Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality

[Dr_Patrick]

That other politicians dodge questions doesnt in any way change the fact that Hillary dodged this question.

But, by all means, feel free to giver Hillary (D) a pass.

I'm not denying that she dodged the question. She dodges questions all the time, as does any other politician. I just think it's kind of lame to point out a fault of the side you disagree with when your side is just as guilty of doing the same thing. Politicians dodge questions. How is this news?

 

[Adrian]

She didn't dodge the question. CNN, that bastion of the liberal loony left, didn't include the whole quote.

From the CNN article:

Clinton was asked the question by ABC News, in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace's controversial comment that he believed homosexual acts were immoral.

"Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said.

The person from ABC News was Jake Tapper, who recorded the whole response here:

Political Punch

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

Interestingly enough, as any liberal knows, "I'm going to leave that to others to conclude" simply means "I have no right to moralize on that matter." To a black and white thinker like a conservative, though, that sounds like a dodge. It's not. But by not including the whole response, it made her sound to a conservative as though she were hedging. With the whole quote, there can't be any confusion.

Why didn't CNN reprint the entire response?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I'm not denying that she dodged the question. She dodges questions all the time, as does any other politician. I just think it's kind of lame to point out a fault of the side you disagree with when your side is just as guilty of doing the same thing. Politicians dodge questions. How is this news?

It's not news...it's desperation. The Republicans like Navy Pride are so starved for something positive about their politicians they have to resort to trying to make themselves feel better by making up nonsense.

It's an escape valve for them, they're desperate and in pain and they know that they're on the decline. Just look at the slate of potential candidates for President by Democrats, at least half a dozen quality people who all have the majority of Americans agreeing with their keys political stances.

Then look at the GOP. Three candidates..one is an ex-mayor with lots and lots of baggage...can you imagine how the Rabid WHACKED OUT Religious Right would be attacking any Democrat with the same baggage that Rudy has?

Then you have McCain whose Iraq war stance has ruined his candidacy and exposed how out of touch he is. He also made a huge mistake by regularly supporting Bush's policies and he is paying the price for standing next to such an unpopular President.

Then you have Romney who can't even get to 9% in any national poll.

So all that leaves the Republicans like Navy Pride to do is to start weak as $hit threads like this one whose only purpose is to make them feel better about the sad state of their Party...but it's so weak all that it really does is expose how far they've fallen and how little hope they truly have.

 

[danarhea]

Good point. I mean, after all, only Democrats dodge questions.

If you would like to start a thread about Republicans dodging issues, feel free to do so. However, this is about Hillary dodging issues. I am all over Bush supporters in how they must envy Clinton's penis, the way they always try to hijack threads about Bush's failings into Clinton threads, but now we have a Democrat doing the same dishonest thing, when Hillary is the subject. Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves. Next time you accuse a Bushie of trying to hijack a thread by making it a referendum on Clinton, I will remember to bring this discussion, along with your response, into that thread.

 

[Navy Pride]

Good point. I mean, after all, only Democrats dodge questions.

Yes but Hillary is a democrat running for president...Don't you think she should answer questions on the issues?

 

[Johnson]

Well she makes a valid point IF (and I mean if) she meant that to mean she didn't want to tell anyone else what to believe. But if the IF isn't if, then it was a question being asked about her personal morals, and I think she would be obliged to give an honest answer.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Hey DD I could give a **** less what you think about me but your girlfriend "The Ice Princess" Hillary is running for president of the United States (I am not) and she is.....this is just more proof of what a liar this woman is........She is the most ruthless coniving person running for president.....Even that little weasel Kucunich is not as bad as her..She will say or do anything to get that nomination and nobody better not get in her way............You deserve her.......

By the way that story is from CNN hardly a friend of the right...........

_______
Liar, you mean like :liar2 Bush did during his campaign and while in office?
At least Hillary or anyone elses lies havent got 3,000+ of our Troops killed.
Isn't it about time you Cons start admitting to Bushs lies and screwups?

 

[Hatuey]

Yes but Hillary is a democrat running for president...Don't you think she should answer questions on the issues?

