@101 Oh, I'm sorry. She made diplomatic efforts almost a decade after she voted for war. That fixes everything! Either Hillary Clinton was a terrible judge of character and genuinely couldn't tell she was being snowed when it was obvious to a sizable portion of America, or she totally knew that Bush was going to go to war and gave a little speech to cover her warhawk ass during the presidential elections. Personally, I lean towards the latter.

You don't hand an angry teenager a handgun while giving a speech about how he shouldn't fire it, and you don't give an angry Republican the power to go to war while giving a speech about how he shouldn't actually go to war. This is called common sense, which she clearly lacked.

The hoops you fuckers go through to justify the bad behavior of your nominee is absolutely mind numbing and is akin to the hoops Republicans jumped through in 2008.

@102: So, to paraphrase:
"Even though Clinton's been pushing for diplomatic resolution to the Iran issue for years, because she voted to allow a war against a country whose name is spelled similarly over a decade ago, I'm 100% convinced she'll bomb Iran at the first opportunity. Also, the left fringe at the time claimed that the President was orchestrating a massive conspiracy to fabricate intelligence, and because hindsight shows that to be true, all rational people must have known it at the time."
Again, you've got your opinions and you're sticking to them based on your own selective memory of how everything went down, facts be damned.

@103 What are you blathering on about with Iran?

I also appreciate how you managed to other the Left Fringe for being correct about an issue of massive national impact while simultaneously absolving the conservative democrats for being snowed by the clown prince.

You sound like Republicans in 2008.

@104: Lucky guesses based on paranoid dogma aren't "being correct". If a guy predicts a devastating tornado every day for five years based on his belief that God is cheesed about something, one or two of his predictions will probably come true. But he won't have been right, and holding him up as a paragon of prescience just makes you as fruitsy bananas as he is.
Hindsight is 20/20, and even a blind nut finds a squirrel.

And once more, you're simply repeating your viewpoint while ignoring all conflicting evidence and vilifying everyone who doesn't fit the mold. Truth by repetition much?

I'm less concerned with her lies than the things she doesn't lie about, like her very aggressive, pro-war foreign policy views. I don't know why so many people who call themselves liberals ignore this.

Just lock this thread already.

@105 Wait, who's on repeat?

Stop thrusting your damn insecurities on me. This is the second thread you've done so in a week. Jeez, it's like you're taking notes from our Presidential candidates. Or, at least Pee Wee Herman.

This dispels the notions that Dan is left-wing and won't suck pssy.