Hillary Rodham Clinton: An Open Discussion

[SDW2001]

The last one was locked for being a rant. Fair enough.

Let us discuss the issue at hand.

Do you support her?

Do find her believable and generally honest?

Do you think she wrote her book as a basis for running for President in 2008?

Do you feel it was right for her to establish residency quickly and win the Senate seat?

Do you believe the allegations made about her during travelgate, Whitewater, etc?

I think you know my answers. I do not support her in any way, politically speaking. Her ideas are completely at odds with my conservative philosophy. Personally, I find her to be exceptionally nauseauting and shrill...not to mention very "cold". Integrity wise, I think her record is perhaps even worse than her husband's. Yes, there is no quesiton she wrote this book in an effort to put some of this into the vault so she could run for President in 2008. No, I don't feel it was right for her to move to NY simply to run for the seat. And the last one: Mostly yes...I believe she has made some VERY questionable business deals and am fairly convinced she was intimately involved in travelgate.

From the other topic that was locked: (my words)


"Now, one of those contradictions in the book. Hillary states that she did not know her husband was lying to her about Monica until August 15th, 1998. The problem is, this HAS TO BE false. The semen stained dress was discovered days before this. Hillary had to know before bill told her. This is the woman who had a husband that had affairs with perhaps hundreds of women over the years...including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Jennifer Flowers. This is the man who used Arkansas state troopers to help him get women. There was also the rape charge from Juanita Broderick, there were gifts from Bill to Monica, ther were hundreds of stories over the course of their entire marriage...and she didn't know until he told her that this was true? If this is true than she obviously is the most oblivious person on Earth."

I present this only as evidence of her character and revisionist account of history.

I could go on, but I'll wait to see what others think. She's one shrewd woman...I'll give her that.

[BRussell]

I hate her, I hate her, I hate her!

[edit]OK, now that I've relaxed a bit. I don't get either the extreme hatred of her, which I think was at least as bad as towards Bill, or the love of her that some people have for her as a women's role model.
:???:

And all the details just bore me.

Originally posted by SDW2001
She's one shrewed woman... That's an interesting typo.

About Juanita Broderick - I heard that at the same time (tonight I think) CNN's Larry King is interviewing Hillary, Fox news is interviewing Juanita.
:lol:

[bunge]

I think it's hillaryous (intentional misspelling for the sake of humor) that you'll criticize her for establishing residency in NY for the sake of running for Senate when Cheney did something worse since it was against constitutional law.

[Scott]

Hillary:rolleyes:


She crys us a river about how everyone's privacy has been violated by this issue and then .... make millions by writing a book about it. What a ****.

[giant]

SDW has a crush. How sweet.

[thuh Freak]

I don't know too much about her, because I was altogether obvlivious to politics during the "Clinton" administration (and prior for that matter); but her residency really bugs me. I haven't exactly watched cspan or whatever to see which yeas or nays she's said wrt any laws, nor how they relate to ny, but I can't possibly comprehend how she could represent my state. she aint from 'ere, and dont kno this place. i wonder how many times she'd been to ny prior to becoming a senator; or how well she acquainted herself with our politics.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by bunge
I think it's hillaryous (intentional misspelling for the sake of humor) that you'll criticize her for establishing residency in NY for the sake of running for Senate when Cheney did something worse since it was against constitutional law.

I think it's hillaryous that politicians and their supporters on both sides of the aisle always counter an accusation with this argument. "My candidate may have done something wrong/stupid but YOURS did something worse. Nyah Nyah."

Yeah...real nice. :rolleyes: :p

[ena]

After hearing the interview with WaWa Sunday, I think HRC is in outer space and and couldn't keep up apperances without the help of the media in matters such as her BLATENTLY misleading statement on the Flowers case. It never ends, one thing after another. We pick apart the language of some politicians and simply ignore the obvious errors in others. It blows my mind.

Also, in ANY other marriage, it would be over between those two. Even by their own admission, BC is a serious gash-hound. If this was real life, she would be an abused wife and would have divorced him. (but then she wouldn't have gotten the (white) house---just the car.

So, in sum, she's like any other politician except more so.

[bunge]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
"My candidate may have done something wrong/stupid but YOURS did something worse. Nyah Nyah."

Well, it's SDW's opinion that what she did was wrong. It's in the Constitution that the Prez & Vice Prez can't be from the same state.

If you really want to equate the two I think you're incorrect to do so.

[Northgate]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SDW2001
Do you support her?

Yes.

Do find her believable and generally honest?

Yes and no. I don't think she's anymore honest than Tom Delay or Trent Lott.

Do you think she wrote her book as a basis for running for President in 2008?

No. She wrote the book for the same reasons Newt Gingrich wrote his book...MONEY! If I had their debt, I'd write a book too.

Do you feel it was right for her to establish residency quickly and win the Senate seat?

Happens all the time. It's just different when a Clinton does it. Ronnie Reagan isn't a Californian. The Bush's aren't Texans. The list goes on and on.

Do you believe the allegations made about her during travelgate, Whitewater, etc?

No more or less than Haliburton's dealings with middle-eastern oil, Bush's connections to Enron. The point is, they're all corrupt to a certain extent. To have one pointing fingers at the other is a bit disengenous, don't you think?

Her ideas are completely at odds with my conservative philosophy. Personally, I find her to be exceptionally nauseauting and shrill...not to mention very "cold".

You are obviously passionate about your hatred for this woman. I suppose it's no different than my passionate hatred for Sean Hannity and his hypocritical bile that spews from his microphone/keyboard. But, I don't resent his book deals, publications and on-the-air soap box (which I think is far more damaging than anything Hillary's done over the last 10 years.) It's a free country and I support dissenting opinion...it's what keeps us healthy as a country.

