or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama, or Clinton
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama, or Clinton - Page 3

post #81 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Actually, it will go fastest of all if I stop wasting my time.

Now, addabox, that's no way to be.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #82 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

(This will go a lot faster if you'd just admit that you're wrong.)


It would go a hell of a lot faster if you'd quit with the goddam RETURN key!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #83 of 106
Thread Starter 
Hillary Clinton is going to be in the Quad Cities this weekend. I think My wife and me are going go there to listen to her speak. Then I will come back to this thread on Monday and tell you all what I think of her.
She might be a cunt, but there are hell of lot more pompous pricks in the senate
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #84 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

SDW: since you cut and ran in the other thread when challenged to actually source some of your spittle inflected accusations, perhaps we can pin you down here:

What policies account for Senator Clinton's transformation from "hard leftist" to "fake centrist"?

What legitimate news source can you link to that details all the "lingering scandals" you cite? It's a little ironic that you would insist that there's "no there there" concerning questions regarding Bush, since the press would have had a field day, but apparently imagine that there is a conspiracy of silence regarding "unanswered question" around Senator Clinton. Oh, that's right, the liberal media. Except for when it was Clinton scandals, no matter how spurious, 24/7.

Could anyone provide sourcing for the idea that Senator Clinton is an abusive employer? If so, why is that unforgivable in her but not for someone like John Bolton?

Can anyone explain how Senator Clinton's focus on winning elections or being president differs from other politicians who have focused on winning elections or being president? What about tailoring her message to her constituency makes it craven compared to other politicians tailoring their message to their constituency?

How can calling Senator Clinton a bitch and a cunt not have anything to do with her being a woman?

Sorry for being so, you know, elitist, at to expect some kind of evidence for shrill emotional attacks, and for being so horribly certain of my own line of thought as to put it forward.

I cut and run? Not sure where. Maybe I lost interest in the thread. I'm kinda ADD

1. Seriously? Really..are you just playing a game here, or are you making an intellectually honest argument that she has not attempted such a transition?

2. I'm not sure why you'd ask for a "legitmate news source" on those scandals. They were well reported by such sources when they ocurred. However, she is not asked about them in interviews, nor is she asked any question (generally) that is anything other than soft.

3. Dick Morris.

4. It's a question of degree. Tailoring a message is one thing. Hell, pandering is one thing. Hillary's unbelievable fake-ness is another. We're talking about a total transformation based on whatever polling data suggests.

5. I didn't call her a c***. I did call her a bitch. I can call men bitches too. Here, watch: Addabox, you're a bitch. See?

6. You're not being elitist at the moment actually, not in my view. I just find it amazing that you actually believe HRC is anything close to, well...genuine.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It is interesting to look at the nature of conservatives' dislike of Hillary. It's very personal and very hard to pin down. It's about her personality, the way she is, rather than her actual views or votes or statements.

I mean, those of us who dislike Bush at least point to things like a war he started and his economic policies and warrantless eavesdropping etc. But when it comes to Hillary, it's all very vague and "she's a cunt" and "just look at her."

Disagree to an extent. You can't really pin it down because she hasn't actually done much. Her views are definitely at issue. I will agree that a lot of it is her personality and for me, my perception of her character.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #86 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's a question of degree. Tailoring a message is one thing. Hell, pandering is one thing. Hillary's unbelievable fake-ness is another. We're talking about a total transformation based on whatever polling data suggests.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I've seen this repeated now a number of times and can't help to wonder what that characterization-- or should i say caricature-- is based on.
post #87 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You're massively inflating the role of personal ambition here.

And since when is personal ambition evidence of megalomania?

We're really dealing with a special Hillary Rule here among her critics.
. . ..

