Hilary Gets Booed by Heroes. Had it coming?

Great Debates
101

Bah.

If the federal crimes charged were along the lines of “depriving civil rights under color of law” then it is most emphatically not double jeopardy. Double jeopardy occurs when the same crime is charged again after an aquittal. (Or when the same crime is charged again after a conviction, or when multiple punishments are doled out for the same crime). Murder and “depriving civil rights” each require proof of elements that the other does not. They are different crimes.

This applies both to the Rodney King beating case and to the Diallo shooting case.

My take on the booing: it was uncalled for.

In the Richard Gere booing thread, I’ve supported the booing; it was occasioned, so far as I could tell, by his comments about giving the terrorist not retaliation, but peace, love, and compassion. While peace, love, and compassion are obviously worthy sentiments, expressing them to a crowd of bereaved victims was not the wisest choice.

Senator Clinton did no such thing. While I am not, in general, a fan of hers, I think she’s taking far more heat than she deserves. During President Bush’s speech, the camera easily spent four times as much time on her as on the senior senator from New York, and when she was caught with a less-than-raptured look on her face, she’s dragged over the coals. It’s an unfair standard to hold anyone to.

In two pages of this thread, no one has alleged that Senator Clinton said anything to cause the boos. I assume, then, that they were simply booing her because they don’t like her. While I think these guys should be given every leeway, and I’m not inclined to excoriate them for booing… I don’t support their actions with regard to Senator Clinton at all.

  • Rick
102

Right you are, tracer. And, W has NOT included Hamas or Hezbollah on his list of Middle East terrorist organizations.

In my book, these organizations have had too much influence in the last 3 US administrations.

103

Were you out of the country between November and January? Some of the worst venom I’ve ever heard was directed at Bush then, much of it on NPR.

104

Cool, Guinn. I defer to your expertise, and consider myself corrected.

105

Nope, like everyone else I watched the election fiasco with great interest - in fact I got a lot of my information from NPR as I drove home from work. There was a lot of passion directed in all directions, but even then GW was more often than not painted as a pawn in the whole affair. Usually Kathleen Whatshername came across as the truly evil one.

There may be some hard data out there to support your or my position, but I’m not aware of any poll that asks “Do you hate President _______‘s stinkin’ guts?”

106

And didn’t The New York Post do some outrageous thing (just prior to Hillary’s senate win) by putting Bill and Hillary in the Top 5 of a list of the world’ most evil people. IIRR, Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler were among the few who ranked above them. Can anyone verify this?

(Sorry if this was mentioned–I passed on page 2)

107

This post seems to reflect bnorton’s political sympathies. We Bush supporters appreciate the upstanding Republican legal effort in Florida, and we give GW credit for leading it. Calling a presidential candidate a “pawn” doesn’t sound like a compliment.

Also, if NPR and the Democrats demonized GW less than Kathleen Harris, that’s not saying much.

I do agree with bnorton that we cannot easily prove the degree of bias at NPR, unless someone gets transcripts of all programming there.

108

Whats this that december has plopped into the water above my head! Why, its bait! A big, fat, yummy wad of bait! MMMMMMMM! Hold it, there’s a hook. Whoa! Hook labeld “another opportunity to endlessly hector about how the Republicans flim-flammed the citizenry and installed a doofus in the Oval Office”

In the words of Richard M. “Lets Dig Him Up and Make Sure He’s Dead” Nixon…

“Yes, we could do that…but it would be wrong”

109

I didn’t know you were a Hunter S. Thompson fan, elucidator. Sounds just like him.

110

Why, thank you! Frankly, though, I suspect that his claims to being a paragon of chemical self-indulgence are somewhat exaggerated. Anybody as whacked as he claims wouldn’t be able to find the typewriter, much less operate it.

As to his opinion the RMN was the vilest pustule ever to occupy the Oval Office, thats a slam dunk. Hands down, no contest. I sincerly hope that record stands forever, unchallenged.

111

I’ve read both collections of the Thompson’s letters. You’re suspicians in this regard are correct.

Oh, he did plenty. But not as much as he says. And strangely, nothing on that famous trip to Vegas but booze.

Sorry for going off topic.

112

I would take it as a personal favor if you could present a cite for a few of the most venomous things you’ve heard on NPR. If it’s not self-evident, a little explanation of why you found them so venomous would be helpful, too.

113

emarkp seems to believe that the article in the Novemeber 5, 2000 National Review links HRC to the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.

