Which should Hillary have "school marmed" harder? Perjury or plagiarizing?

"Is" is just a word, too.

- Dave

P.S. Please keep this kicked and rec'd for others to weigh in. Thanks.

Thank you for the imagery.

their nastiness.

... not on the stump.

- Dave

Twenty years of Clintush is enough.

... and that's a pretty big shift for me. Let her go write her own book, without a ghost writer, about how she lost so much goodwill.

- Dave

Impeach Clinton 2.0

She needs to be kicked out of the Senate for this foolishness. lol!

sure as hell don't want 'er as my senator..

"resign" to implement the Peter Principle and get kicked up stairs.

Too bad RFKjr endorsed hilary.

:rofl:

Without getting myself into trouble.

... that pipedream.

- Dave

You don't need a list of charachters - its all the same old folks

Stage I When you do not have the best position on the war - prevaricate

Stage II When you do not have the clear voice of leadership - triangulate

Stage III When you do not have the momentum - trivialize the election just lost

Stage IV When you do not have anywhere to go - instigate a smear on the supporters as unthinking cultists

Stage V When the supporters embrace the slur and turn it around - start backing up the dump truck and release a load
against the leader who has sparked a fire across the country.

Stage VI When this desperate tactic is reviled - step aside as the great locomotive of history barrels by you and you turn to watch history pass you by.

But thanks for giving me my Lentish fix.

; )

- Dave

she pulls the same ole shitt... more overblown B.S. about nothing

keep threatening to use your mad skillz to destroy a candidate.

No, to put the right candidate for America in the winner's circle, and to keep another Clinton backsliding set of promises from disillusioning another generation of political newcomers.

- Dave

we all know what it is.

And it's nothing new - you've been doing it for months.

in your overinflated sense of self-importance that you can't even possibly imagine that people can disagree with you without being idiots.

You're a tool.

... accusatory language.

"YOU" might try that.

- Dave

looking in the fucking mirror yourself. Stop acting like a dickwad, and grow the fuck up.

You're not half as powerful or scary as you think you are.

that I was horribly, terribly wrong defending the Clintons for the last two decades. It's a pretty breathtaking revelation.

Don't forget, it really does take a Clinton to clean (reads cover) up for a Bush.

... when a little help with money matters is discussed on the links.

- Dave

before President Obama takes office. I somehow doubt BushInc will trust Obama to keep their secrets - he's surrounded by too many open government advisors.

:hug:

... and if that's where it'll be decided, well, so be it.

- Dave

But I understand where you're coming from.

... buckets full at the ready.

They can either leave off with this tactic, or reap the whirlwind they themselves have sown.

- Dave

n/t

... for her detractors. I agree wholeheartedly.

- Dave

is definitely a feminine pejorative.

Was just following his lead..

but thanks for jumping on the lynch mob wagon.

hilary lies her freakin' head off..and she's gonna get caught on tape one of these days.

... are easy to see.

So are their respective supporters.

- Dave

Less actual an proof, and more validly called evidence-- unless we are take all Poll Results as a Proof. And as evidence, it doesn't really go too far, either unless one believes push-polls are valid.

So, when was the last time she won a primary?

:evilgrin:

:sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

; )

- Dave

Regardless of the outcomes-- polls are not Proofs. At best they are evidence.

I've got no horse in this race yet as I've neither chosen on nor ruled out a candidate, so there's obviously little bias from me. But a Proof is one thing, and polls "ain't it..."

Ahhh.... I see my confusion. I perceive polling and voting to be two distinct and very different acts, much as I see Evidence and Proofs as two very different things.

As a woman. She relys on her gender to evoke pity and seems to expect a double standard. I'm am so weary of her antics I can't stand it.

He can't seem to help himself.

If not, I don't really see your point. Typically when one wants to draw parallels, they use traits that can be found in both subjects. Marm being a derivative of Ma'am, the term refers to a female schoolteacher. Nothing disrespectful about the term, unless you find it particularly offensive to point out the fact that Hillary is, in fact, a woman.