Yes, there is no quesiton she wrote this book in an effort to put some of this into the vault so she could run for President in 2008.


It is her right to do so if she chooses. I can run for president. If I can, why can't she? She has far more IQ quotient and a far better college education than the current president. Plus, she can string more than six words together into a cohesive sentence. She can probably say "nuclear" correctly, too.

I believe she has made some VERY questionable business deals and am fairly convinced she was intimately involved in travelgate.

And I'm convinced Cheney's hands aren't completely clean either. I, however, am not willing to drag the office of the presidency into the gutter gunninig for him.

I present this only as evidence of her character and revisionist account of history.

Of course you do. If I constantly and continuosly "slammed" someone to a group of people who don't really know this person, eventually, after enough accusations and character assaults, everyone within earshot of my vitriol would start to form a negative opinion about said person. Then, if I did this, ad nausea, for several YEARS, eventually the entire country would have a negative opinion about said person.

This is what the extreme right-wing faction of the Republican party is doing and continues to do. It's absolutely brilliant. It takes "the politics of personal destruction" to a whole new level...much to Hillary's chagrin. Slam her and drag her name through the mud enough times and you innoculate yourself against her winning future elections (senate or otherwise).

[pfflam]

Originally posted by SDW2001
.... my conservative philosophy. You give yourself too much credit . . . it's all the rage now . . . and the more I hear from you the more it sounds derivative Originally posted by SDW2001
Personally, I find her to be exceptionally nauseauting and shrill...not to mention very "cold". That kind of "critique" seems to only come from men when it is in reference to a woman with some measure of power . . . of course that will be dismissed as 'PC' or whatever . . . but there is nothing that gets a "man" more furious than a woman who does Power well . . .

look at Martha Stewert . . . its perfect that if you switched from channel 4 to 2 you would flash between Hillary Clinton's face and Martha Stewert's and they were facing screen direction as if they were talking to each other . .

. heehee, coincidence? probably but interesting . . .

[shetline]

Originally posted by CosmoNut
I think it's hillaryous that politicians and their supporters on both sides of the aisle always counter an accusation with this argument. "My candidate may have done something wrong/stupid but YOURS did something worse. Nyah Nyah."

Yeah...real nice. :rolleyes: :p
I can see where you're coming from if the argument comes off as "it's not so bad, 'cause everybody does it".

On the other hand, it's quite valid to point out an inconsistency when a person gets very indignant over one politician doing something when at the same time he turns a blind eye to another politician doing the same thing.

Sadly, for many people, this way of seeing the world where you tally up all the sins of your opposition and shout them indignantly from the highest mountain top, yet you forgive, excuse, deny, or simply fail to notice the sins of those you support, is second nature. We all do this to some extent, of course. It's hard not to let your own viewpoints on politics or religion cloud your objectivity.

Some people, however, raise this kind of bias to breathtaking heights. In some cases, the bias is simply an irrational, emotionally-driven coloring of all of their perceptions. In other cases, it's a cold, calculated game of playing to win -- all strategy, little honesty, just score all the points you can for the home team.

[SDW2001]

BRussell:

"That's an interesting typo."

Ha! I just saw that! Now it's fixed.

[kneelbeforezod]

I think she's great, I can't wait until she becomes America's first woman president. It'll probably have to be in 2012 though, so that whoever beats Bush next year (Kerry probably) gets a full two terms.

:)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
You give yourself too much credit . . . it's all the rage now . . . and the more I hear from you the more it sounds derivative That kind of "critique" seems to only come from men when it is in reference to a woman with some measure of power . . . of course that will be dismissed as 'PC' or whatever . . . but there is nothing that gets a "man" more furious than a woman who does Power well . . .

look at Martha Stewert . . . its perfect that if you switched from channel 4 to 2 you would flash between Hillary Clinton's face and Martha Stewert's and they were facing screen direction as if they were talking to each other . .

. heehee, coincidence? probably but interesting . . .

Nice try, pfflam. There are many women whom hold power that I respect. Not her, though.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice try, pfflam. There are many women whom hold power that I respect.
Given Hillary's roving husband, she should have had a firmer grip on things....by the balls that is !
:)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SDW2001
Do you support her?

Yes.

Do find her believable and generally honest?

Yes and no. I don't think she's anymore honest than Tom Delay or Trent Lott.

Do you think she wrote her book as a basis for running for President in 2008?

No. She wrote the book for the same reasons Newt Gingrich wrote his book...MONEY! If I had their debt, I'd write a book too.

Do you feel it was right for her to establish residency quickly and win the Senate seat?

Happens all the time. It's just different when a Clinton does it. Ronnie Reagan isn't a Californian. The Bush's aren't Texans. The list goes on and on.

Do you believe the allegations made about her during travelgate, Whitewater, etc?

No more or less than Haliburton's dealings with middle-eastern oil, Bush's connections to Enron. The point is, they're all corrupt to a certain extent. To have one pointing fingers at the other is a bit disengenous, don't you think?

Her ideas are completely at odds with my conservative philosophy. Personally, I find her to be exceptionally nauseauting and shrill...not to mention very "cold".

You are obviously passionate about your hatred for this woman. I suppose it's no different than my passionate hatred for Sean Hannity and his hypocritical bile that spews from his microphone/keyboard. But, I don't resent his book deals, publications and on-the-air soap box (which I think is far more damaging than anything Hillary's done over the last 10 years.) It's a free country and I support dissenting opinion...it's what keeps us healthy as a country.

Yes, there is no quesiton she wrote this book in an effort to put some of this into the vault so she could run for President in 2008.


It is her right to do so if she chooses. I can run for president. If I can, why can't she? She has far more IQ quotient and a far better college education than the current president. Plus, she can string more than six words together into a cohesive sentence. She can probably say "nuclear" correctly, too.

