Hillary haters: what am I missing?

[headscratcher4]

Not a particular fan of Sen. Clinton, though not opposed to her either. As politicians go, she seems all right and certainly no worse than most.

But here is the thing that I don’t get about the Hillary haters: many of the things that the Hillary-haters cite (when not talking policy – i.e. the personal/biographical, etc) when explaining why they hate her, are qualities that in a man or other “politicians” with whom they agree they would find admirable or excusable.

She is supposedly:

Duplicitous
Conniving
Scheming
Power-hungry
Ego-maniacal
Has a bad temper
Overly politically correct
Only represents special interests, not real Americans
Used her husband to build her power-base
An elitist

And on, and on…..

Now, can not these abhorrent qualities be also assigned to George Bush?

Duplicitous – Distorts or otherwise lies (knowingly or unknowingly) to make his points and seek his policy agenda…

Conniving – the man is President of the United States and a politician, don’t tell me he got that far with out a little bit o’ conniving on the side….

Scheming – ditto

Power-hungry -- ditto

Ego-maniacal – the man is President of the U.S., a heady and strong ego, I suspect, goes along with ambition for that job…

Has a bad temper – Indeed, word is that GWB in spite of his smiling public demeanor is steely and un-forgiving of errors or faults in others…

Overly politically correct – I guess GWB kissing up to the religious right and saying the things they want to hear and questioning the patriotism, sincerity, etc. of anyone who disagrees with his policy isn’t applying “politically correct” standards…

Only represents special interests, not real Americans – Don’t the corporate interests and the religious right that George Bush panders to “special” interests?
Used her husband to build her power-base – Dad was President. Grand dad a Senator. George W. is not a self-created man. He comes out of a family that helped him build a political power base. In him, apparently, it is admirable.

An Elitist – GWB, went to Andover, Yale and Harvard (BTW, Hillary went to public school), and got into at least two of those institution on White Boy Affirmative Action (i.e. who his family was) (Hillary did it, I understand, on grades and hard work). GWB’s father’s friends always bailed him out of trouble (financial at least), and helped him avoid things like real military service, etc. My point is, GWB comes out of a completely elitist society of rich white privileged Texans and no amount of cowboy boots or western slang changes that.

Anyway, I just wish people would spend more time critiquing the notable flaws and problems with Hillary’s policy positions, etc. than attacking her for qualities that in a man or a Republican they find acceptable, admirable or excusable…

[CFLarsen]

headscratcher4,

It's none of those things. It's because she is a woman. A powerful woman, who speaks her mind, politically.

And in public, too!

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
headscratcher4,

It's none of those things. It's because she is a woman. A powerful woman, who speaks her mind, politically.

And in public, too!

Well, that is what I think the honest answer really is, though I doubt that will be admitted by most.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
headscratcher4,

It's none of those things. It's because she is a woman. A powerful woman, who speaks her mind, politically.

And in public, too!

Nope. I just don't agree with most of her views politically. Don't hate her, and it has nothing to do with powerful women speaking their mind. Though to say that it is because of that is something she would say in defense of any disagreement to her views.

You know i've never seen the two of you together, Claus, can you prove you aren't her? :p

[Demigorgon]

My personal dislike of her also falls into why I would not want her running anything to do with my country.

During the Presidents address to the nation after the 911 attacks, she was rolling her eyes.

She didn't have the "balls" to get rid of Bill after finding out he cheated on her. What else will she lack the "balls" to do?

She was niave enough to not think he was cheating on her. What else will she blindly believe?

That's a few of the reasons I personally dislike her.

As far as not wanting her to run the country - It's because she's a woman. A large portion of the world would never respect her, simply because she's a female.

[aerocontrols]

I voted for Clinton in '92, and started disliking Hillary after she was put in charge of developing the Universal Health Care system that failed. The rhetoric of the attempt led (rising costs of health care) to the rise of HMOs, and led to many cutbacks in hospitals. My mother lost her job as a psych nurse because psych units all over the country closed down to try to hold down costs.

That having been said, she has completely rehabilitated herself in my view, and I would prefer her as the Dem presidential candidate to all of the other choices.

She has been superb with respect to the War on Terror thus far.

Those who think that the opinions of the majority of her opponents have anything to do with her lack of a penis are kidding themselves.

Troll: What do you think about Maggie Thatcher? Do you hate her because she was a powerful woman who spoke her mind, politically?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
As far as not wanting her to run the country - It's because she's a woman. A large portion of the world would never respect her, simply because she's a female. Yeah, Margaret Thatcher could hardly walk 5 feet without someone making a comment about her hair or "how could she wear those shoes? They're SO last season."

[Suddenly]

Something that occurs to me from HS4's post:

I seem to recall people razzing Bill, accusing him of being a puppet of Hillary.

Are these same people now accusing Hillary of reaching power because of her husband? Isn't that a bit daft if Bill only had power in the first place because of Hillary.

[Ignatius]

I don't know. There were some Republicans that really hated her policies (I thought it started with her Universal Health Plan), but now I think she is more of a symbol of everything they dislike.

She is the boogeyman that Republicans whisper into their childrens ears about at bedtime. "You'd better do everything you can to support the RNC, or that b!tch Hillary is going to be your next president".

[Troll]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I voted for Clinton in '92, and started disliking Hillary after she was put in charge of developing the Universal Health Care system that failed. The rhetoric of the attempt led (rising costs of health care) to the rise of HMOs, and led to many cutbacks in hospitals. My mother lost her job as a psych nurse because psych units all over the country closed down to try to hold down costs.

That having been said, she has completely rehabilitated herself in my view, and I would prefer her as the Dem presidential candidate to all of the other choices.

She has been superb with respect to the War on Terror thus far.

Those who think that the opinions of the majority of her opponents have anything to do with her lack of a penis are kidding themselves.

Troll: What do you think about Maggie Thatcher? Do you hate her because she was a powerful woman who spoke her mind, politically?

