When you “persuade” others to help you change the rules in the middle of the game, yes, I’d call that “cheating.”
And I believe mine is the “conventional” understanding, if by “conventional” you mean the understanding accepted by most people.
Cheating is *breaking * the rules.
Persuading the rulemakers to change the rules is not.
Not that you have to like it or nothin’.
That fact that you seriously believe that is one of the scariest things I’ve ever read here.
I don’t see why it’s required of me to prove she “makes” the rules. She doesn’t. She just breaks them and tries to change them and suggest that her fleet of lawyers are standing by to make sure they do.
I’ll just ignore your tortured literary allusions. Just more red herrings.
Your whole rhetorical strategy seems to be a greatest hits cover album of the Clinton and the Bush years.
One more tine. . .
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal endorsed Barack Obama for President.
Is it really *that * hard to correlate your choice of words to the realm of fact?
Apparently so, if you can go on to accuse her of “breaking the rules” without pretending to demonstrate where that breakage is occuring. Which you just did.
Shayna, perhaps you can give it a try, since our friend here is having so much trouble with the concept. What definition of “cheating” do *you * have in mind when *you * use the word?
You’re simply wrong.
I don’t care how many others share complicity. Only one of the others is also running for President and asking us to put them in charge of making these kinds of dire decisions.
Frankly, I’d get rid of all the idiots who didn’t read the NIE, but they aren’t all in my district, so I don’t get to vote on them. But I DO get to vote on Hillary Clinton, and her utter IRRESPONSIBILITY means she’s not entitled to that vote.
And whether or not others were equally as irresponsible as to not read the report, is completely IRRELEVANT as to whether SHE is qualified to be our Commander in Chief. Anyone – ANYONE who abdicates their responsibility in doing the necessary due diligence on a decision of that magnitude, is UNQUALIFIED.
What a disingenuous and disgusting display of ignorance.
Well, yeah, actually, I do have to like it – if you expect me to vote for your candidate in the general election, that is.
After you’ve agreed to play by them and find yourself losing due to same? Kind of like a “do over” in a board game because your prior move was wrong? 
Remind me never to play any games with you.
spoke- Accept /= like. And you don’t have to do either - I ask only that you support the candidate who you believe would make the country and the world the best off as President. That’s what I’m doing.
Shayna, I’m "ignorant’? Here’s some info for you on Obama’s “present” votes in Springfield.
RedFury, the word you’re looking for is “whining”, not “cheating”. And I don’t disagree, either.
Yes, both you and the author of that article are ignorant. You have no idea how the Illinois Legislature works, why there’s a provision for a ‘Present’ vote, and what that vote is meant to portray and/or accomplish.
When come back, bring facts.
Then perhaps you could enlighten us all, with your display of superior knowledge. That’s what this forum is for, after all.
Or just keep on stamping your foot in outrage that anyone could wonder about the perfection of Saint Barack.
She broke the rules by campaigning in Florida. I linked you to the rules and to the story about her breaking them. I don’t know what else I can possibly do for you.
I’m glad to see you’re covering “Strawman.”
That’s my favorite fallacy!
A curious kind of “campaigning” that somehow did not involve any actual public appearances, or any less restrictions on national advertising reaching Florida viewers than Obama observed.
cricetus, if *you * have any relevant facts to provide either, feel free at any time. I’ve already “brought more” than Shayna has.
Call it cheating, call it manipulating the system, call it whatever you like…it’s scummy behavior, and if a Republican tried to pull it against a Democrat, you’d be screaming bloody murder about it. If you like Hillary so much that you’re willing to overlook it, that’s your perogative, but it doesn’t change what she is.
Not true.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-27-clinton-florida_N.htm
I encourage you to consider the ones I’ve already provided, instead of ignoring them or lawyering the definitions.
Elvis, I haven’t seen you yet respond to the analogy which I think is perfectly apt. If a baseball team convinces the Powers That Be to change the rules mid-game to include practice home runs, what do you call it? Perhaps not literally cheating, since they didn’t violate the rules. But they (the persuading team and the decision-makers) violate some implicit rules about fairness, no? Or do you disagree with that entire premise that such a rule change in unfair?
And if you disagree that the analogy fits, please answer the above questions anyway so that we can at least see if we agree with the major premise before we get to the minor.
I’ve already stipulated to “whining”. I’ve already agreed with the nature, if not the extent, of your deploration of her AUMF vote too.
As for “call it what you like”, well, I do believe in the importance of basing opinion on fact, and it puzzles me that you do not. After the last 7 years in particular, and more like 16, I think it should be quite apparent how important it is not to let delusions and denunciations control our behavior.