I believe she has made some VERY questionable business deals and am fairly convinced she was intimately involved in travelgate.

And I'm convinced Cheney's hands aren't completely clean either. I, however, am not willing to drag the office of the presidency into the gutter gunninig for him.

I present this only as evidence of her character and revisionist account of history.

Of course you do. If I constantly and continuosly "slammed" someone to a group of people who don't really know this person, eventually, after enough accusations and character assaults, everyone within earshot of my vitriol would start to form a negative opinion about said person. Then, if I did this, ad nausea, for several YEARS, eventually the entire country would have a negative opinion about said person.

This is what the extreme right-wing faction of the Republican party is doing and continues to do. It's absolutely brilliant. It takes "the politics of personal destruction" to a whole new level...much to Hillary's chagrin. Slam her and drag her name through the mud enough times and you innoculate yourself against her winning future elections (senate or otherwise).


Question 2:

Trent Lott? Tom Delay? These are the guys you pick? It's not a question of "any more" or "any less"....is she honest or not? Answer: no. But of course, you have to cite Republicans. Of course, you wouldn't cite Robert "KKK" Byrd, "Slippery" Tom Daschle, or "Venom-boy" Terry McCaullife.

3. Possibly agreed. There's no question it's a political move, though.

4. Different when a Clinton does it? Right, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy. I think you mean something along the lines of "it's different because the Clinton's get away with things". It's about the fact that she so blatantly and transparently "moved there" to run for Senate from a liberal state. The Bush's lived in Texas for years. So did the Reagans with respect to CA.

5. Why do you immediately go to The Bush Admin to avoid the question? And no, I don't believe they are "all" corrupt.

6. We'll have to disagree on Sean Hannity. Hypocritical? How is that? I think he simply has a totally different political ideology than you do. I think the fact that he as 13 million listeners a day drives you nuts. Dissenting opinion? See, there you go. Opinions like Hannity's MUST be in the minority, right? Wrong. Damage? what do you mean "damage"? Don't you mean damage to your failed liberal political beliefs, rather than the country?




It is her right to do so if she chooses. I can run for president. If I can, why can't she? She has far more IQ quotient and a far better college education than the current president. Plus, she can string more than six words together into a cohesive sentence. She can probably say "nuclear" correctly, too.



That's not the point. And..."IQ quotient"??? :lol: IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. Hmmmm...better education? He has degrees from Harvard and Yale!!! Better than Harvard and Yale?

And I'm convinced Cheney's hands aren't completely clean either. I, however, am not willing to drag the office of the presidency into the gutter gunninig for him.

Dodge! Duck!

Of course you do. If I constantly and continuosly "slammed" someone to a group of people who don't really know this person, eventually, after enough accusations and character assaults, everyone within earshot of my vitriol would start to form a negative opinion about said person. Then, if I did this, ad nausea, for several YEARS, eventually the entire country would have a negative opinion about said person.

This is what the extreme right-wing faction of the Republican party is doing and continues to do. It's absolutely brilliant. It takes "the politics of personal destruction" to a whole new level...much to Hillary's chagrin. Slam her and drag her name through the mud enough times and you innoculate yourself against her winning future elections (senate or otherwise).

Really. You believe her? Despite what I posted? Support her because you are a partisan liberal Democrat, but believe her? :lol:

pssssst. I think you mean "ad nauseam". That's with an "M". Oh, and BTW: All I need to think she's lying %#%^ is her statements themselves and images of her on the screen. It's enough to make me puke.

Oh...there it is! The vast right wing conspiracy to destroy the truthful, noble society-changing Hillary! Shame!

[pfflam]

You don't believe her about her relationship with her husband and his relationship with other women: many of those supposed relationships were clearly distortions pumped up to serve, yes, a group of ideologues with one goal in mind: to discredit Clinton however possible (in other words a group conspiring to do so) Paula Jones for instance . . .

Read that book by one of the fellows that lead the cry to string him up: can't remember his name in my semi-intox state or the book but he revealed how he was distorting truths in order to hang Clinton especially in such idiotic instances as his personal affairs. . . and he shows how systematically the right is organized around such campaigns of demonization . . he was one of the leaders, he should know.

Im sure the left has groups too . . .

As far as Hillary Clinton sticking by Bill, well, who knows? maybe she actually loves him . . . . maybe she realizes the guy has a massive libido *ehem* and forgives him.

I think she should have dumped him . . . but then again, I know many masochistic relationships . . . . maybe the make-up sex is good?! . . . who knows? love is strange.

But SDW, your willingness to give up all of your thought processes to a self identity with an 'ideology' is depressing. ordinarily I try to avoid the closure of thinking that stems from such willful restrictions as identity and ideology . . . and you noot only put on the emblem you jump into the uniform:
clearly you risk being a patsy . . .

a puppet of trendy thought forms

[Scott]

vast right wing conspiracy? Turned out to be true. No retraction from HRC?

[bunge]

SDW2001,

Why don't you lambast Cheney's 'move' to Wyoming? I believe it's not within your power to do so.

[shetline]

Originally posted by pfflam
As far as Hillary Clinton sticking by Bill, well, who knows? maybe she actually loves him . . . . maybe she realizes the guy has a massive libido *ehem* and forgives him.

I think she should have dumped him . . . but then again, I know many masochistic relationships . . . . maybe the make-up sex is good?! . . . who knows? love is strange.
Yes, there are all sorts of possibilities. Maybe they simply have a marriage of friendship, or a marriage of convenience, and Hillary doesn't care where Bill gets sex. Maybe she gets off on him doing other women. Who knows?