... actually make sense.

- Dave

...it's currently set to "Fly off the handle for no good reason at all"...

before you get sued.

No need to get down there in the muck.

... should "be," and where it "isn't," ya know?

- Dave

at her with 10x the strength and fact of record.

thanks to all that 'experience' of hers.

she's looking more like a loser to me each day.
I'm a bit surprised tho at her low mental functions in thinking some of these dirty tactics should be working for her, but then again she doesn't come off looking too 'swift'. sure, it works with her own chosen circle she parties and rubs elbows with, but she seems to have no clue about how the little people think, or that they actually do think.

... that's for damn sure.

But then again, she *did* cloister herself away at Wellesley, rather than rub elbows with others.

- Dave

?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939847EC77F5F8D1CEC60E2FB0985FF5CBA40A659CEC4C8CB6

It's Hillary drinking Starbucks.

:rofl:

what 'is' plagiarism, and what 'is' perjury?

How about that one? And murdering Ron Brown while making it look like a plane crash. And putting dildos on the White House Christmas tree? Why neglect those incidents?

... against herself.

- Dave

as seems to be your purpose here, why leave out the truly imaginative ones? That would at least be amusing. Reviving Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich's "rule of law" routine is just tedious.

... any conspiracy - of whatever wing - could ever cook up against her.

She is her own worst enemy.

- Dave

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

Until such time, please go fling your poo elsewhere.

- Dave

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

I put him on ignore last week, he needs to evolve, but your one sided conversations are funny...and even tho you can read his posts, it is a one sided conversation!

... http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=stoopid+monkey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi">Stoopid Monkey close-outs on Comedy Central.

It's not the Evil Monkey from Family Guy.

- Dave

... deliver a speech to save her life, without screeching, so she attacks Obama for giving an inspiring one.

Is it any surprise her mindless followers follow suit?

- Dave

misogynistic, sexist, hate-filled remarks?

Screeching? School Marm?

Are you going to tell me about the time she got her period and totally ripped your head off "for nothing" too?

... any number of strong, tough, tough-minded, straight-talking candidates/pols/elected officials who just happen to also be women.

Hillary is a hack.

- Dave

The many screeching members of school marms for Hillary wait with bated breath.

And I won't be "volunteering" a "donation" to the Clintons or their back-channel conduits, either.

So don't ask me to, coz I will tell you where to go - having been screwed more than once by their lies.

- Dave

P.S. I can't believe you really had a title - as s Clintonite - that betrayed the secret donor handshake: "Quid Pro Quo. I asked you first. n/t"

... Boadicea.

- Dave

Cynthia McKinney
That is two from one metro area that I call home.Both of whom this southern white boy has voted for in the past and will most likely get my vote and support if they ever run for higher office in the future.

Had to wiki her.Found this great quote from her:"in spite of hopeless odds, . . . to demonstrate the sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo."
This country needs more women like her in positions of power.

:eyes:

I cannot believe the haste with which fauxminists will attack any man who dares oppose HRC.

- Dave

Hell,I thought you were a right wing troll.
Everyone knows how rightwing trolls expose financial crimes like those committed by Sate Street Bank
or high crimes like the treason and bribery that cheney has committed.

... especially where mindless HilBorgs are concerned.

- Dave

What an excellant example of groupthink.

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

Looks like hilborgs supporters have 5 of the 8 down pat.

rectalcranial something or another.
Has something to do with pressure and noxious fumes affecting the thought process.


Half a billion to build a library?I hope they buy a lot of books on cognitive dissonance.

That's their story.

- Dave

In those days, we had to be 21 to vote.

:toast:

That duty has apparently fallen to the Obamatologists.

... and their followers, tried and true.

- Dave

You are too kind.

... of progressive voters.