Didn't she? Wouldn't her disagreeing with the Gen's views on homosexuality destroy any doubt people might have on her opinion? I think it would.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Hmm... I'm afraid I don't see any inconsistency at all. She said she didn't agree with him. *shrugs* How in the world can that be viewed as inconsistent?

To me she should have said I don't believe homosexuality is immoral. Saying you don't agree is vague. It needs more explaining. People want to know where she really stands, and at times she has not sounded pro-gay. She is opposed to gay marriage, but for civil unions, and during her husbands term she was for DOMA.

 

[Adrian]

To me she should have said I don't believe homosexuality is immoral. Saying you don't agree is vague. It needs more explaining. People want to know where she really stands, and at times she has not sounded pro-gay.

Looks like you missed post #27.

 

[Adrian]

Yes but Hillary is a democrat running for president...Don't you think she should answer questions on the issues?

Looks like you also mis-...er...ignored...post #27.

 

[Stinger]

Where did she do a 180? Did she not answer the question?

No she did not, that is the point. She dodged it and then later after meeting with her staff to come up with a way out she issued a written statement, didn't even have the guts to come out and say it herself. And at that she hdged, and instead of saying what SHE believed only said she disagreed with what Pace said and HIS view. What are HER views? THAT is the question.

Not a sign of leadership and solid principles on her part.

 

[Hatuey]

No she did not, that is the point. She dodged it and then later after meeting with her staff to come up with a way out she issued a written statement, didn't even have the guts to come out and say it herself. And at that she hdged, and instead of saying what SHE believed only said she disagreed with what Pace said and HIS view. What are HER views? THAT is the question.

Not a sign of leadership and solid principles on her part.

P.o.s.t.2.7.

 

[Adrian]

No she did not, that is the point. She dodged it and then later after meeting with her staff to come up with a way out she issued a written statement, didn't even have the guts to come out and say it herself. And at that she hdged, and instead of saying what SHE believed only said she disagreed with what Pace said and HIS view. What are HER views? THAT is the question.

Not a sign of leadership and solid principles on her part.

Hillary's first response:

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

Hillary's followup response:

"I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple."

I'm interested in your reasoning for why these two statements are contradictory, why you consider the first statement to be hedging, and why the first statement is not a satisfactory reflection of HER views.

 

[Stinger]

P.o.s.t.2.7.

P.o.s.t. 37

 

[Stinger]

Hillary's first response:


Hillary's followup response:



I'm interested in your reasoning for why these two statements are contradictory, why you consider the first statement to be hedging, and why the first statement is not a satisfactory reflection of HER views.

Not a sign of leadership and solid principles on her part. Her first statement is a clear hedge and later after coming up with a poltical out had her staff issue the follow-up statement. I stand by my statement.

 

[Jerry]

Same old Hillary doing her tap dancing on the issues..HYPOCRITE!!!!!!

Sen. Clinton dodges question*on gays, immorality - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton sidestepped a question about whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral Wednesday, less than two weeks after telling gay-rights activists she was "proud" to stand by their side.
Clinton was asked the question by ABC News, in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace's controversial comment that he believed homosexual acts were immoral.

"Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said.

She didn't dodge the question, she answered it directly.

She was asked if she thought that homosexuality was immoral, and she said that she was going to leave it to others to decide if she thinks homosexuality is immoral.

Once her people decide what she thinks, she'll let us know.

 

[Stinger]

She didn't dodge the question, she answered it directly.

She was asked if she thought that homosexuality was immoral, and she said that she was going to leave it to others to decide if she thinks homosexuality is immoral.

Once her people decide what she thinks, she'll let us know.

Classic Clinton.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Looks like you missed post #27.

I saw it, but it's still got a vagueness to it. She didn't say it was not immoral. Did she?

 

[Adrian]

I saw it, but it's still got a vagueness to it. She didn't say it was not immoral. Did she?

What she said is that it's not her place to decide if it's "moral" or not. It's one of those places in language that liberals and conservatives have a hard time crossing over in order to understand. To a black and white thinker like a conservative, "it's not my place to say" is a statement of weakness. But to a liberal, it simply means "it's none of my business," as in, "the matter of somebody's homosexuality is none of my business." Hillary then followed up that statement immediately (as in, in the next breath, not in a follow-up question-and-answer session) with "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

This clearly means that she believes their homosexuality is irrelevant since they are able to perform their jobs to the degree required of them. So, to conclude, "It's none of my business to judge one way or the other, and since they can clearly do their jobs, who cares anyway."

But since she was a liberal speaking liberalese, I suppose she made no sense
to conservatives. And that's why she had to make a follow-up statement in conservatese with the black and white answer, "I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple." The funny thing is that to liberals, that's what she already said. To us, she's just repeating herself, but to you, she's saying something new.

Whew! It's tough enough to communicate so that both men and women understand where you're coming from, but to break it down even further so that two political ideologies understand you? That can get a little complicated.

 

[Jerry]

Classic Clinton.

Indeed.

And you know, it takes time to run public opinion polls, then to analyze them and come up with a strategy to maximize her chances of election, so we need to just site back and be patient....I'm sure her people will have made up her mind before her book on her presidential memoirs goes into it's 2nd printing.

 

[Jerry]

What she said is that it's not her place to decide if it's "moral" or not.

Yes it is.
It's everyone's buisness to form personal conclusions and opinions about virtualy each and every thing.

It's one of those places in language that liberals and conservatives have a hard time crossing over in order to understand. To a black and white thinker like a conservative, "it's not my place to say" is a statement of weakness.

Yup.

But to a liberal, it simply means "it's none of my business," as in, "the matter of somebody's homosexuality is none of my business."

She's running for a public office; it is her buisness.

Hillary then followed up that statement immediately (as in, in the next breath, not in a follow-up question-and-answer session) with "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

All of wich is irrelivent as it doesn't answer the question.

This clearly means that she believes their homosexuality is irrelevant since they are able to perform their jobs to the degree required of them. So, to conclude, "It's none of my business to judge one way or the other, and since they can clearly do their jobs, who cares anyway."

= dodge.

But since she was a liberal speaking liberalese, I suppose she made no sense
to conservatives.

Right.

And that's why she had to make a follow-up statement in conservatese with the black and white answer, "I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple." The funny thing is that to liberals, that's what she already said. To us, she's just repeating herself, but to you, she's saying something new.

Yup.

Whew! It's tough enough to communicate so that both men and women understand where you're coming from, but to break it down even further so that two political ideologies understand you? That can get a little complicated.

Makes me wonder why anyone would want to be in polotics.

 

[Adrian]

Yes it is.
It's everyone's buisness to form personal conclusions and opinions about virtualy each and every thing.

Not at all. Moralization is the territory of the religious. For everybody else, there's ethics. So her job is not supposed to be moralization (thankfully) since the base for that comes from old books that can't be scientifically substantiated. What can be observed, however, is whether a behavior can be observed to cause direct harm to another person or their property. If it does not, then it can be concluded that it is ethically acceptable. Moralization is a dangerous thing to base policy on because it is based on one's own hunches that have nothing to do with what does or doesn't directly harm another person or their property. Clinton was smart to stay clear of moralizing.

She's running for a public office; it is her buisness.

It's her business to stay out of affairs that do not deal with direct harm to other people or their property.

All of wich is irrelivent as it doesn't answer the question.

It answers the question perfectly. Since homosexuals are able to perform their duties, moralization is irrelevant and inappropriate. Her dismissal of Peter Pace was dead on.

= dodge.

No, not a dodge whatsoever. Again, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can." You can't get any clearer on what her position is.

Makes me wonder why anyone would want to be in polotics.

Power.

 

[Stinger]

Indeed.

And you know, it takes time to run public opinion polls, then to analyze them and come up with a strategy to maximize her chances of election, so we need to just site back and be patient....I'm sure her people will have made up her mind before her book on her presidential memoirs goes into it's 2nd printing.

You are correct, sometimes my enthusiasm gets the best of me :mrgreen:

 

[Stinger]

Not at all. Moralization is the territory of the religious.

Excuse me, I am not religious are you saying I can't have moral beliefs? That's absurd.