Nah. I liked the ballsy old broad. I liked her quite a bit. Had she been able to run in the US I'd have backed her. Thank you for showing these guys the folly of their claims.;)

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
My personal dislike of her also falls into why I would not want her running anything to do with my country.

During the Presidents address to the nation after the 911 attacks, she was rolling her eyes.

She didn't have the "balls" to get rid of Bill after finding out he cheated on her. What else will she lack the "balls" to do?

She was niave enough to not think he was cheating on her. What else will she blindly believe?

That's a few of the reasons I personally dislike her.

As far as not wanting her to run the country - It's because she's a woman. A large portion of the world would never respect her, simply because she's a female.

Again, not defending her...but "rolling her eyes..." and you know this because you saw a clip on Fox? Because the camera was rivited to her at all points during the President's speech? Because O'Riely or Limbaugh said so?

Frankly, I'd have to see the clips because I doubt any politician anywhere was rolling their eyes in public, even if they didn't agree with the President. Prove that assertion, direct me to footage or pictures. Prove to me that you've actually seen her rolling her eyes, and put it in complete context.

So, you're mad cause she wouldn't leave Bill? Why should you care, that is between them. You don't have to be married to him...so far as I know, she hasn't any concerns or criticisms about how you manage your personal relations (unless, of course, you are hitting your spouse, than she and Isuspect GWB (too) would think that not such a good thing.

So this shows she's a coward? What has that to do with policy or politics? GWB is AWOL from the Air National Gaurd...me thinks that could make him a coward. He has addmited to being an alcoholic, methinks that could make him a coward, etc.

The point is it is a personality flaw that you may not want in a leader, but which is shared by many in politics, and likely by politicians who you "admire" but who are likely male...

As to what else she will blindly believe, GWB invaded a country because he blindly believed that they had WMDs...there are dead Americans as a result. TO date they don't. At least no one I am aware of died because of Hillary's blind belief in Bill or her marriage. Just my opinion.

[Ladyhawk]

For the record, I don't find these qualities "admirable" or "excusable" in anyone; female, male, Dem or Rep. They do seem to be part and parcel of politics, though so, I'm more forgiving of it, but only in the political arena. And, CF may be right in saying that part of the hostility toward Hillary may be because she is a woman.


I don't like HC and I haven't a really documentable reason why. I just don't trust her. I always get this feeling that she is far more concerned with her own personal success than that of the Dem party or the USA. And, I'm sorry, but I just can't believe her when she says that she had no idea Billy Boy had lied to her about Monica. Please. It insults common intelligence.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's because she is a woman. A powerful woman, who speaks her mind, politically.

And in public, too! But to headscratcher4's point, "Now, can not these abhorrent qualities be also assigned to George Bush?"

I ask you!

[Nasarius]

I'm always amused when people (read: Republicans) who aren't even from New York bash her for carpetbagging. I don't particularly like her (the alternative was seemingly a mindless Republican drone, though), but it doesn't matter to me in the slightest that she didn't live in New York before. She's formulating national policy anyway, so why should it matter? IMHO, the differences between states have become much less significant since the 1800s.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Nasarius
(the alternative was seemingly a mindless Republican drone, though)

Your other points aside, that only became true after the New York Democratic Party gave her the nomination.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I voted for Clinton in '92, and started disliking Hillary after she was put in charge of developing the Universal Health Care system that failed. The

Just to show I'm not a complete Hillary/Bill lover, and excellent reason for doubting/hating Hillary. IT was a terrible plan. Worse still if, as a politician, she learned(s) nothing from it -- yet to be shown. IT would have been a terrible plan whoever tried to run or implement it. IT was big mistake of the Clinton Administration and she has great responsiblity for it.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I voted for Clinton in '92, and started disliking Hillary after she was put in charge of developing the Universal Health Care system that failed. The



But my point is somewhat different. You are rare in citing a "policy" reason for questioning Hillary. Most don't, they give reasons like above...she didn't have the balls....etc.

[mjh36]

I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but I would never vote for her in any election for any office, and it isn't based on her personality, it is based on history and the present. The fact that she is a woman is irrelevant to me, because I have voted for women in public office several times in the past (my district's rep in the House is a woman that I voted for).

Hillary's public record reads like Marx and Hegel are her personal assistants. From her failed 1st attempt at socializing health care, to her various pet projects (like the 211 info line) that make people more and more people dependent on her and her government, she frightens me with her particular brand of ultra-left socialism.

As far as her speaking her mind politically...she is one of the two authors of Clintonian political discourse, so she will never, ever speak her mind. She and the former First Husband speak only what is politically advantageous and easily forgotten. Example: HRC is in the Congressional Record in 2001 saying that Saddam and his WMD program a real threat to America, yet every time she appears on TV, she finds a way to gaffe Bush for having the same position that she has when cameras aren't looking.

I will never say that any politician is beyond reproach, and Dubyah's spending is making me more than a little unhappy, but Hillary's domestic agenda frightens me all the way to my libertarian core. That and the fact that she has the economic and historical knowledge of a third grader. Of the ten most widely accepted economic theories of good economic growth and stability (as written in textbooks), Hillary stringently believes and votes for policies that violate half of them.

And she constantly reminds her sycophants that the Bush economy is the worst since Hoover, yet she has far more in common with Hoover (raising taxes, larger government role in private industry, socialization of medicine, tariff controls, etc) than Bush does. But like a good Clinton, she trusts that everyone who hears her speak is as ignorant as she thinks they are. Problem is, I actually study both economics and history, and just about everything she says feels like her main information source is the World Weekly News (of Bat Boy fame).