The way Hillary has behaved over the past 15 years has made a rather large consituency of people dislike her intently. Even in 1994 there were "I don't believe a thing the president says, or her husband" T-shirts for sale. I know, because I remember seeing lots of them around DC. These days, you hear the same sentiment from all kinds of Americans. It is fact that, for a long time, Hillary has made people feel that she's trying to achieve political office in a way that's unnatural to the so-called cursus honorem. By definition, that's megalomania. This isn't a special "Hillary Rule." It has been around for 2500 years, hence the terminology is latin.

If Hillary has positions on issues, maybe you can spout them for me? I've never heard her do anything but dodge the hard questions, so please enlighten me. Please point me to referential indication of her issues. I want to know how she feels about the social security debacle, trade relations with the far east, how she would deal with hostile foreign regents, what's her real stance on corruption in the trade unions, tort reform, campaign fundraising, etc. . . . I have dug and have found nothing. The same goes for Obama, but at least there's no megalomania or scandal-filled past. I didn't vote for Bush and I vehemently dislike his administration, but at the very least it's easy to tell where he stands. With Hillary, I seriously have no idea, despite the fact that I've looked into it.

Which begs the question: if your goal is to be president, and you don't have clearly defined postions, then why do you really want to be president?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I've seen this repeated now a number of times and can't help to wonder what that characterization-- or should i say caricature-- is based on.

I know you think you're a smart cookie, but you have to realize that if people think Hillary is a chameleon, there's probably some truth to it. As I suggested, a lot of it is because she got into politics in a knee-jerk democrat region on her husband's coattails, has a scandal-filled past, and avoids taking positions.

Are these not true? I'll give you a chance to look into it. Come back with substance.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #88 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

30% of the country still thinks Bush is doing a good job.

Let them hate her.

I'm just in favor of them all congregating in Mississippi, Alabama, Utah and Georgia.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #89 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Please point me to referential indication of her issues.

clinton.senate.gov/issues/

She's pretty much a doctrinal democrat.
post #90 of 106
At the moment, I'm no fan of hers, so don't take this the wrong way. But...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

The way Hillary has behaved over the past 15 years has made a rather large consituency of people dislike her intently.

How, precisely, has she "behaved over the past 15 years"? Specifics, please. What, since 1993, has she done to piss so many people off?

Quote:
Even in 1994 there were "I don't believe a thing the president says, or her husband" T-shirts for sale.

Yes. There were. How dare she not be like REAL first ladies such as Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan and sit there and smile as if her head were on a spring! And when they did try to remake her? It wasn't sincere. She didn't mean it. She was still, you know, smart.

Quote:
These days, you hear the same sentiment from all kinds of Americans.

What sentiment is that, precisely? That Senator Clinton ought not speak? Be smart? Have political ambitions?

Quote:
It is fact that, for a long time, Hillary has made people feel that she's trying to achieve political office in a way that's unnatural to the so-called cursus honorem. By definition, that's megalomania.

It is a fact that, for a long time, right-wing talk radio pundits have impressed upon their listeners that Senator Clinton is trying to achieve political office in a way that's NOT RIGHT. How dare First Lady Clinton function as a confidante and advisor to her husband when he was president! Why won't she just shut up and sit there like a bobble head like First Ladies Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush! Wear a friggin' red dress or a blue dress and STFU, HILARY! HOW DARE SHE RUN FOR SENATE! WE ALL KNOW THAT SHE'S GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT! CLEARLLY SHE ONLY EVER MARRIED BILL CLINTON SO SHE COULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

I have family in Arkansas. I have heard shit about the Clintons you would not believe. Did you know, for instance, that they cut a deal before they got married (at the ripe old age of 7 years too young to run for president) that Bill would get elected first and she would get elected on his coattails? I shit you not. I have had someone tell me that with a straight face.