- Dave

Always came into town to civilize the riff raff. All that "clap-clap, point-point" (J. Stewart) crap is just off putting. Mrs. BB05 noted early on that she could talk to Bill like that, but not the voters.

won with a coalition of the AA & Gay communities. But that's a story for another time.

... thus far.

The Clintons pissed me right the F*&% off today.

- Dave

sure, right....

Hey, Paul. Want some proof?

- Dave

proof would be nice...

I'm not into spoonfeeding.

... me as a liar?

I'm willing to put up, if you're willing to say you were dead wrong.

- Dave

better yet, why don't you post it so everyone can see it?

wouldn't that make more sense?

You might think. But rabid pro-Clinton types whine and moan that it's verboten. Apparently, they seem to be laboring under the idiotic notion that the GOP doesn't have the data.

- Dave

I'm not going to defy the mods by posting a public link that has already resulted in a thread lock. Their jobs are hard enough.

If you disagree that the data I've provided is troublesome, let's focus on that.

- Dave

:shrug:

right now I have e-bay sales to package and mail.

source. And even if the "list" is accurate, what does it prove? That powerful people thought that HRC was going to be our next president and gave money to her husband's library in the hope of some quid pro quo?

Your google search led me to some online game and a site on japanese cuisine.

??????????


What do I think? I think, in the the common vernacular, that you are full of shit.

If that's all you're basing this on I can understand why Skinner told you to stop posting this crap.

"most people on DU don't consider the NY Sun a reputable source"

That's downright Rovish of you. Attack the source, first. You know what? In the free marketplace of ideas, oftentimes, the most accurate damaging data is going to come from the other side. Kneejerk progressives take every Mother Jones expose as the gospel (and I think they do a fine job). But thinking, rational progressives know that it's probably not a smart idea to discount the exposes coming out of the other end of the spectrum.

Because thinking independents won't.

"And even if the 'list' is accurate, what does it prove?"

You're right. Voters in key swing states who've lost their jobs and livelihoods to trade agreements, NAFTA, poorly-managed globalization transition assistance, etc. won't care that the Clintons have made out so well from some of those sources. You're absolutely right. This has no resonance, whatsoever, in the primaries of OH, RI, TX, VT, or on into the GE. Nope. None whatsoever. Be sure to tell voters that the donor lists prove nothing. Stick your head in the sand.

"That powerful people thought that HRC was going to be our next president and gave money to her husband's library in the hope of some quid pro quo?"

No, the point goes deeper. The contributions began while he was still the sitting President. But you ostriched that quite well.

"Your google search led me to some online game and a site on japanese cuisine.

??????????"

Now, this threw me. I had to go look at my Sent folder. I definitely did not send you there on purpose, though I now have a hankering for sashimi.

"http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=kru ... "

You're right. The search apparently got cut off. Now, instead of politely e-mailing me back, and saying, "This is either a bad link or a bad joke," you decided to come parade it here, as it it proves that I'm "full of shit".

As I PMed you a short bit ago, "The 'KRU' link was cut off; should've been Krumholz. Try 'krumholz waxman clinton library'. Sheila Krumholz is the Executive Director of the Center for Responsive Politics." Apparently, Chairman Waxman doesn't think she's "full of shit" when it comes to the very serious problems with the donor lists, and doesn't think that those who raise the issue are "full of shit," either.

But then again, the last time I checked, Chairman Waxman is NOT head of the Congressional Ostrich Caucus.

"What do I think? I think, in the the common vernacular, that you are full of shit."

I think you're giving yourself way too much credit beyond the second word of that sentence.

"If that's all you're basing this on I can understand why Skinner told you to stop posting this crap."

Well, please do let us know what you think of Chairman Waxman's pending legislation on the issue of Presidential library donor disclosure. You see, Paul, I actually pay attention to what's going on on Capitol Hill. Have to, you know. Maybe you can ostrich it up. I can't.