But politically speaking, she could never admit to any of those things, given the Puritanical side of the American electorate. Sure, it would be nice if more people were brave about admitting this kind of thing (when true), but it would be political suicide.

I'd prefer honestly, but I wouldn't much blame Hillary for putting up a front of a shocked, hurt woman who nevertheless stands by her husband -- it's the only politically viable face to put on things no matter what the real truth.

[alcimedes]

maybe she actually likes women and just married bill to make her life socially more acceptable.

it will be interesting to see what all is written when the Secret Service folks who worked with them come out from under their NDA's.

[ena]

Originally posted by alcimedes
maybe she actually likes women and just married bill to make her life socially more acceptable.

it will be interesting to see what all is written when the Secret Service folks who worked with them come out from under their NDA's.

.....actually there is more out there than you might expect.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
You don't believe her about her relationship with her husband and his relationship with other women: many of those supposed relationships were clearly distortions pumped up to serve, yes, a group of ideologues with one goal in mind: to discredit Clinton however possible (in other words a group conspiring to do so) Paula Jones for instance . . .

Read that book by one of the fellows that lead the cry to string him up: can't remember his name in my semi-intox state or the book but he revealed how he was distorting truths in order to hang Clinton especially in such idiotic instances as his personal affairs. . . and he shows how systematically the right is organized around such campaigns of demonization . . he was one of the leaders, he should know.

Im sure the left has groups too . . .

As far as Hillary Clinton sticking by Bill, well, who knows? maybe she actually loves him . . . . maybe she realizes the guy has a massive libido *ehem* and forgives him.

I think she should have dumped him . . . but then again, I know many masochistic relationships . . . . maybe the make-up sex is good?! . . . who knows? love is strange.

But SDW, your willingness to give up all of your thought processes to a self identity with an 'ideology' is depressing. ordinarily I try to avoid the closure of thinking that stems from such willful restrictions as identity and ideology . . . and you noot only put on the emblem you jump into the uniform:
clearly you risk being a patsy . . .

a puppet of trendy thought forms


Yes, poor SDW. He just tows that party line.

pfflam, this is a convenient way to attempt to discredit everything I say. "Well, it is SDW we are talking about boys....".

Does the Right have people who wish to destroy Clinton? Yes. Was Ken Starr over the top? Yes. Are the Clinton's morally bankrupt political opportunists who are totally self-obsessed? Yes!

And pfflam, the Left's demonization of the Right is far worse. Republicans are portrayed as racist, poor-hating rich-loving cigar smoking country boys. YOU YOURSELF portray me this way when I express an opinion contrary to yours on any racial issue, for example.

And pfflam: There is nothing wrong with ideology. Ideology can be a good thing. I have said before: My positions are well thought-out. I also made the offer before to defend any one of my positions at length. See, it's just easier for you to dismiss me as a political sheep. After all, if I would just give up and stop refuting your ridiculous out-of-touch liberal positions, it would be less work for you.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, poor SDW. He just tows that party line.

How does Hillary's move compare to Cheney's?

[Gizzmonic]

What is it about rabid right-wing talk show people and the Clintons? Holy crap, they are better villains than Hitler ever was!

Seriously, hating the Clintons is so 1998. Give it up, get a life, and realize that your favorite "the president got a blowjob" punchline is broken-dick trite.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gizzmonic
What is it about rabid right-wing talk show people and the Clintons? Holy crap, they are better villains than Hitler ever was!

Seriously, hating the Clintons is so 1998. Give it up, get a life, and realize that your favorite "the president got a blowjob" punchline is broken-dick trite.


Sure, because that's all there is to it. It's all about sex! That's the only thing he did wrong!!! It's not that he was a disaster as a President! It's not that the only thing he'll ever get credit for is the economy, which he had nothing to do with! It's not that he alowed nuclear technology and US military technology to go to China. It's not that he sold nuclear technology to North Korea becasue they promised not to build nukes! It's not that he lied under oath. It's not that he raised taxes on the MIDDLE CLASS more than any other President in history! No, it's ALL ABOUT GETTING A BLOWJOB!!!

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
No, it's ALL ABOUT GETTING A BLOWJOB!!!

And Cheney living in Wyoming. What about that?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by bunge
How does Hillary's move compare to Cheney's?

Dick Cheney established residency. Actually, he didn't even have to do that. The 12th amendment says "inhabitant", not "resident". Obviously, he did this to be allowed to run for VP. There's no argument there.

Now, Hillary did something a bit different. She established residency in a liberal state to run for THAT state's office. She chose NY because of the vacancy and it's liberal political base.

It's a pretty fine distinction, but I think it matters. Had Cheney done the exact same thing, I wouldn't like it either. In other words, Cheney didn't establish residency in Wyoming to assume an office intended only for people from that state. Hillary did. I'm not sure the two are completely comparable.

[Gizzmonic]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Sure, because that's all there is to it. It's all about sex! That's the only thing he did wrong!!! It's not that he was a disaster as a President! It's not that the only thing he'll ever get credit for is the economy, which he had nothing to do with! It's not that he alowed nuclear technology and US military technology to go to China. It's not that he sold nuclear technology to North Korea becasue they promised not to build nukes! It's not that he lied under oath. It's not that he raised taxes on the MIDDLE CLASS more than any other President in history! No, it's ALL ABOUT GETTING A BLOWJOB!!!

Seriously, you set this up as a "let's bash Hillary Clinton" forum. It's laughable and childish how you tried to make it look like a real discussion.

And now, to erase all doubts, we have your completely offtopic all-caps tantrum. My advise to you: grow up. No one cares anymore. If putting people down is the only way you can express yourself, I pity you.

[tmp]

Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]

Do you feel it was right for her to establish residency quickly and win the Senate seat?
Well, she did WIN the senate seat.