Nonsense.

This “unbiased” article notes that Hillary attended a fund raising event for Muslims in June which was sponsored in part, by the American Muslim Alliance.

The event praised HRC for her arguments on behalf of an independent Palestinian state with a peace treaty with Israel.

The article notes that HRC did not know (or more precisely, claimed not to know) of the AMA link and then (when “caught”) denounced the alliance - which has stated that the Palestinians have a right, under UN rules, to use force to defend themselves.

This fundraiser was used, if you recall, as a last minute attack by HRC’s opponent Rick Lazio, who called the contributions “blood money”.

The article also tries to link HRC to one Abduraham Alamoudi, who contributed $1,000 to HRC’s campaign and who’s lawyer, Stephen Cohen spoke at an AMA meeting. HRC returned Mr. Alamoudi’s check once she learned that he indeed does support both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Such are the facts - one sided facts, of course.

What the “article” did not say was that Mr. Alamoudi also contributed $1,000 to George W. Bush’s campaign. (AP 10/25/2000 - well before the NR article). Mr. Bush, also returned the money.

So, if HRC “supports” Hamas and Hezbollah under this kind of smearing garbage, so does President Bush.

And OMG! Bush also supports a Palestinian state with a peace treaty with Israel!

Let’s boo em both!

dos centavos

114

While asking for “proof” by means of internet citations is an exercise in futility, it is extremely easy to dig up possibilities. Richard Mellon Scaife is a strange figure, and for my part, I don’t trust him.

From this article:

However…

Boynton is, of course, Stephen s. Boynton, one of the two republican activists in charge of the infamous Arkansas Project.

So if Scaife’s money wasn’t going directly into David Hale’s legal defense fund, why didn’t Scaife let Boynton produce the receipts?

115

Since Salon is a liberal magazine and Scaife was attacking liberals, it’s likely that Salon dislikes Scaife. Note that the *Salon *article had an anonymous source and admits that, “This account could not be independently corroborated by law enforcement authorities.”

It would be one thing if Salon had verifiable facts that Scaife did some bad things. However, if Salon merely hints at possibilities, then they’re just doing what their readers like. (Conservative organs sometimes do the same with liberals.)

I personally appreciate any conservative who exposes corruption committed by a liberal. I also appreciate any liberal who exposes corruption by a conservative.

I get upset when the two sides jointly cover up corruption (as they did with the Savings & Loan debacle.)

116

With all due respect, december, I believe you misread the article.

This is certainly true. But are you accusing Salon of fabricating the official reports of his grand jury testimony or the quotations from Boynton’s attorney? I would ask you then to justify your accusations with stronger proof than bias alone.

This was the account of Scaife’s grand jury testimony which his own people reported. Grand jury testimony is under seal, so Salon was quite above board in reporting that it simply had no way to corroborate this testimony by official means. In essence, a publication hostile to Scaife is taking his own word for what happened.

Salon isn’t hinting anything at all. You said that in order to call Scaife a liar, one has to bring up some presumable reason. And here it is. I sure can’t prove it, but I am meeting your criterion.

As for conservative organs, well, I would say that the Arkansas Project fits the above definition perfectly.

Ditto. But as far as I am concerned, money crosses party lines. I am in fact partial to liberal political dogma, but I don’t particularly like many liberals themselves.

<shrug>

MR

117

Well, as always, YMMV. I’m just saying that there is a much better level of respect here than at most forums. Some of the people on this board I consider friends are people I totally disagree with when it comes to politics.

118

I would like to amend the glaring contradiction in the above. When I first mentioned “official reports of grand jury testimony,” I said “official” insofar as it proceeded from the Scaife camp. When I used “official” lower down, I referred to official court records.

I apologize for the confusion.

119

**OK OK OK **

Godwin’s law’s been invoked.

SDMB’rs are throwing bricks at each other.

Shall we close this up???
Mod, Mod, Mod…Help Mod. :smiley:

120

For the record, I don’t think that GW Bush is either a “doofus” or a pawn, nor do I think Kathleen Harris is evil. I used those terms to describe how I saw the public’s reaction to them.

So, once again, it has been my observation that, in general, those who don’t like GW Bush tend to think of him as somewhat dumb and sometimes a pawn, while those that don’t like Bill Clinton hate his stinkin’ guts. From what I have seen, the level of passion people have towards the two men is not even close.