- Dave

: p

- Dave

:(

:patriot:

:rofl:

is misattribution worse than plagiarism?

:popcorn:

Just stirring the wasp nest a little. :evilgrin:

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

thread hangin on just hangin on

have full blown rabies

:rofl:

That was funny.

- Dave

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hillary+clinton+college+thesis">How many times did she fail to give attribution, as a good Young Republican at Wellesley?

god that thing must be the size of the Mormon vault in SLC

... either.

:thumbsup:

- Dave

Those desiring a change in the balance of power generally lack the established criteria money or status and must mobilize numbers.

Hmmmmmmm sounds like who? Interesting I wonder who Saul Alinsky would be backing in this election?

... and I'd make mincemeat of her in a debate.

- Dave

that asserting falsehoods is a display of "wisdom". What you claim as "relevant experience" is a mystery. The claim "I'd make mincemeat of her", I'll just write off to youthful exuberance and enthusiasm, as you don't seem to have a grip on the factuality of your assertions.

... have you looked at the Clinton Library Donor lists, now available online?

- Dave

They'll be public domain soon enough, and the investigative journalists who need access to them, have access. I'm wise to you.

But if you know how to do a decent Internet search, they're out there now.

- Dave

YOU brought up some sort of vague allegations, won't provide any backup, not even a link, and claim you're "wise" to ME?! :eyes:

Jeezuz. You've made other allegations in this very thread that have been proven to be bullshit.

Links are permitted on this board unless they are to sites that are racist, obscene or dedidicated to deriding DU. If you have any factual information, fucking post a link to it.

Well guess what! I have some amazing, magical, earthshaking information that will blow the top off of everything in the whole world!!!! But it's a secret, ya know. Just take my word for it.

Pffft.

... posting an actual thread to actual Clinton Library donors is a sure-fire way to get a thread locked. Tried. True. Proven.

Because rabid Clintonites think, somehow, that the GOP doesn't have it, too.

:eyes:

- Dave

You never had a thread locked because of posting "actual Clinton Library donors", and you damned well know it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2544960&mesg_id=2545606



Your threads were locked because of never having provided any backup whatsoever. You were asked to refrain from dropping this crap onto DU unless you can provide evidence to back up your claims, yet here you are again with the same shit.

You just won't quit until you get this one locked, right?

- Dave

I have never taken any steps toward having any of your threads locked. I find your bullshit far too entertaining than to try to have them locked. I only have blocked your PMs to me.

while I unblock your PMs.

(Edit: Done)

I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts, both about the data, and about the phenom by which linking to it results in locks.

- Dave

You sent me three links. Two were to articles from 2004 written by the "right-wing thinktank", neo-con, pro-Israel rag, The New York Sun (a beloved favorite of freepers). Perhaps DU doesn't permit links to such a "source".

A little comment on TNYS:



From Slate:



So far, I haven't managed to get overly worked up about donations from overseas, as Reagan, Bush 1 and Carter have all taken such donations for their libraries/foundations.

I have been checking out some of the donors and have come across nefarious donor connections to such unscrupulous associations like the Whitney Museum of American Art, Los Angles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles Philharmonic Association, New York University, Library Commissioners for the City of Los Angeles, and the 14th largest charitable educational foundation in Arkansas! I suppose if there's a particular donor that concerns you for some reason, you could actually state what your specific concerns are, and save me a bunch of time. In the meantime, you can read the full Clinton Foundation Annual Report for 2006 here: http://www.clintonfoundation.org/pdf/annual-report-2006-highres.pdf

As to the issue of donor privacy, United States IRS law relating to public disclosure of donor info has been considerably tightened in the last couple of years toward protecting donor privacy to prevent "donor hijacking" where charities gain access to others' donor lists in order to solicit and "steal" donor sources.

The third article is from ABC about the selling of portions of donor lists. We have seen this already.

These vague innuendos and wild goose chases get tiresome.