Unlike what seems the rest of the freaking world, Bill Clinton never held me in thrall, so his illumination of her still does not hold me in thrall. She isn't magic, gifted or even that smart. She is an average politician with an enormous legend and veil of mystique holding her up. Bill skewers a few interns and she forgives him. For this she is held up as a woman of strength in the media, while every woman I talk to calls her a fool. Something magic happens with truth and perception near the Clinton vortex that is remarkable and terrifying at the same time.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Again, not defending her...but "rolling her eyes..." and you know this because you saw a clip on Fox? Because the camera was rivited to her at all points during the President's speech? Because O'Riely or Limbaugh said so?

Frankly, I'd have to see the clips because I doubt any politician anywhere was rolling their eyes in public, even if they didn't agree with the President. Prove that assertion, direct me to footage or pictures. Prove to me that you've actually seen her rolling her eyes, and put it in complete context.

With all due respect, HS4, I watched the same address and I believe Demigoron is accurate. I and several of my friends who were watching GWs address could not believe Hillary's physical and facial expressions. I can't say she was 'rolling her eyes', but she definitely acted like she was either bored or disgusted with almost everything GW said. And she knew the camera was on her....she practically played to it. The only pictures DemiG could direct you to would be the actual footage of the address. But, believe me, if you watch it, you'll see it. FOX wasn't the only network that covered that speech. As for O'Reilly or Limbaugh, I don't recall either one of them even drawing attention to it. Unusual for both of them :D

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Just to show I'm not a complete Hillary/Bill lover, and excellent reason for doubting/hating Hillary. IT was a terrible plan. Worse still if, as a politician, she learned(s) nothing from it -- yet to be shown. IT would have been a terrible plan whoever tried to run or implement it. IT was big mistake of the Clinton Administration and she has great responsiblity for it.

But my point is somewhat different. You are rare in citing a "policy" reason for questioning Hillary. Most don't, they give reasons like above...she didn't have the balls....etc.


I think the balance of my post shows that I believe that she has learned a lot since then.

Your post here, being addressed to 'Hillary Haters', doesn't really apply to me.

Most people who are willing to say "I hate X" are going to give reasons like that, whether X is Hillary or Bush or whoever else. Who cares what the haters think and why would anyone expect them to be consistent?

MattJ

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


With all due respect, HS4, I watched the same address and I believe Demigoron is accurate. I and several of my friends who were watching GWs address could not believe Hillary's physical and facial expressions. I can't say she was 'rolling her eyes', but she definitely acted like she was either bored or disgusted with almost everything GW said. And she knew the camera was on her....she practically played to it. The only pictures DemiG could direct you to would be the actual footage of the address. But, believe me, if you watch it, you'll see it. FOX wasn't the only network that covered that speech. As for O'Reilly or Limbaugh, I don't recall either one of them even drawing attention to it. Unusual for both of them :D

But I remember watching the speech too...I have no recall that Hillary was shown (though, it seems likely) and I certainly don't recall anything in her attitude that suggested disrespect or boredom. Are you perhaps projecting here?

[Troll]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


But I remember watching the speech too...I have no recall that Hillary was shown (though, it seems likely) and I certainly don't recall anything in her attitude that suggested disrespect or boredom. Are you perhaps projecting here?

As a non-hater, as I said it's most (not all) of her politics I dislike, I watched the speech on FOX and MSNBC both. I like to channel surf and read the bottom of the screen for different news updates and camera angles to see reactions. She definitely had some obvious body language happening. Shifting over to her left and talking, eyes rolling etc. Maybe she was just bored. But the Fox camera guys found her entertaining enough to focus on her quite a bit because of her motions.

[mjh36]

PS - The only part of the world that would care one whit about a woman as US president would be fundamentalist societies where sexism and misogyny are widely accepted policy. So who really cares what such societies think in the first place? Personally, I would love to see Linda Chavez return to public office and would love to see her as the Big Boss. Female, Hispanic and conservative veteran of the Reagan administration. Yep, she would be one to watch.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


But I remember watching the speech too...I have no recall that Hillary was shown (though, it seems likely) and I certainly don't recall anything in her attitude that suggested disrespect or boredom. Are you perhaps projecting here?

I don't think so. If her actions had been more subtle, then perhaps. But, they were pretty obvious. I just wish you could see the footage I saw. I was embarassed for her. The only other conclusion I could come to was that she may have been miffed at someone she was seated next to. The other thing that struck me was that she seldom applauded, even when her Dem colleagues did. I admit I've never seen her behave like that in any other public arena. That's why it stuck out so much to me....

[Demigorgon]

Again, not defending her...but "rolling her eyes..." and you know this because you saw a clip on Fox? Because the camera was rivited to her at all points during the President's speech? Because O'Riely or Limbaugh said so?

Frankly, I'd have to see the clips because I doubt any politician anywhere was rolling their eyes in public, even if they didn't agree with the President. Prove that assertion, direct me to footage or pictures. Prove to me that you've actually seen her rolling her eyes, and put it in complete context.


I don't have a copy of the address, or know where you might find one, but you could. It wasn't a clip, or "done up by Fox" it was the same thing on every channel.

So, you're mad cause she wouldn't leave Bill? Why should you care, that is between them. You don't have to be married to him...so far as I know, she hasn't any concerns or criticisms about how you manage your personal relations (unless, of course, you are hitting your spouse, than she and Isuspect GWB (too) would think that not such a good thing.

It's a personal belief. And I'm not running for political office.

So this shows she's a coward? What has that to do with policy or politics?

Once again, it's a personal belief, and has everything to do with politics.

GWB is AWOL from the Air National Gaurd...me thinks that could make him a coward. He has addmited to being an alcoholic, methinks that could make him a coward, etc.

[aerocontrols]

Here's an article for you, headscratcher. The author is definitely an anti-Hillary partisan, but note that she quotes the Boston Herald, which apparently wrote a bit about it.


Link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20010926.shtml)

[swellman]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


But I remember watching the speech too...I have no recall that Hillary was shown (though, it seems likely) and I certainly don't recall anything in her attitude that suggested disrespect or boredom. Are you perhaps projecting here?