[kraig911]

she is a lesbian... don't you read the enquirer? she had an affair with some hot alien chick. It had to be true it was printed on paper I mean c'mon. oh and they had to make a buck, just like she is... damn money hungry rich people it isn't if she has enough already.
She should get with the times and make a website or somethen instead.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Now, Hillary did something a bit different. She established residency in a liberal state to run for THAT state's office. She chose NY because of the vacancy and it's liberal political base.That's not true, from what I remember. Bill and Hillary had said that they were going to live in NY before she was going to run for the Senate seat. Do you think they were going to go back to Arkansas? Maybe she had secret plans to run for office in NY eventually, but I don't think it's true that there was this specific opening, then Hillary decided to run, then she moved there in order to run.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Question 2:

[quote]Trent Lott? Tom Delay? These are the guys you pick? It's not a question of "any more" or "any less"....is she honest or not? Answer: no. But of course, you have to cite Republicans. Of course, you wouldn't cite Robert "KKK" Byrd, "Slippery" Tom Daschle, or "Venom-boy" Terry McCaullife.

Of course these are the guys I pick. To me, these guys are the leaders of the Republican party. If you don't think they're willing to bend the truth to get what they want or to cover their ass then you're a fool. It's part of the game. If they didn't play the game, they'd be destroyed. Hell, Lott resigned his post because of his personal behavior. But, I'm sure you consider it noble to stand up and defend this man. I will never defend Byrd, for anything.

You admitted early on in your original post that you were a conservative. If you're not willing to take a cold hard look at your own team, it's obvious you're playing partisan politics. So am I.

4. Different when a Clinton does it? Right, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy. I think you mean something along the lines of "it's different because the Clinton's get away with things". It's about the fact that she so blatantly and transparently "moved there" to run for Senate from a liberal state. The Bush's lived in Texas for years. So did the Reagans with respect to CA.

Funny, I don't really remember the Clinton's getting away with anything. There obviously wasn't enough evidence to truly convict Hillary or Bill. But, let's face it, having every little thing you've done in the private sector examined, scrutinized, editorialized and debated on national television and in court for eight years IS punishment and NOT getting away with anything.

OJ may have gotten away with murder, but he's been convicted by the public at large. He's serving his sentence one way or another. The Republican party is doing their damndest to make sure no one EVER forgets they don't like them Clinton's all that much. The more they remind you of how aweful, slick, cold and shrill Hillary is, the least likely you are to vote for her in the future. Brilliant political move, by the way.

5. Why do you immediately go to The Bush Admin to avoid the question? And no, I don't believe they are "all" corrupt.

Well, I thought we were comparing apples to apples.

[/b]6. We'll have to disagree on Sean Hannity. Hypocritical? How is that? I think he simply has a totally different political ideology than you do. I think the fact that he as 13 million listeners a day drives you nuts. Dissenting opinion? See, there you go. Opinions like Hannity's MUST be in the minority, right? Wrong. Damage? what do you mean "damage"? Don't you mean damage to your failed liberal political beliefs, rather than the country? [/b]

I was waiting to be labeled "a failed liberal.":rolleyes:

Sean Hannity is a hypocrite for several reasons. I'll illustrate one as the prime example: when President Clinton was bombing the bejeezus out of Milosevic, Hannity was on the radio (and in his book) lambasting the president for the lousy, gutless, playing-it-safe war he was waging. He railed, loudly, against Clinton's tactics. Fast forward to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hannity pointed his finger at anyone who even remotely criticised Bush about the war and told them, directly, sitting across from them on his TV show, "you ought to be ashamed of yourself (exact quote) for not supporting our troops and our country at a time like this (exact quote)." That's hypocracy.

And, actually, Hannity's opinion is not in the minority ... that's what scares me. His extreme hatred for the Democratic party rivals even Rush. Unfortunately, it's the Sean Hannity's of the world that is shaping the public voice of the Republican party and I don't like it at all.

That's why I'm leaving the party...that's right...I've been a registered Republican for 16 years. I'm a centrist Republican who has decided not to pay allegiance to either party. So, I won't get into the whole "I know you are, but what am I" mud slinging.

That's not the point. And..."IQ quotient"??? :lol: IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. Hmmmm...better education? He has degrees from Harvard and Yale!!! Better than Harvard and Yale?

I have more respect for an average middle-class person who improves their life by educating themself and then fighting their way to a position of prestige then I have for the uber-rich who's pappy's got them into a prestigious school (that includes Gore) and was annointed because of their last name (that includes everyone).

Really. You believe her? Despite what I posted? Support her because you are a partisan liberal Democrat, but believe her?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the authority on Hillary Clinton. Well, I guess I stand corrected. It has been written.

pssssst. I think you mean "ad nauseam". That's with an "M".

Can't argue the point, so you argue semantics. Of course.

Oh...there it is! The vast right wing conspiracy to destroy the truthful, noble society-changing Hillary! Shame!

I never said that. I do, however, believe there is a huge Republican faction that is intent on constant and continuous Hillary bashing. In fact, it's not a belief, because it's out there, constantly, all the time. She can't blow her nose without someone complaining. I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy" at all. I call it politics and I find it all very amusing.

[billybobsky]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Dick Cheney established residency. Actually, he didn't even have to do that. The 12th amendment says "inhabitant", not "resident". Obviously, he did this to be allowed to run for VP. There's no argument there.

Now, Hillary did something a bit different. She established residency in a liberal state to run for THAT state's office. She chose NY because of the vacancy and it's liberal political base.

It's a pretty fine distinction, but I think it matters. Had Cheney done the exact same thing, I wouldn't like it either. In other words, Cheney didn't establish residency in Wyoming to assume an office intended only for people from that state. Hillary did. I'm not sure the two are completely comparable.