Quote:
If Hillary has positions on issues, maybe you can spout them for me? I've never heard her do anything but dodge the hard questions, so please enlighten me. Please point me to referential indication of her issues. I want to know how she feels about the social security debacle, trade relations with the far east, how she would deal with hostile foreign regents, what's her real stance on corruption in the trade unions, tort reform, campaign fundraising, etc. . . . I have dug and have found nothing. The same goes for Obama, but at least there's no megalomania or scandal-filled past. I didn't vote for Bush and I vehemently dislike his administration, but at the very least it's easy to tell where he stands. With Hillary, I seriously have no idea, despite the fact that I've looked into it.

I agree completely. I desperately want these two to give clear answers to questions, and like you I simply do not know where they stand on ANYTHING. Personally, I think she'll be a bad candidate. As bad as Mit Romney will be for the GOP.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #91 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

It's not how she polls now, it's how she'll poll after the noise machine gest through with her.

I can almost guarantee that, were she to get the nomination and run for president, by the last two weeks of the campaign a lot of the people who like her now would be saying, "I dunno, I guess I agree with her policies and all, but it's just that she's so ruthless, it's like she'll say or do anything to be president, and that Rose law firm thing really bothers me, and I know she probably didn't have anything to do with Vince Foster's death, but where there's smoke there's fire, and she's just so cold, and there's that thing about her lesbian affair while she was in the White House, I guess that why Bill had to have the intern blow him, and...."

Why? Because the national media will play along. They already have their "Hillary" story line and they will not give it up. Trash that shouldn't rise above the level of "that bitch so mean" talk down at the local watering hole will get talked about, and talked about, and talked about, and then we'll talk about how we're talking about it, and there'll be a CNN special report entitled "Is calling Hillary a frigid bitch crossing a line?".

It just is what it is, dumbfoundingly stupid and wrong though it may be.

You know what, you're not only as eloquent as ever, but, unfortunateley, you're probably right.

She'll be chewed up by the machine.

I mean, can you look back at the last election and believe what was done to, in broad daylight, to Kerry?! . . . the most decisive factor in his loss was the most blatant and horrendous of shameful lies ever paraded in front of the Amercan people . . . that whole swiftboat slime!! unbelievable!

Just imagine what they will unleash, and the worst part is that because she is a woman, the quality of 'image', which is so important in elections, is probably more susceptible to attack and desecration in the eyes of the average male voter, than would be the image of a male.
it will be ugly.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #92 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

See the thing is, I'm sure that there are candidates that most of the candidates are smart enough, and I'm sure they are qualified enough, but I think most people just do it because the pay raise is bigger and you get your name plastered all over history books, not because you actually have something to do or say. This is why I think Al Gore would be an excellent president. He has a very clear vision and it's not just about it being the next step of his career.

Please, don't be offended or hurt, but that is one of the funniest posts that I have read in a long time!

I wonder how many of them are thinking: "This President of the United States thing is gonna look great on the resume!"?
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #93 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh, except for the myriad of scandals she has nevered answered questions on. The woman has never done a tough interview in her life. She's always threatened to cut the reporter's balls off. But she can't comtrol her own publicity anymore, not in this election.

Secondly, I need to express you all: Her campaign announcement video made me SICK when she said "So let's talk, let's chat, let's have a conversation." It was such a transparent attempt at being warm and fuzzy. I literally cringe when I hear it. That said, the fuzzy lighting made me laugh...gotta soften up that image.

Oh my god...I'm thinking of that video again!!!!!!!!!!!!

You should really look into reading some post-Freudian analysis sometime . . . the usage of your metaphors reveals so much about what really motivates your fears and 'ideas'.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #94 of 106
Mid:

Quote:
HOW DARE SHE RUN FOR SENATE! WE ALL KNOW THAT SHE'S GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT! CLEARLLY SHE ONLY EVER MARRIED BILL CLINTON SO SHE COULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

and

Quote:
Yes. There were. How dare she not be like REAL first ladies such as Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan and sit there and smile as if her head were on a spring! And when they did try to remake her? It wasn't sincere. She didn't mean it. She was still, you know, smart.

