The problem with religions and political leanings, is that it's up to the fallible to represent an ideal. I don't think Christianity is bad, but there are plenty of bad Christians. Same can be said for conservatives and liberals. I wouldn't participate in Islam, but I still can't swallow the idea that it's a faith that breeds hate. I have a hard time believing that any faith, assuming it is in it's unadulterated true form, could harbor negativity. Most of the bad stuff that comes from politics and religion is our fault. Humans being humans I guess...

[FWAxeIbanez]

"Objective person"? You are a contradictory douche nozzle when you mention the concept of 'objectivity' and then follow it up with this gem-of-a- statement, "I will vote for whomever they nominate". Not much objectivity there. You sound like a completely partisan cock holster!

 

I know, I got a kick out of that too... I thought "Tow that party line pal!"

 

I make an argument which was based on a public statement that Hilary made, I then back up my point with quite a bit of explanation, none of which based on my conservative views, only to get called biased. Do they back it up and explain why my point is flawed because of my bias? Nope, god forbid...

 

So how does that work exactly? Am I not supposed to have political preference? I'm not allowed to have an opinion when I call someone out on something I feel is a genuine wrong doing? So who gets to blow the whistle on anyone? And how come you all like to rag on Bush so much? I thought only people with no discernable opinion are allowed to call in to question someones practices?

 

And how come the major point against me is simply that I'm a Conservative? Isn't that a Bias? If you think my reasoning is wrong, feel free to point that out. I put my opinion up for discussion because I believe the argument holds weight, and I think it can hold up to scrutiny as well. Shouldn't an argument in Hillary's defense be able to stand up to the same test?

 

Tho I mentioned Bush, I did not argue on his behalf (except to say that he has limited control of the situation) and I used Hillary's words as the basis of my argument, not her political stance. I argued that her use of the media was for strategic selfish gain, and I believe that my argument could have come from an honest Liberal just as easily as it came from me, and I believe that if the offender had been conservative, my argument would still stand even as currently written.

 

What Hillary did is wrong regardless of her political stance, and really doesn't even have much to do with her political stance, it has to do with her being a selfish, arrogant, and manipulative person

[Ancient Mariner]

Ride that stereotype partner! Who's bias is really showing

 

I was on the sharp end of a pile of that on another forum at the time Dubya got in first time round. I suggested he might have a few shortcomings and people that *should* have known better became extremely unpleasant. It was sufficiently scary that I went through my user ID and posts and removed all traces, including email addresses, that might have enabled them to trace where I live.

 

For real.

 

The same guys were grumbling about how Bush is NOW quite recently.

 

The problem is that all you yanks are either lovers or haters - you can't step back and think your politics through. Dubya is either the saviour of the world flash Gordon stylee or a knuckle-dragger. Hilary is either the bitch-queen from hell or Wonder Woman.

 

And the worst part is that in politics you're all turncoats, as far as individual politicians go.

 

Here in the UK, we KNOW they're generally much of a muchness, and wouldn't dream of flaming someone on a guitar forum over the actions of a politician. But try to explain that in specifics and it gets NASTY. Like the OP. HC couldn't win if she wanted, because you've already decided she's from the wrong party and the wrong family. I don't personally think she'd be the best president for either you or us, but she'd probably not be the least effective either.

[Mike Honcho]

 

I was on the sharp end of a pile of that on another forum at the time Dubya got in first time round. I suggested he might have a few shortcomings and people that *should* have known better became extremely unpleasant. It was sufficiently scary that I went through my user ID and posts and removed all traces, including email addresses, that might have enabled them to trace where I live. For real. The same guys were grumbling about how Bush is NOW quite recently. The problem is that all you yanks are either lovers or haters - you can't step back and think your politics through. Dubya is either the saviour of the world flash Gordon stylee or a knuckle-dragger. Hilary is either the bitch-queen from hell or Wonder Woman. And the worst part is that in politics you're all turncoats, as far as individual politicians go. Here in the UK, we KNOW they're generally much of a muchness, and wouldn't dream of flaming someone on a guitar forum over the actions of a politician. But try to explain that in specifics and it gets NASTY. Like the OP. HC couldn't win if she wanted, because you've already decided she's from the wrong party and the wrong family. I don't personally think she'd be the best president for either you or us, but she'd probably not be the least effective either.

 

 

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on here. I think we could all learn something from this.

[rushtallica]

 

She's doing this to look good for her voters: women. if and when she does assume presidency, she would never do anything like what she's advocating now, because it's way too extreme. it's how all presidencial candidates are.

 

 

+ 1. As lame as that situation is for that girl, there are likely thousands of examples of messed up rulings not only abroad but even here in our own country that someone could get motivated to be pissed off about. But Hillary's only doing what many others do when seeking followers, and at least it's for a good cause whether or not she's really concerned for the girl and even if she knows raising a fuss about it is futile.

[FWAxeIbanez]

But try to explain that in specifics and it gets NASTY. Like the OP.

 

I'm sorry... but wasn't I the one who started in with the specifics when I started this thread in the first place? and wasn't our first communication in this thread based off of an attack you placed on me directly, as opposed to the stance I took?

 

Who here needs to take a step back? Maybe you should practice what you preach.

[FWAxeIbanez]

 

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on here. I think we could all learn something from this.

 

 

Ancient Mariner included

[Hegmatronicon]

I didnt think he was talking about you in that post.

 

Chill the F out man.

[FWAxeIbanez]

 

But try to explain that in specifics and it gets NASTY. Like the OP.

 

 

I assumed that OP was "Original Poster" and that would be me. It does seem like an anal argument to make if it was indeed meant the way I took it, so if I got it wrong somehow, please fill me in. It's all black and white text without tone, so "reading it wrong" is a possibility.