Actually, if Cheney hadnt established residency he wouldnt have been able to run for VEEP, he choose Wyoming out of convienance. Its no different, in fact Cheney is worse because in cases where the senate is split, its as if Texas has three senators...

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by billybobsky
Actually, if Cheney hadnt established residency he wouldnt have been able to run for VEEP, he choose Wyoming out of convienance. Its no different, in fact Cheney is worse because in cases where the senate is split, its as if Texas has three senators...

That's a bit ridiculous. I think there is a small difference.

[SDW2001]

Northgate:

Of course these are the guys I pick. To me, these guys are the leaders of the Republican party. If you don't think they're willing to bend the truth to get what they want or to cover their ass then you're a fool. It's part of the game. If they didn't play the game, they'd be destroyed. Hell, Lott resigned his post because of his personal behavior. But, I'm sure you consider it noble to stand up and defend this man. I will never defend Byrd, for anything.

You admitted early on in your original post that you were a conservative. If you're not willing to take a cold hard look at your own team, it's obvious you're playing partisan politics. So am I.

Do they cover their asses? Sure. That's not really the issue. Lott resigned not over personal behavior, but because he made a statement at an old man's birthday party that got blown out of proportion. Lott never knew Thurmond when he advocated segregation. Lott knew Thurmond after he renounced his own former position on segregation. Of course, Lott was crucified by the Democrats because he is a southern conservative. Meanwhile, the former leader of the Senate, Byrd, was actually in the KKK. No call for resignation there, though. No charges of being a racist there!


Funny, I don't really remember the Clinton's getting away with anything. There obviously wasn't enough evidence to truly convict Hillary or Bill. But, let's face it, having every little thing you've done in the private sector examined, scrutinized, editorialized and debated on national television and in court for eight years IS punishment and NOT getting away with anything.



Right, because if they weren't convicted, they didn't do anything wrong.
Bill may have gotten away with rape, depending on who you believe.


The Republican party is doing their damndest to make sure no one EVER forgets they don't like them Clinton's all that much. The more they remind you of how aweful, slick, cold and shrill Hillary is, the least likely you are to vote for her in the future. Brilliant political move, by the way.



Perhaps. That's called politics.



Sean Hannity is a hypocrite for several reasons. I'll illustrate one as the prime example: when President Clinton was bombing the bejeezus out of Milosevic, Hannity was on the radio (and in his book) lambasting the president for the lousy, gutless, playing-it-safe war he was waging. He railed, loudly, against Clinton's tactics. Fast forward to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hannity pointed his finger at anyone who even remotely criticised Bush about the war and told them, directly, sitting across from them on his TV show, "you ought to be ashamed of yourself (exact quote) for not supporting our troops and our country at a time like this (exact quote)." That's hypocracy.



Oh my god. You compare our most recent war to Kosovo? It was not the same thing. Clinton didn't have the balls to actually use military force correctly. He was too afraid of the potlical consequences of ground force casualties. Some of Clinton's military decisions were based on "how things would look". For example, it was decided that we wouldn;t send the AC-130 gunships into Bosnia because of this reasons. Result? The slaughter of US forces because a politician tried to run the war. True, Hannity criticized Clinton. Then again, we didn't have boots on the ground. That was the whole point.

Speaking of hypocritcal, how about Clinton himself? Listen to Bush's reasons for war, and you'll see that they are almost EXACTLY the same reasons Clinton used in 1998....where he attacked WITHOUT UN approval. Hell, he didn't even consult them.


And, actually, Hannity's opinion is not in the minority ... that's what scares me. His extreme hatred for the Democratic party rivals even Rush. Unfortunately, it's the Sean Hannity's of the world that is shaping the public voice of the Republican party and I don't like it at all.

That's why I'm leaving the party...that's right...I've been a registered Republican for 16 years. I'm a centrist Republican who has decided not to pay allegiance to either party. So, I won't get into the whole "I know you are, but what am I" mud slinging.




Hannity is what the Republican party SHOULD be. I believe he does hate the Democratic party, and for good reasons. The Democratic party of today stands for taxing and spending, tax cuts for people that don't pay taxes to begin with, increased spending, affirmative action, abortion-at-will and a totally incoherent national security strategy. Oh, and I don't care what your voter ID card says....you're a liberal.


have more respect for an average middle-class person who improves their life by educating themself and then fighting their way to a position of prestige then I have for the uber-rich who's pappy's got them into a prestigious school (that includes Gore) and was annointed because of their last name (that includes everyone).



They may have had their fathers get them in, but they didn't get them out.



'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the authority on Hillary Clinton. Well, I guess I stand corrected. It has been written.




I am talking about the contradiction I referenced. You still believe her?

Can't argue the point, so you argue semantics. Of course.




You mean this point:

Of course you do. If I constantly and continuosly "slammed" someone to a group of people who don't really know this person, eventually, after enough accusations and character assaults, everyone within earshot of my vitriol would start to form a negative opinion about said person. Then, if I did this, ad nausea, for several YEARS, eventually the entire country would have a negative opinion about said person.



Yup! That's all it is with Hillary! It's the vast right wing conspiracy again!



never said that. I do, however, believe there is a huge Republican faction that is intent on constant and continuous Hillary bashing. In fact, it's not a belief, because it's out there, constantly, all the time. She can't blow her nose without someone complaining. I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy" at all. I call it politics and I find it all very amusing.

Perhaps.

[ena]

You won't believe this. (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-morris061203.asp)


I just read this---she can't be trusted.

[alcimedes]

well, she lied about an embarassing situation. that's not exactly a first. i think it's fair to say you can't trust 90+% of politicians.

[ena]

I was startled by the "He only does that to the people he loves" statement.
How would she know that?