Then you must have missed it, it was not on the screen long. During one of many standing ovations, the cameras happened to be pointing at Sen. Clinton. Her head, eyes and hands were all rolling in different directions. It was an embarrassing moment for a politician.

The incident was fodder everywhere for months afterwards. She stopped attending NYC functions after she was viscously booed by a crowd of firefighters and cops apparently unhappy with her behavior.

Imus chewed on it for a year on his radio program.

No projection. Denial on your part perhaps?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by mjh36
PS - The only part of the world that would care one whit about a woman as US president would be fundamentalist societies where sexism and misogyny are widely accepted policy. So who really cares what such societies think in the first place? Personally, I would love to see Linda Chavez return to public office and would love to see her as the Big Boss. Female, Hispanic and conservative veteran of the Reagan administration. Yep, she would be one to watch.

I would give my left nut to make Lieberman president, if only to see the look on Arafat's face when he realizes that a Jew actually does control the Great Satan.

Of course, Lieberman isn't the only Jew that I would love to see as President. As Jedi Master Yoda said... there is another (http://www.celebrityscreensavers.com/images/nportman.jpg).

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Here's an article for you, headscratcher. The author is definitely an anti-Hillary partisan, but note that she quotes the Boston Herald, which apparently wrote a bit about it.


Link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20010926.shtml)

Thanks, Aero.. ..I was beginning to wonder if I was projecting! (Whew!)

[Dragonrock]

My dislike for Mrs. Clinton is both political and personal. I don't agree with any of her policies. She moved to New York for the sole purpose of getting elected there because it is a more liberal state. This was a transparent act on her part and it boggles my mind that she was elected.

The personal side comes from my being in the army assigned to the White House Communications Agency. She was an evil acting woman who seemed to hold those who worked for her in contempt. She wouldn't speak to most people, in fact, if someone was standing in front of her, she would speak to her aid who would then speak to the person. She was often refered to as "Queen Hilary".

I understand that this is my anecdotal evidence and I don't expect it to change anyone's mind, but it explains my dislike for her.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Of course, Lieberman isn't the only Jew that I would love to see as President. As Jedi Master Yoda said... there is another (http://www.celebrityscreensavers.com/images/nportman.jpg).

I SECOND YOUR NOMINATION!!! HUBBA, HUBBA!
(no not for Lieberman, though that would be fun too for the same reason you stated)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


I don't think so. If her actions had been more subtle, then perhaps. But, they were pretty obvious. I just wish you could see the footage I saw. I was embarassed for her. The only other conclusion I could come to was that she may have been miffed at someone she was seated next to. The other thing that struck me was that she seldom applauded, even when her Dem colleagues did. I admit I've never seen her behave like that in any other public arena. That's why it stuck out so much to me....

Maybe she had the runs and was struggling to hold it?

According to that Globe article, her staff claimed she was "weary from recent travel." Sounds like the runs to me (kind of like when a football player is said to be "shaken up on the play." You look to the sidelines and he can be seen to be _throwing up_)

Diarhea sounds like a more logical explanation than "she doesn't care that 3000 New Yorkers just got killed in a terrorist attack."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by mjh36
Hillary's public record reads like Marx and Hegel are her personal assistants. From her failed 1st attempt at socializing health care, to her various pet projects (like the 211 info line) that make people more and more people dependent on her and her government, she frightens me with her particular brand of ultra-left socialism.

If I may butt in here: Both Hillary and Bill are considered slightly conservative in Europe. This idea that they are adhering to "ultra-left socialism" is simply wrong.

Now, is the Health Care fiasco really the only concrete political issue people have against her? Or am I right after all? That people simply don't like her because she's a woman?

[Troll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


If I may butt in here: Both Hillary and Bill are considered slightly conservative in Europe. This idea that they are adhering to "ultra-left socialism" is simply wrong.

Now, is the Health Care fiasco really the only concrete political issue people have against her? Or am I right after all? That people simply don't like her because she's a woman?

Well sure Claus. I mean didn't you see all the posts condemning women in politics here?:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Troll
Well sure Claus. I mean didn't you see all the posts condemning women in politics here?:rolleyes:

Thank you for your input. Now, could you be a little more specific about what policies of Hillary's you don't like?

[Troll]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I would give my left nut to make Lieberman president, if only to see the look on Arafat's face when he realizes that a Jew actually does control the Great Satan.

Of course, Lieberman isn't the only Jew that I would love to see as President. As Jedi Master Yoda said... there is another (http://www.celebrityscreensavers.com/images/nportman.jpg).

I'd have to disagree with you on the latter one. If she was president we'd be out of all the fuzzy topless pictures the paparazzi try to take of her sunbathing. Besides that I still have hopes of seeing the young Mathilda grow up to become a hitman in a sequel to The Professional.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


If I may butt in here: Both Hillary and Bill are considered slightly conservative in Europe. This idea that they are adhering to "ultra-left socialism" is simply wrong.

You can butt in if you like, but your comparisons to Europe don't mean much when we are talking about the US electorate. Many Americans find Hillary politically distastefull for the same reason that they would Gerhard Schroeder - she is quite a bit to the left of many of us.

MattJ

[Aoidoi]

I used to hate Hillary, but a year or two back I figured out that politics is much less irritating if I stop hating people and simply mock all of them.

Just to go through the list:

Duplicitous - politicians are often required to misrepresent themselves to get elected or to accomplish their goals. This is somewhat expected... but if you do it too often (or somehow become known for ir) then it becomes a serious point of weakness in the public mind. Things like travelgate and the FBI documents that showed up in the White House are among a rather large number of times when she was reported doing something potentially two-faced.

Conniving & Scheming- A politician with a plan? Perish the thought! The issue is how the goals are achieved, and Hillary seemed to often be "getting away with stuff." I don't know how much was accurate or how much was invented, but the constant parade of scandals always seemed to point to a mercenary out for herself.