There's a reason people viewed her time in the White House like that. The First Lady is not elected...to do anything. She did a hell of a lot more than be a "confidant" and I think you know it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I've seen this repeated now a number of times and can't help to wonder what that characterization-- or should i say caricature-- is based on.

You have to be kidding.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #96 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Mid:



and



There's a reason people viewed her time in the White House like that. The First Lady is not elected...to do anything. She did a hell of a lot more than be a "confidant" and I think you know it.

So what? So she needs to get back in the kitchen? News flash! No one on the president's staff is elected. Karl Rove wasn't. andy Card wasn't. Scooter Libby wasn't. George Stephanopolouphgus wasn't. Paul Begala wasn't. And on and on. And they do a hell of a lot more than advise and I think you know it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #97 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

30% of the country still thinks Bush is doing a good job.

Let them hate her.

I'm just in favor of them all congregating in Mississippi, Alabama, Utah and Georgia.

They're not already?
post #98 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

They're not already?

Well, many seem to have flocked there somewhat instinctively, but there are still far, far too many of them in other states. Take PA, for instance. Tons of those people just need to move to MS.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #99 of 106
Well... basically anyone outside of....

Philly
Pittsburgh
Harrisburg/ Carlisle
Allentown/ Bethlehem
Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre
York/ Lancaster
Erie
East Stroudsburg
Reading
Williamsport

...the same city/country dynamic.
post #100 of 106
Quote:
Stephanopolouphgus




While that wasn't the worst mangling of a name I've ever seen, it was the funniest.


The First Lady is generally not on the President's staff, except...cough...with some exceptions by certain donut sucking, McDonald's eating Presidents. I guess he is able to appoint her, but that reeks of nepitism. It's another thing when the President appoints his staff and cabinet. That's part of his official duty....appointing his wife is not.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #101 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Well... basically anyone outside of....

Philly
Pittsburgh
Harrisburg/ Carlisle
Allentown/ Bethlehem
Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre
York/ Lancaster
Erie
East Stroudsburg
Reading
Williamsport

...the same city/country dynamic.

Lancaster is extremely conservative, moreso than the Philly Burbs.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #102 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post




While that wasn't the worst mangling of a name I've ever seen, it was the funniest.


The First Lady is generally not on the President's staff, except...cough...with some exceptions by certain donut sucking, McDonald's eating Presidents. I guess he is able to appoint her, but that reeks of nepitism. It's another thing when the President appoints his staff and cabinet. That's part of his official duty....appointing his wife is not.

All Presidential appointments are acts of nepotism, to a degree. You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #103 of 106
How about Hillery for president and Obama as her running mate?

That would shake things up!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #104 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

All Presidential appointments are acts of nepotism, to a degree. You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie.

That's a stretch.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #105 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How about Hillery for president and Obama as her running mate?

That would shake things up!

I could see that happening actually. If it happens McCain will likely choose Rice.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's a stretch.

OK. I'll play nice:

1) Almost every senior official in this administration began in the Nixon or Ford admins and worked straight up through Bush I. Many of them got promotions in the Bush II admin. Don't forget Bush's excellent track record with supreme court appointees.

2) Many of those who did not come from the Nixon/Ford adminsyounger folksare largely political appointments: Brown is the perfect example. He was woefully, woefully unqualified for the position, having had no experience with disaster management. He was the frat brother of someone else. Period. The PR guy at NASA who told NASA administrators that they had to refer to the big bang as a "theory" was someone's son.

3) You want nepotism proper? Sure. Janet Rehnquist. Eunice Scalia. Michael Powell. There's even a book about it.

You are, quite simply, delusional if you think that Bush took resumes and held a job fair for positions. He hired the guys he knew. He hired the sons of guys he knew. Its a generational good ol' boys network. This is how Presidencies work (although you could argue that Clinton's initial team of folks were pretty new and that led to them getting their asses kicked from 92-94).
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama, or Clinton