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps. That's called politics.

Perhaps.

SDW2001 - It's been fun throwing fuel on the "liberals vs right-wingers" fire with ya'. Even though I support her rights, Hillary bores me to tears quite frankly. And, funny enough, I wouldn't vote for her if she ran for president. I would, however, vote for Condie Rice (I like her approachability factor).

Also, I've been known to get into political arguments with "liberals" as well. I have issues on both sides of the fence. Damn fence sitters...;)

To future rounds...

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
SDW2001 - It's been fun throwing fuel on the "liberals vs right-wingers" fire with ya'. Even though I support her rights, Hillary bores me to tears quite frankly. And, funny enough, I wouldn't vote for her if she ran for president. I would, however, vote for Condie Rice (I like her approachability factor).

Also, I've been known to get into political arguments with "liberals" as well. I have issues on both sides of the fence. Damn fence sitters...;)

To future rounds...

I await our next meeting, my valued adversary. :p

[trumptman]

Do you support her?

Do find her believable and generally honest?

Do you think she wrote her book as a basis for running for President in 2008?

Do you feel it was right for her to establish residency quickly and win the Senate seat?

Do you believe the allegations made about her during travelgate, Whitewater, etc?

No I don't support her. Though I can't say I have had the chance since she has never run for office where I live.

I don't know if she wrote it to run for president. It might also just be to revise the past and make her senate seat a bit easier to win next tine.

The residency issue I could care less about. Let people choose who they want to represent them. If they want a carpetbagger it is their choice.

Do I believe some of the allegations, sure. Do I care? Not really. I do take the whole lying under oath thing seriously with Bill but almost all business dealings have some dirt on them if you look hard enough.

I don't fault her for being human. I just don't like it when they start pointing fingers and declaring certain people and groups oppressive and bad for also doing what humans do.

Nick

[trumptman]

It might be a guilty pleasure, but Ann Coulter is funny as hell, and this week the target is Hillary.

Hillary Interview (http://www.anncoulter.org/)

:devil:
Nick

[trumptman]

Here's some nice commentary from a fairly liberal source, Camille Paglia via the Drudge Report.

On the evidence of this book, Hillary appears to believe that good intentions excuse all. Impediments to her lofty goals may have arisen partly through minor miscalculations on her part, she concedes, but most of the problems, in her view, have come from pigheaded reactionaries "who want to turn the clock back on many of the advances our country has made", thanks to the Democratic Party, a congregation of the elect whose mission is the salvation of mankind.

The disaster of Hillary's mismanagement of the 1993-94 campaign for desperately needed healthcare reform in the US is attributed simply to her and Bill having tried "too much, too fast". Never mind the federal regulations about nepotism that were skirted, or the legitimate concerns even of fellow Democrats about potential invasions of privacy in a centralised medical system, or about the obsessively secretive way in which Hillary constructed exploratory committees and staffed her think tank with effete favourites.

Among other blind spots is the vexed issue of Bill's alleged indiscretions, which Hillary dismisses as agitprop by diabolical foes jealous of her husband's Christlike aspiration to transform earthly life. Hillary and her advisers have yet to realise that her indifference or malice towards aggrieved working women like Juanita Broaddrick (who claims to have been injured by Bill in an Arkansas hotel room) compromises her status as a proponent of women's rights, as enunciated in her 1995 speech against sexual violence at the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. Hillary's studied avoidance of Broaddrick's allegations simply strengthens the Clintons' myriad right-wing enemies, who have taken up Broaddrick's cause.

But this is only one of many evasions and erasures in the book, which would need a line-by-line Talmudic commentary in the margins to supply all the needed corrections and amplifications. Numerous scandals are given short shrift or go unmentioned: we hear nothing, for example, of Bill's end-of-office pardons (in which Hillary's own brother was involved) or the flap over the Clintons' trucking away of White House furniture, which had to be returned. When Hillary's missing billing records from the Rose Law Firm, which were long sought by prosecutors, mysteriously turn up in an office near her White House bedroom, she vaguely blames it all on a hapless assistant.


Nick

[pfflam]

Who knows about the assistant . . . its been known to happen . . .anyway, yes Paglia is funny and points out some things that really need accounting for: the pardons for instance, which in my book are absolutely glaring.

But, if any of you know Paglia's ideas then you also know that there is one thing that she understands and that is the Libido and its propensity to take control . . . she seems to be whining like the 'progressive feminists' that she usually rails against, whereas, possibly, Hillary Clinton's relationship to her husband's indescretions is more akin to Paglia's usual position than she admits . . . recognizing the male libido for what it is. Its surprising to see Paglia virtually voice the progressive feminist responce to typically over-teste male actions . . . what's even funnier is that that position is being used by conservatives as well . . .

[trumptman]

Originally posted by pfflam
Who knows about the assistant . . . its been known to happen . . .anyway, yes Paglia is funny and points out some things that really need accounting for: the pardons for instance, which in my book are absolutely glaring.

But, if any of you know Paglia's ideas then you also know that there is one thing that she understands and that is the Libido and its propensity to take control . . . she seems to be whining like the 'progressive feminists' that she usually rails against, whereas, possibly, Hillary Clinton's relationship to her husband's indescretions is more akin to Paglia's usual position than she admits . . . recognizing the male libido for what it is. Its surprising to see Paglia virtually voice the progressive feminist responce to typically over-teste male actions . . . what's even funnier is that that position is being used by conservatives as well . . .

Who was it being used by? Drudge didn't comment on it. He just posted it. He is actually pretty good about leaving the news as it is to just read. His site also has links to dozens of columnists of all sorts of persuasions. I am pretty sure his political orientation leans conservative but he is actually much like Paglia in that he is not easy to pigeon-hole.

The thing that I think gets to people about Hillary or the Clintons in general is that they act saintly with regard to politics, and then you know they are all bare-knuckles behind closed doors. I don't mind someone being bare-knuckled, but don't feign shock when someone takes a swipe back.

I mean wouldn't it be terrible to complain that the poster boy of the Right got a $4.5 million advance on a two book deal which he gave back and then go and get a nice $8 million dollar book deal yourself.

I'm sure it will help pay off the $1.7 million dollar house they purchased in D.C.

But remember, we are about the poor and weakest in society and it takes a village...



:lol:
Nick

[Phantom2Pilot]

Do you support her? NO

Do find her believable and generally honest? NO

Do you think she wrote her book as a basis for running for President in 2008? Absolutely. Anyone who believes otherwise is quite naiive.

Do you feel it was right for her to establish residency quickly and win the Senate seat? Of course not. It was very disingenuous and hypocritical. I am sure it would be quite easy to find video clips or interviews during which she states unequivocally that she had no intention of running for President. That is not conjecture, on my part. I remember her statements vividly. When I heard her make them, I thought to myself "That's a crock. She'll run and most people will forget her comments by then." How true.

Do you believe the allegations made about her during travelgate, Whitewater, etc? Yes and I believe they were proven to be true. Especially Travelgate. Public access to the findings of Whitewater are a little less forthcoming, however.

Alex
aka Phantom2Pilot
Retired Marine Fighter Pilot

[tonton]

Alex, there are plenty of threads about Hillary over in Political Outsder that aren't five years old.

But since we have the chance to meet you, I'd like to ask, as a retired marine fighter pilot, do you support McCain and his 10000 years war? Did you believe the swift boat attacks against Kerry in 2004?

[Ireland]

She's a insensitive, fake, ruthless, crazy, bitch monster!

[vinea]

Damage? what do you mean "damage"? Don't you mean damage to your failed liberal political beliefs, rather than the country?


No, damage to the Republican party. Conservative talk show hosts like him and Limbaugh has dumbed down that party a good 20 IQ points. How else do you explain that we are on average more stupid than Democrats?

Of course, in my biased opinion, the moderates of both parties typically were the most intelligent. Hannity, et al, has driven a goodly portion of ours away because they don't like associating with stupid sheple. Liberal OR conservative.

We're a party of nutjobs now and I rather resent that.

Why the heck is this here anyway and not in PO?

[audiopollution]

Why the heck is this here anyway and not in PO?

I'm more curious as to why a 5-year old thread needed to be resurrected. I would have expected a bot, as we've seen here recently, but the person who bumped the thread responded to a list of questions. Definitely not bot-behaviour.

Oh well.

I'll move this to PO now.

[e1618978]

I actually support McCain's 100 year plan of Iraqi occupation (well, 40 years anyway - the oil will be gone by then), since I think that any pullout will cause genocide (and possibly WWIII) - and we also need to keep the middle east fragmented to prevent the rise of a middle eastern superpower.

And I can't stand Hillary - I liked her as little as 6 months ago, but now the wool is gone from my eyes. Obama is smarter than the other two, and I support him because I think he is too smart to really pull out of Iraq.

[tonton]

I'm more curious as to why a 5-year old thread needed to be resurrected. I would have expected a bot, as we've seen here recently, but the person who bumped the thread responded to a list of questions. Definitely not bot-behaviour.

Oh well.

I'll move this to PO now.

It was a bot. Not a coded spam bot, but a biological opinion bot (BOB). Basically a "BOB" is a person who has an agenda, types a search term in Google and spams random threads on any discussions that come up in the search result. He might not show up again because he probably "hit and run" twenty threads on different forums and blogs.

[tonton]

I actually support McCain's 100 year plan of Iraqi occupation (well, 40 years anyway - the oil will be gone by then), since I think that any pullout will cause genocide (and possibly WWIII) - and we also need to keep the middle east fragmented to prevent the rise of a middle eastern superpower.

And I can't stand Hillary - I liked her as little as 6 months ago, but now the wool is gone from my eyes. Obama is smarter than the other two, and I support him because I think he is too smart to really pull out of Iraq.

The problem with Iraq is that we're fucked if we stay and we're fucked if we go. I don't agree that leaving will start WWIII, but there will be political and humanitarian repercussions. But by staying there will be more dead on both sides and an equal chance of political fallout. It's lose-lose.

I just choose the option that doesn't continue the bankruptcy of the country and the continued death of US soldiers.

[e1618978]

The problem with Iraq is that we're fucked if we stay and we're fucked if we go. I don't agree that leaving will start WWIII, but there will be political and humanitarian repercussions. But by staying there will be more dead on both sides and an equal chance of political fallout. It's lose-lose.

I just choose the option that doesn't continue the bankruptcy of the country and the continued death of US soldiers.

I think that Iraq will gradually calm down if we stay there - why does it need to bankrupt the country? We have the same number of troops overseas as we did during the 50s.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda04-11.cfm

"On average, 22 percent of all U.S. servicemen were stationed on foreign soil during 1950–2000.In 2003, 27 percent were deployed, which is roughly the average of the 1950s. The low point in percentage terms was 13.7 percent in 1995, while the high points were 31 percent in 1951 (approximated) and 1968."

--------------


Anyway - back to Clinton. I think that she just lost, 20 super-rich people just threatened to take back their $25 million if Clinton does not get elected. This won't sit well with the proletariat base, rich people trying to force things to go their way via extortion.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/212642/030/107/485012

[@_@ Artman]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2252/2367319569_c2fbac04d6.jpg

Tampax: Helping Hillary stop the bloodshed! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACfVGmF5eTU#GU5U2spHI_4)

[jimmac]

SDW has a crush. How sweet.

:lol: