yall Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Bill Clinton Campaign Chairman and Hillary Clinton '08 Advisor Mickey Kantor tells George Stephanapoulos and James Carville: "Look at Indiana...it doesn't matter if we win. Those people are sh--. How would you like to be a worthless white ni**er?" http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_...ss_White_Ni_ers Even though it's old, I hope this gets some play and is enough to derail her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I don't even understand the insult. What is a worthless white !@#$? Does the guy just like to say !@#$ a lot or something? Odd. Oh, and I don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Bill Clinton Campaign Chairman and Hillary Clinton '08 Advisor Mickey Kantor tells George Stephanapoulos and James Carville: "Look at Indiana...it doesn't matter if we win. Those people are sh--. How would you like to be a worthless white ni**er?" http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_...ss_White_Ni_ers Even though it's old, I hope this gets some play and is enough to derail her. No wonder they are bitter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 White !@#$s are worthless. What's so shocking about that? We can have them dig the mass graves for the colored bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 White !@#$s are worthless. What's so shocking about that? We can have them dig the mass graves for the colored bodies. Whwn did you begin the slow evolution towards becomg ieatcrayonz? Seriously though, I erally hope the press runs with it. It would be karma in the form of "live by the sword, die by the sword". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Seriously though, I erally hope the press runs with it. It would be karma in the form of "live by the sword, die by the sword". You're making no sense. Explain the sword please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Whwn did you begin the slow evolution towards becomg ieatcrayonz? Seriously though, I erally hope the press runs with it. It would be karma in the form of "live by the sword, die by the sword". Although I am not a fan of making a mountain out of a molehill, neither am I a fan of one Mrs. Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 You're making no sense. Explain the sword please? The Clinton campaign has been running amok by doing everything they can to obfuscate any conversation regarding real policy, and instead hammer their opponent on matters entirely unrelated to real issues. In other words, maybe going down in flames in Indiana because of something someone she knows said in 1992 would be entirely ironic/appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I don't even understand the insult. What is a worthless white !@#$? Does the guy just like to say !@#$ a lot or something? Odd. Oh, and I don't care. An infrequent usage of "!@#$" is to describe anyone who's ignorant, inferior, or...well, worthless. A "white !@#$" (which is a term I've heard before, though it's hardly common) is therefore a grammatically acceptible way of describing what would more politely be known as a "hillbilly" or "white trash", perhaps. A "worthless white !@#$", though...rather redundant. At least they didn't say that Hoosiers turn to guns and religion out of bitterness, like Pennsylvanians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 The Clinton campaign has been running amok by doing everything they can to obfuscate any conversation regarding real policy, and instead hammer their opponent on matters entirely unrelated to real issues. That's just not true and you know it. The majority of her speeches and ads are about what policies she would enact. You see 10 second media clips of her answering questions on what she would have done regarding Rev. Wright or about Obama's "bitter" comment and think that's all she talks about. If Obama wants to talk policy, why not accept the challenge to unmoderated debates where they would be directly asking each other questions? Because he knows he would lose on substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 If Obama wants to talk policy, why not accept the challenge to unmoderated debates where they would be directly asking each other questions? Because he knows he would lose on substance. Keep 'em coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 That's just not true and you know it. The majority of her speeches and ads are about what policies she would enact. You see 10 second media clips of her answering questions on what she would have done regarding Rev. Wright or about Obama's "bitter" comment and think that's all she talks about. If Obama wants to talk policy, why not accept the challenge to unmoderated debates where they would be directly asking each other questions? Because he knows he would lose on substance. Apparently you didn't watch the debate moderated by former Clinton staffer Stephanopolis. Because Obama was trying to talk about issues, and the fist 45 minutes was "So Senator America-hater, tell us how much less you love America than Senator Clinton?" Also, yeah she does talk about policy, and her stance (as well as her accent) differs depending on the crowd or circumstances. Lying about what you would do from a policy standpoint, should not be construed as an honest dialogue on policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Keep 'em coming! You think thats wrong? Hell, I think in a debate like that, they BOTH would lose on substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Also, yeah she does talk about policy, and her stance (as well as her accent) differs depending on the crowd or circumstances. Lying about what you would do from a policy standpoint, should not be construed as an honest dialogue on policy. Obama does that exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 An infrequent usage of "!@#$" is to describe anyone who's ignorant, inferior, or...well, worthless. A "white !@#$" (which is a term I've heard before, though it's hardly common) is therefore a grammatically acceptible way of describing what would more politely be known as a "hillbilly" or "white trash", perhaps. A "worthless white !@#$", though...rather redundant. I inferred that but have never heard it before. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 You think thats wrong? Hell, I think in a debate like that, they BOTH would lose on substance. which makes it all the more funny, of course, when a clinton partisan claims she has more "substance" than obama So typical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 Obama does that exact same thing. All politicians do it. I was merely taking exception to the fact that someone felt she was actually honest about something. She is the worst of the worst and I cannot wait to see her lose. My only fear is that when this goes to convention, and Obama wins the nomination, and them loses to McCain, we will see her again in 2012. We can only hope that NY'ers will wise up and not elect a Senator who will spend more time looking to the next job and less time focusing on the needs of their constituents. (Wishful thinking...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 All politicians do it. I was merely taking exception to the fact that someone felt she was actually honest about something. Gotcha. She is the worst of the worst and I cannot wait to see her lose. My only fear is that when this goes to convention, and Obama wins the nomination, and them loses to McCain, we will see her again in 2012. We can only hope that NY'ers will wise up and not elect a Senator who will spend more time looking to the next job and less time focusing on the needs of their constituents. (Wishful thinking...) I'd actually prefer her over Obama. He wants to raise taxes more than Hilldog does, and I'd rather have a politician that admits they're a politician than one who doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 All politicians do it. I was merely taking exception to the fact that someone felt she was actually honest about something. She is the worst of the worst and I cannot wait to see her lose. My only fear is that when this goes to convention, and Obama wins the nomination, and them loses to McCain, we will see her again in 2012. We can only hope that NY'ers will wise up and not elect a Senator who will spend more time looking to the next job and less time focusing on the needs of their constituents. (Wishful thinking...) First you complained that she was just making negative attacks and not talking policy. Then when I called you on that mistake you switch your complaint to her not being honest when she talks policy. Make up your mind. If Obama debated her one-on-one, he wouldn't have to worry about what the moderators asked, and if he's right about policy and she's wrong, what better place to call her out on it. Obama's playing rope-a-dope. You want to be rid of Hillary, then urge Obama to step aside and give her the nomination. Since Obama supporters don't think she can win, she'll lose the general election, she won't be able to come back in 2012, and Obama will have it to himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 First you complained that she was just making negative attacks and not talking policy. Then when I called you on that mistake you switch your complaint to her not being honest when she talks policy. Make up your mind. If Obama debated her one-on-one, he wouldn't have to worry about what the moderators asked, and if he's right about policy and she's wrong, what better place to call her out on it. Obama's playing rope-a-dope. You want to be rid of Hillary, then urge Obama to step aside and give her the nomination. Since Obama supporters don't think she can win, she'll lose the general election, she won't be able to come back in 2012, and Obama will have it to himself. Not talking honestly about policy = not talking policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts