The_Noble_Cause wrote:Monker wrote:TNC,
You asked me in a very emphatic way, "Did she or did she not play the "9-11" card when asked about her coffers being lined by Wall Street?" The answer to your question was, "NO," so I felt obligated to inform you of the context of Clinton's statment. Yes, there IS a difference between the two, especially when you question is asked in such a demanding way. Perhaps next time you do this you will know what happened in the debate and ask your demanding question correctly.
But she DID play the 9-11 card. Your clarification that Hillary was responding to what an opponent said, as opposed to answering a question, means NOTHING.
I already explained that it meant the difference between me answering, "Yes" or "No". So, yes, it did mean something.
Monker wrote:I said, "I don't recall her saying her campaign was mostly funded by small doners...I might have missed that. What I saw was her saying that her small donations were 60% women." You QUOTED THE ABOVE and replied, "Both of those moments have gone viral." There was NO MENTION of the viewer follow up question. So, I had to correct you yet again by informing you that these were the same moment, not two separate moments and provided the YouTube link so you could see what were talking about.
The 9/11 comment and the small donors comment were separate lies and both have been torn apart separately by pundits. Her comment (or is that a response?) was
"Not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, and I’m very proud that for the first time, a majority of my donors are women, 60%" This has been debunked as a lie. Again, no mention of this by you. You are far too busy playing grammar and semantic police.
WTF? So, now you are flip-flopping on this and going back to your original assertion that it was two moments? My God, it was THE SAME SENTENCE. It was NOT two moments.
Monker wrote:Now, I regret to inform you that the moderator did not present the follow up question but one of the three on the journalist panel, or whatever they call it.
Here we go again...

Was it asked by a moderator? Was it asked by a journalist? Generally speaking, anyone who talks to candidates on-stage during the debate can be considered a moderator. The female anchor asked instead of Dickerson. I guess she was a journalist...does it matter? Nope. Can you be anymore desperate?
That is NOT TRUE. In this case, there was a moderator and three people on a journalist panel who could ask question. Those three people did not have authority to moderate the debate. There is no "generally speaking" about it at all.
It has nothing to do with being "desperate"...if that were the case I would not have said O'Malley did so well. You simply don't seem to know anything about what you are talking about. You claim to have watched the debate, but WFT? There are so many errors in your posts that I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you just picked up on a few bits to "prove" how bad Clinton is and everything else, including the context of those remarks, just vanished from your head. You are so fixated on insulting Clinton that nothing else matters.
Trust me, I watched it.
Then you must have watched it drunk or something considering how much of the details you obviously forgot.
Clarifying that Hillary made her 9/11 moment responding to Bernie does not add additional context. This is all subterfuge to avoid talking about your candidate's lies.
YES IT DOES MATTER. Again, you asked "Did she or did she not invoke 9/11 in response to a question..." Or, whatever, reread your own post for the exact quote. Taken IN THAT CONTEXT the answer to your question is "No, she did not answer any question by invoking 9/11." But, if I said that you be all "Did so! Did so!" So, I simply corrected you to put it in the correct context.
Blah, blah, blah, bullshit. The Clintons are everything I loathe about Democrats. They speak in the language of the working poor and middle class and then give us NAFTA or the Telecomm Act or Welfare Reform or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As Alan Greenspan said Bill was "the best Republican president we've had in a while." Shame on you for supporting these perverts and continuing the dissolution of the Democratic Party. Jim Webb and Bernie were/are the real deal. For shame!
All I am saying is she is going to win. Even on some of Sanders' issues, Clinton has a better handle on them. She is absolutely correct on Glass-Steagall. She did a bad job explaining it, but she's right. At this point, putting Glass-Steagall back into law would cause a financial crisis and probably a recession. At least she said what she said in Des Moines where a large portion of people would understand her. Sanders just isn't someone I see being President. Even O'Malley seemed more like a leader and somebody who had a broader understanding of the issues than Sanders and would be a better President. And, as I said before, Sanders' socialist ideas are way too expensive. Yes, we could increase taxes on the rich, and I think we should because W's tax cut did NOTHING to help the economy, but we shouldn't do that and then spend it right away on something else. Yes, we should rethink our military spending but Clinton is correct that we have to be smart about it because the Cold War may be over but those cold war attitudes still exist in the world, and so do the weapons.
What you need to understand is I am NOT a Democrat. I'm not a Democrat because I do NOT believe in this idea that government is the best solution for each and ever personal issue that citizens have. I feel government has a place and is NEEDED in certain ways but it is not the solution to everything. Just like war is not the solution to all our foreign policy issues...which is what most Republicans seem to believe. Almost every time, war makes things worse. The war in Iraq made things worse. The war in Libya made things worse. Arming Osama in the 80's ended up killing Americans. Arming Saddam in his fight against Iran ended up killing Americans. So, we should avoid it and stay out of it. But, in a case like ISIS, we should be able to stand WITH our allies and the region and deal with the issue so that not one country takes the brunt of the battle scars. If our allies are unwilling to help, or the region does not want us there, then we should stay out of it and save our time, money, and the blood of our children.