Telling. And I no longer care to have a discussion with someone who cannot concede an intellectually honest point.

- Dave

"I have been checking out some of the donors and have come across nefarious donor connections to such unscrupulous associations like the Whitney Museum of American Art, Los Angles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles Philharmonic Association, New York University, Library Commissioners for the City of Los Angeles, and the 14th largest charitable educational foundation in Arkansas! I suppose if there's a particular donor that concerns you for some reason, you could actually state what your specific concerns are, and save me a bunch of time."

I also suggested that you might point out anything that gives you particular concern, so that I needn't waste my time on wild goose chases.

"Concede" fucking WHAT?! That donations have been given to a charitable foundation?!!! Fine! I concede! Wanna make your point? What the fuck ARE you talking about? That wealthy Middle Easterners donated? Well let's just kill em all! Let's hang Jimmy Carter for having been given donations to his foundations by Ayrabbs. We can't have no money for starving children or AIDS if it comes from fucking Ayrabbs.

WHAT's your point, exactly?

... on the facts.

- Dave

... to deflect attention from facts:

"You sent me three links. Two were to articles from 2004 written by the 'right-wing thinktank', neo-con, pro-Israel rag, The New York Sun (a beloved favorite of freepers). Perhaps DU doesn't permit links to such a 'source'."

Here, we have two dodges in a single paragraph:

1. Note that the poster conveniently omits any mention of the third link I sent. That was to the comments of the http://www.google.com/search?q=sheila+krumholz+%22executive+director%22+center+responsive+politics+clinton+library+lists+waxman&hl=en">Exec. Director of the Center for Responsive Politics, Sheila Krumholz, whom Chairman Waxman invited to testify before his committee on the matter. Notably, this poster couldn't find anything to skewer her or Waxman with, so the poster simply dodged.

2. Note that the poster goes to great pains to denigrate the source of the data, digging up anyone from Kofi Annan's chief of staff to Slate to make the point that this is a very untrustworthy source.

**********************************************************
"A little comment on TNYS:

Kofi Annan's chief of staff at the United Nations, describes the Sun as 'a pimple on the backside of American journalism.'


From Slate:


Dissent Equals Treason- The New York Sun lacks the courage of its fascist convictions.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2003, at 5:05 PM ET

On Feb. 6, the New York Sun published an editorial equating dissent with treason. The subject was an anti-war march planned in New York City on Feb. 15. Although the Sun grudgingly conceded that the protesters 'probably do have a claim under the right to free speech,' it went on to argue that anyone who marches against war with Iraq is providing "aid and comfort" to Saddam, and therefore committing treason as defined by Article III of the Constitution:

There can be no question at this point that Saddam Hussein is an enemy of America. ... And there is no reason to doubt that the "anti-war" protesters—we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq—are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein. ... The more successful the protesters are in making their case in New York, the less chance they'll have the precious constitutional freedom to protest here the next time around.

http://www.slate.com/id/2078455 /

**********************************************************

Next, just in case the data might be verifiable from a source that the poster would have to concede is legit (and it can be), the poster moves on to downplay its importance. Just in case:


"So far, I haven't managed to get overly worked up about donations from overseas, as Reagan, Bush 1 and Carter have all taken such donations for their libraries/foundations."


Well, good for this poster. What about the voters in places like Ohio and Texas, who might perceive a conflict of interest, or something not quite right with the impact this might've had on foreign policy or trade agreements that affected their lives?

No. Instead, the poster extols the virtues of all these clean-handed philanthropists.

"I have been checking out some of the donors and have come across nefarious donor connections to such unscrupulous associations like the Whitney Museum of American Art, Los Angles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles Philharmonic Association, New York University, Library Commissioners for the City of Los Angeles, and the 14th largest charitable educational foundation in Arkansas! I suppose if there's a particular donor that concerns you for some reason, you could actually state what your specific concerns are, and save me a bunch of time."

"In the meantime, you can read the full Clinton Foundation Annual Report for 2006 here: http://www.clintonfoundation.org/pdf/annual-report-2006..."

Minus the donor lists. That's sort of the whole point.

Just for good measure, the poster hastens to defend the Clinton Foundation on keeping this all hush-hush.

"As to the issue of donor privacy, United States IRS law relating to public disclosure of donor info has been considerably tightened in the last couple of years toward protecting donor privacy to prevent 'donor hijacking' where charities gain access to others' donor lists in order to solicit and 'steal' donor sources."

"The third article is from ABC about the selling of portions of donor lists. We have seen this already."

Ah. As an afterthought, the poster gets to the third link, http://www.google.com/search?as_q=sheila+krumholz+waxman+library&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=oversight.house.gov&as_rights=&safe=images">ignoring Ms. Krumholz's testimony before Chairman Waxman.

"These vague innuendos and wild goose chases get tiresome."

Thankfully, I'm here to debunk them when you send unsuspecting readers on one.

- Dave

You can easily post the list without the link to the neo-con rag.

Why haven't you?

You NEVER give any fucking straight information.

(Oh, dear. I know you get all bent out of shape when someone uses a bad word. Sorry.)

... posting the link or the data gets the thread or sub-thread locked.

But, don't worry. Every TX and OH voter ***will*** have the opportunity to make his or her own judgment, without any interpretation remotely resembling your apologia.

- Dave

... if you could see your way clear to taking down comments that imply I was lying about the data's existence or importance.

- Dave

... will you publicly concede you've erred in calling me a liar?

- Dave

If someone forced me to guess, I would guess HPD.

I'm guessing you've never held any sort of clearance, though.

- Dave

no

Oh, and just because your prof told you to buy the DSM, doesn't mean you're qualified to diagnose anyone, yet, sparky.

- Dave

you. What does that say? Why have you been forced to kick your own thread so many times?

You know, don't you - that the near total lack of support you find here is due to your failure to persuade?

I rather like the name sparky. Please feel free to call me sparky any time you like. I give you permission.

the rejection must be killing you.

And you really are projecting your need for acceptance here. I'm an INTJ. You might read about it during your second semester, if you stick with Psych.

- Dave

speaks.

Clearly, you don't understand stats. Or how to benchmark said stats. Or how to perform a standard deviation.

And your attempts to psyops me? Laughable.

Oh, and we're still waiting for you to tell us all about your significant and deep knowledge of how Gro and Hillary stack up as progressive leaders.

- Dave

... jumping it from XX47 to XX57. Just to prove that every single time a poster backs out to resume reading downthread, s/he is creating another view.

That would be the beginning of mathematical understanding for you.

Next, would be benchmarking any other poll with 75 votes cast against the number of responses and views. You might have a basis of comparison then, instead of trying to cherrypick a precise-sounding number. I've had advanced stats, and can run rings around most paid pollsters when I'm brought in to catch them in their BS.

Finally, please do regale us with why Hillary is a superior progressive leader than Gro, when you get around to dropping your Clintonesque quid pro quo requirement.

- Dave

It's all yours, enjoy.

When the Clinton team fumbles, we just let him run the ball back for the TD! :)

... long-distance, anymore?

- Dave

I mean, come on. You're clearly beyond the preface of the DSM.

- Dave

Reveal it to us. Show us all. The world waits for your words.

no I don't. Nor do I have my stash-box where I kept my LSD in 1968... I've changed a little since then.

By the way, the descrition of the document is not "WELLESLEY COLLEGE/YOUNG REPUBLICAN COLLEGE THESIS", it is "A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Bachelor of Arts degree under the Special Honors Program, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts".

(no need to fret about me, I am not a Hillary supporter)

... and a nice little window into her "thinking's" evolution.

- Dave

and did not know that it has been available since 2001, it is quite obvious that you have not read it and have no clue what you are talking about.

And no, she was not a young republican in 1968.