Power-hungry - Not too many politicians aren't. Again, it's when it starts to look like personal gain at the expense of others that it's an issue. And one way or another the Clintons certainly got tarred with that brush.

Ego-maniacal - Almost necessary for a life in politics, frankly. Some of them just seem to have it in better control than others. I can't really think of anything Hillary did to be "outstanding in the field" as it were.

Has a bad temper - Don't really recall many examples, but I think Dean is currently getting hit with this one too. Amusingly the opposition either hits you with "boring" or "tempermental." Again, I don't recall examples of this.

Overly politically correct - Aside from Ghandi, apparently :D This is kind of a catch-all for politicians. They're either abused for offending people or hit with the "too PC" line. It's almost a reflex to accuse any successful politician of it.

Only represents special interests, not real Americans - usually leveled at the republicans, but tends to be somewhat true for any national politician. Her attempt to dispell this with her listening tour was apperently quite successful in NY, though not particularly amongst those elsewhere who already dislike her.

Used her husband to build her power-base - almost undeniably true, though not particularly damning. I've heard it said that "had Bill not married Hillary he wouldn't have been president, but she'd have still been the first lady." It always seemed a completely political marraige to me (and I believe it is a commonly held view). Frankly, I don't really care about her motivations for marrying Bill. You almost never see them together at this point anyway. ;)

An elitist - aren't they all? Again, getting a job where you tell others what to do tends to require some of this, but you can't look like you're an elitist. She has just been a bit too obvious about it.

Largely people who dislike her will simply view everything she does as negatively as possible. It's just human nature. Look at the people bashing Bush for his Thanksgiving thing... there's really little to beat on him for, but those who have a vested interest in seeing politicians in a bad light always find a way to do it. Hillary was in a much more extensive tour of the ME at the same time, and instead of getting the props Bush did she got accused of messing up the timetable.

People who get emotional about politicians can rationalize any action by them for good or bad. How they get the emotion is probably as varied as the people with the opinions. In my case I think I started to hate the Clinton's the first time I saw Bill give a speech and he really reminded me of a greasy televangelist. He didn't do much to dissuade me of that view with all the scandals constantly being reported (accurately or not). While I no longer hold any animosity towards them, it's certainly easy to see how you can fall into the trap of selective reinforcement of your biases based on my experience.

[Tmy]

People (mainly Republicans) hate her because they have a Taliban-esque attitude towards women. THey are supposed to shut up and stand 3 feet behind their man. Like Laura Bush.

Sure a first lady can get involved with somekind of fluff non offensive politics (just say no to drugs/illiteracy/teen pregnancy). But Hilliary dared to enter the minefield of Health Care! STONE HER!!!!

Funny how many right wingers throw it in her face that she didnt leave Bill. Arent they supposed to be FOR marriage and keeping the family together??? Why cheer for a divorce????

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by swellman


Then you must have missed it, it was not on the screen long. During one of many standing ovations, the cameras happened to be pointing at Sen. Clinton. Her head, eyes and hands were all rolling in different directions. It was an embarrassing moment for a politician.

The incident was fodder everywhere for months afterwards. She stopped attending NYC functions after she was viscously booed by a crowd of firefighters and cops apparently unhappy with her behavior.

Imus chewed on it for a year on his radio program.

No projection. Denial on your part perhaps?

No, I just didn't see it, but looking at the links and other's memories, I am willing to conceed that she did something...why? I don't know, maybe she dis-respects Bush. Maybe whoever was sitting next to her said something stupid. In any event, to the extent it was caught on film, it is unfortunate. However, given the level of vitriol on the subject, this is the first time I ever heard of this...so, Hillary haters didn't start with their being agast at her lack of respect for GWB. In other words, it seems to me, and this is my point, to be anothe post-hoc rationalization.

Certainly, you can reject a politicain for showing disrespect. But, I wonder if they were at all concerned by the continual dis-respect President Clinton was shown (remember ol' Jesse saying he shouldn't come to NC 'cause they'd shoot him? Yes, condemend by many, but my point is that it is on both sides).

Besides, even if she was "disrespectful" on that occasion, and given the proof provided I've no reason to believe other than that it is possible, the question in my mind is would Hillary haters hold a politician they like to the same standard, or is it something special about her?

In the end, most here will claim they hate her because of policy. It is the logical, rational approach. However, they will fall back on vitriol and satanic language at a pinch, which suggests something deeper to me.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
You can butt in if you like, but your comparisons to Europe don't mean much when we are talking about the US electorate. Many Americans find Hillary politically distastefull for the same reason that they would Gerhard Schroeder - she is quite a bit to the left of many of us.

Being "quite a bit to the left" is a far cry from being a "ultra-left socialist". And, if I may be so blunt, socialism does not change to light-conservatism, just because you are on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

If you noticed, I was not referring to her being politically distasteful, but to her political agenda.

What, precisely, is it about her political agenda that people don't like? Why does that seem so hard to quantify?

[mjh36]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If I may butt in here: Both Hillary and Bill are considered slightly conservative in Europe. This idea that they are adhering to "ultra-left socialism" is simply wrong.

Now, is the Health Care fiasco really the only concrete political issue people have against her? Or am I right after all? That people simply don't like her because she's a woman?
1) Because Europe has been rocketing to greater and greater degrees of socialism for the last 50 years, does not mean that an American citizen has to change how they view obvious socialist policies. In the United States, where Hillary Clinton currently serves in office, her politics and voting record are leftist socialism, more so than her far more politically savvy husband. How Europe views socialism in regards to an American politician is irrelevant. So no, I am not wrong about Hillary Clinton being an ultra left socialist...from an American perspective. (Oddly, I seem to recall a huge rise in German national socialism in the early 20th century, and we are seeing a huge rise in European continetal socialism in the early 21st century...hmmmmm)

2) Her actions as First Lady are again irrelevant to me. Her actions while senator in New York are of concern.

-She made a case for war in Iraq, voted for it, and voted for the $87 billion package for Iraq. Then she demonizes Bush for war in Iraq.

-She sent a bill to the House asking for over $300 million for the 2-1-1 information line for America. Uh, we already have 4-1-1 in every state, plus the Internet and Yellow Pages. How much money should we spend to provide services we already have in triplicate?

-She was a key player in reducing the tax cuts proposed by Bush, and an outspoken advocate of raising the taxes, most especially capital gains and inheritance.

-She, like many classic socialist American politicians, thinks you can spend as much as you want and then raise taxes to cover the spending...like they do in Europe. However, she fails to see that every socialist economy, where sloth and lack of productivity are profitable, eventually fails because the number of people collecting exceeds the number of people contributing. Ask any Californian where reckless spending and over-taxation got them.

-Her idea of national defense of American sovereignty is to defer to the European Union and the Useless Nations. Her husband felt the same way, and his mythical goodwill policy saw 6 separate and unprosecuted terrorist attacks against America during his presidency. Her stated policy is that of her husband, which is to take hit after hit and keep hoping goodwill and faith in human nature will make the bullies stop being all mean.

-Again, her economic policy is the same as Herbert Hoover, yet she demonizes Bush for returning us to Hoover's economics.

None of the above is connected with failed socialization of health care. Is that concrete enough for ya?

[Otther]

BTW, Hillary went to public school Wow... for how long has Yale been a public school?

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Otther
Wow... for how long has Yale been a public school?

A public high school....

[Mark]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
headscratcher4,

It's none of those things. It's because she is a woman. A powerful woman, who speaks her mind, politically.

And in public, too!

Claus, I find myself in the (to me) odd position of agreeing with you 100%!

Btw, interesting term, "ultra-left socialist" that some people use against her. It's ill-defined buzz term straight out of Newt Gingrich's playbook that has no concrete meaning to most people, but is able to generate a high negative emotional reaction.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Otther
Wow... for how long has Yale been a public school? Yale Sucks - T-shirt for sale at the Princeton University Store (last time I checked)

;)

I'm amazed nobody has brought up the lesbian thing yet. My dad seems completely convinced she is, though I both doubt it and care little one way or the other.

[mjh36]

PS - On the Iraq thing, Hillary did show some of her hubbie's savvy. When she was in the Senate railing about Saddam, it was Oct 2001 and she was trying to rack up political favor, especially in her home state that viewed her as a carpetbagger, by raining the fire and brimstone on Hussein. Her statements were more direct about WMD than any ever made by the President. And it was a good move for her...at that time.

Fast forward a year, watch Hollywood, the American liberal media, and Chirac's Europe all begin getting edgy about Bush actually DOING things instead of his predecessor who just SAID things, and remarkably, Hillary is no longer wishing to rain destruction on Hussein. Why the change of heart? Oh, because opposing the war was in fashion for her party, and she will need them in 2008. So now she opposes the war to the TV, and explains away her yes vote for war by chanting the "I was misled" mantra that is all the rage. Her statements a year earlier were far more vitriolic, and condemning, yet she was misled. Uh, yeah.

But she is running out of breathing room, since growth, productivity and manufacturing are up, and unemployment is down. The War on Terror goes better than could be hoped to this point, and polls show the GOP getting a few added seats in both the House and Senate next year. I am curious as to what she will attack Bush for next, but my guess is that it will have to with signing a law that she helped to pass by voting yes, further clarifying her track record as a Jedi of the Clintonian Order.

[NoZed Avenger]

I thought briefly about replying to the thread, but then I saw it would not be necessary:



CL: It's none of those things. It's because she is a woman. A powerful woman, who speaks her mind, politically.

HS4: . . . though I doubt that will be admitted by most.

HS4: . . . and you know this because you saw a clip on Fox? Because the camera was rivited to her at all points during the President's speech? Because O'Riely or Limbaugh said so?

HS4: . . . Are you perhaps projecting here?

CL: Now, is the Health Care fiasco really the only concrete political issue people have against her? Or am I right after all? That people simply don't like her because she's a woman?

Tmy: People (mainly Republicans) hate her because they have a Taliban-esque attitude towards women. THey are supposed to shut up and stand 3 feet behind their man. Like Laura Bush.

HS4: In the end, most here will claim they hate her because of policy. It is the logical, rational approach. However, they will fall back on vitriol and satanic language at a pinch, which suggests something deeper to me.



Since my attitudes and the real impetus for them has already been divined without any need to consult me, everyone has saved me the trouble of posting my feeble so-called "reasons" for any attitude that I may have.

Now, if you will all excuse me, I have to go listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly so that I can find out what to think before heading home and unchaining the wife for a brief run around the yard before having her fix my "vittles" and clean the house. Plus, I must remember to make a thorough search to make sure that she hasn't gotten access to any books or materials that might allow her to educate herself.

N/A

[swellman]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I thought briefly about replying to the thread, but then I saw it would not be necessary:

Since my attitudes and the real impetus for them has already been divined without any need to consult me, everyone has saved me the trouble of posting my feeble so-called "reasons" for any attitude that I may have.

N/A


Ssshhhh. Don't interupt the adults.

[mjh36]

On the term "ultra-left socialist" I will say the following:

-If Bush is comparable to Hitler to much of the world, then that same group of myopic individuals should easily accept a far less damning, and far more accurate description of Hillary Clinton as an ultra-left socialist.

-America's political spectrum is not as wide as Europe's and never has been. Europe has had their ends of the spectrum defined by folks like Uncle Adolf, Neville Chamberlain, Jacques "Je deteste les Etats Unis" Chirac and the many cheery leaders of the former Soviet Union, as well as some fine gentlemen in the Balkans. So in Europe, where Jeffrey Dahmer would have been found guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor, the views are much different. In the US, it isn't a far trip to either the right or the left.

-I find it interesting that Bush gets constantly and casually compared to one history's most deranged leaders, with the only outcry heard from conservative Americans, while Hillary is supposed to be some sort of protected dove and any comments made about her are part of her now famous "right wing conspiracy" against her and her husband.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Besides, even if she was "disrespectful" on that occasion, and given the proof provided I've no reason to believe other than that it is possible, the question in my mind is would Hillary haters hold a politician they like to the same standard, or is it something special about her?

In the end, most here will claim they hate her because of policy. It is the logical, rational approach. However, they will fall back on vitriol and satanic language at a pinch, which suggests something deeper to me.

Yes, I think most of us do hold all politicians to the same standards. We like certain politicians because they seem to meet those standards. We dislike others when they do not seem to meet said standards. Further, can we agree that HATE is a very strong word and used out of context most of the time? Most posters haven't said that they hate Hillary..but that they don't like or trust her. There's a difference.

Your last statement has me confused. Most of the postings I've read here (my own being an obvious exception, of course) indicate the poster's political differences with Hillary. That is, as you say, the most rational, logical approach. There is no need to 'fall back' on anything else and certainly nothing 'deeper' to deal with. Her behavior was inexcusable and I would feel the same way about any politician who, in light of such a tragedy, behaved as she had. Intended or not, her behavior during GWs speech implied a lack of respect and sympathy to many Americans . Maybe she thought it would win her points. Maybe she had a bad hair day. Maybe she didn't mean it. But, rest assured, I cut her no more slack for her actions than I would any other politician, given the same or similar circumstances.

[swellman]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I thought briefly about replying to the thread, but then I saw it would not be necessary:

Since my attitudes and the real impetus for them has already been divined without any need to consult me, everyone has saved me the trouble of posting my feeble so-called "reasons" for any attitude that I may have.

N/A


Ssshhhh. Don't interupt the adults.

[Mark]

Originally posted by mjh36
PS - On the Iraq thing, Hillary did show some of her hubbie's savvy. When she was in the Senate railing about Saddam, it was Oct 2001 and she was trying to rack up political favor, especially in her home state that viewed her as a carpetbagger, by raining the fire and brimstone on Hussein. Her statements were more direct about WMD than any ever made by the President. And it was a good move for her...at that time.

Fast forward a year, watch Hollywood, the American liberal media, and Chirac's Europe all begin getting edgy about Bush actually DOING things instead of his predecessor who just SAID things, and remarkably, Hillary is no longer wishing to rain destruction on Hussein. Why the change of heart? Oh, because opposing the war was in fashion for her party, and she will need them in 2008. So now she opposes the war to the TV, and explains away her yes vote for war by chanting the "I was misled" mantra that is all the rage. Her statements a year earlier were far more vitriolic, and condemning, yet she was misled. Uh, yeah.

But she is running out of breathing room, since growth, productivity and manufacturing are up, and unemployment is down. The War on Terror goes better than could be hoped to this point, and polls show the GOP getting a few added seats in both the House and Senate next year. I am curious as to what she will attack Bush for next, but my guess is that it will have to with signing a law that she helped to pass by voting yes, further clarifying her track record as a Jedi of the Clintonian Order.

Oh, boy! More buzz-terms with no real meaning!

"Liberal Media" When the major news outlets are all owned by the same global corporations, and are all behaving like a paid propaganda wing for the Bush Administration, this canard fairly boggles the mind.

"Chirac's Europe" Everyone (here) hates the French, so let's pretend all of Europe is in lock-step with France. They aren't; but, hey, it sounds good, right?

"The War on Terror" Since we aren't attacking anyone who actually had anything to do with 9/11, I have to wonder which war on terror this term refers to. And don't bother bringing up Afghanistan, since our neglect of the situation there is causing the exact same politcal climate that created the problem in the first place.

"Jedi of Clintonian Order" I refuse to even try to make sense out of that one.

Republicans; ya gotta love 'em, I guess (and no, I am not a Democrat, either), bless their hypocritical little hearts.

[American]

She also hates being a woman.

[DavidJames]

"So no, I am not wrong about Hillary Clinton being an ultra left socialist...from an American perspective"

Since I am also an American and disagree with this comment, please refrain from claiming to speak of and "from an American perspective".

"She made a case for war in Iraq, voted for it, and voted for the $87 billion package for Iraq. Then she demonizes Bush for war in Iraq."

Like most of us, she trusted Bush when he made his case. Now, when it turns out his info on WMD was wrong, she, like many of us, has reassessed her position and is not afraid to say so.

"that concrete enough for ya?"

LOL, it's all your opinion not backed up with a single specific reference (except possibly for the 211 issue, which doesn't seem to be socialistic in nature and is simply something you don't agree with.

[mjh36]

Republicans; ya gotta love 'em, I guess (and no, I am not a Democrat, either), bless their hypocritical little hearts.
Sorry, not a Republican, but keep guessing.

Of note - Jedi of the Clintonian Order means that she has learned well from her master and can now teach other young leftist padawans how to enforce the code of their order "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability"

And when I say the American liberal media, I mean those outlets that are liberal within the American media system. I realize that there is some right wing news as well, like talk radio and Fox News. My comment was aimed at those cheery folks at ABC/CBS/NBC who all made Vietnam comparisons, claims of quagmires, end of the world predictions during a sandstorm, the pitifully weak and detestable interview of Hussein by Dan Rather, etc.

[Mark]

Originally posted by American
She also hates being a woman.

OK, American, I am going to go to hell for admiting this...but you just made me laugh out loud. Good one.

[Mark]

Originally posted by mjh36

Sorry, not a Republican, but keep guessing.

Of note - Jedi of the Clintonian Order means that she has learned well from her master and can now teach other young leftist padawans how to enforce the code of their order "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability"

And when I say the American liberal media, I mean those outlets that are liberal within the American media system. I realize that there is some right wing news as well, like talk radio and Fox News. My comment was aimed at those cheery folks at ABC/CBS/NBC who all made Vietnam comparisons, claims of quagmires, end of the world predictions during a sandstorm, the pitifully weak and detestable interview of Hussein by Dan Rather, etc.

Yippee! More meaningless buzz-terms!

Right-wingers are amusing to me. Any hint of a story even mildly critical of their heroes has be the result of "Liberal Media." Couldn't be because their heroes are not perfect.

The "American Media" are not "liberal" in any sense. Not in today's economy where everything (even the slant of the news) is determined by demographics and pleasing corporate shareholders. The fact that there is some mild (very mild) dissent in the news is an indication of how rotten things really are underneath; they can't possibly gloss over all of it. Not yet, anyway.

One party currently controls Congress, The Senate, the White House, The Supreme Court, and all major media outlets. This is not healthy and is NOT what the founding fathers intended at all.

[mjh36]

Like most of us, she trusted Bush when he made his case.
OK, once more, for the cheap seats...she made the same case one year earlier, and was joined by Sen. Graham as the two most vocal proponents of disarming Saddam. Look it up in Congressional Record if you doubt me. Her source of info was Graham's intelligence reports on the status of Iraq, not the president's statements. So how exactly was Hillary misled about Iraq?

Of all the claims about Bush lying when he said Iraq was an "imminent danger" it is also fun to point out that Bush made it very clear that Iraq presented a growing threat, and to wait for them to become an imminent threat would be too late. But guess who called Hussein an imminent threat more than once? Yes, you guessed it, both Hillary and Bill Clinton in several speeches from 1998 to 2001. George Bush never did, but he gets credited for it while they don't.


And also, am I the only person who is bothered by freaking US Senators who do none of their own research before casting votes that can mean dead soldiers and billions of $ in funds? They boo hoo about being misled, but the voters should be boohooing that Senators vote for war based on one guy talking for 30 minutes.

[Tmy]

Congress wimped out last year. You couldnt vote against Bush cause youd be crucified. Declaring war meant your ass on the line shuld things go bad. So Congress punted!!! They gave Bush the power to do whatever. If he fails, he takes the blame. If it works then jump on the wagon.

Now that Bush isnt so popular the Dems can come out swinging, which they wouldve done before, cept pre-war rally round GW patriotism stood in the way.

[mjh36]

Right-wingers are amusing to me. Any hint of a story even mildly critical of their heroes, has be the rsult of "Liberal Media." Couldn't be because their heroes are not perfect.
Sorry, but this does not apply to me. I have written and read tons of accurate, yet highly negative and critical editorials about George Bush. Heck, the steel tariffs alone made me write volumes about such foolishness. The current spending spree and the upcoming prescription drug thing are both accurately reported on by all wings of the media. Plus, no politician will ever be one of my heroes, unless they care more for America and its citizens than they do about re-election. Since James Madison was the last president to care more about the country than himself, I doubt this will happen.
One party currently controls Congress, The Senate, the White House, The Supreme Court, and all major media outlets. This is not healthy and is NOT what the founding fathers intended at all.
From 1976-1980 and 1992-1994, this same thing was true for the Democrats. The Founding Fathers never intended a number of things in our current system, such as: income tax, social security, the Supreme Court making laws from the bench, partisan filibustering to block effective government (both sides equally guilty), rights without responsibility, freedom without sacrifice, etc. If Madison were resurrected, he would kill himself when he saw how his Constitution has been perverted and twisted by the last 100 years of political machination. On that, we totally agree.

[Demigorgon]

OK, once more, for the cheap seats...she made the same case one year earlier, and was joined by Sen. Graham as the two most vocal proponents of disarming Saddam. Look it up in Congressional Record if you doubt me. Her source of info was Graham's intelligence reports on the status of Iraq, not the president's statements. So how exactly was Hillary misled about Iraq?

Of all the claims about Bush lying when he said Iraq was an "imminent danger" it is also fun to point out that Bush made it very clear that Iraq presented a growing threat, and to wait for them to become an imminent threat would be too late. But guess who called Hussein an imminent threat more than once? Yes, you guessed it, both Hillary and Bill Clinton in several speeches from 1998 to 2001. George Bush never did, but he gets credited for it while they don't.


*crickets chirping*

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Like most of us, she trusted Bush when he made his case. Now, when it turns out his info on WMD was wrong, she, like many of us, has reassessed her position and is not afraid to say so.

Actually, she claims that 'Bush's case' was consistent with both her husband's case and the case of the previous Bush administration.

HRC in Sept 2003:
"The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent"

source (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/157wjmhn.asp?ZoomFont=YES)

What has she said to lead you to believe she has reassessed her position?

MattJ

[jj]

Originally posted by Mark


Claus, I find myself in the (to me) odd position of agreeing with you 100%!

Btw, interesting term, "ultra-left socialist" that some people use against her. It's ill-defined buzz term straight out of Newt Gingrich's playbook that has no concrete meaning to most people, but is able to generate a high negative emotional reaction.

Well, I think that politicians from the current "right" find Hillary threatening for the same reason they did in Christie Whitman and ran down Millicent Fenwick's reputation, they indeed find the idea of a powerful, articulate woman threatening. This is, of course, related to the apocryphal reason that "women can't do math", I'm sure, in a very real way.

The term "ultra-left socialist" is, of course, a term generated by the "right" as part of their work to make anything like "liberal" or even "moderate" hate-words, and it means 'anyone to the left of Tom Ridge", give or take a few.

[Mark]

Originally posted by mjh36

Sorry, but this does not apply to me. I have written and read tons of accurate, yet highly negative and critical editorials about George Bush. Heck, the steel tariffs alone made me write volumes about such foolishness. The current spending spree and the upcoming prescription drug thing are both accurately reported on by all wings of the media. Plus, no politician will ever be one of my heroes, unless they care more for America and its citizens than they do about re-election. Since James Madison was the last president to care more about the country than himself, I doubt this will happen.

From 1976-1980 and 1992-1994, this same thing was true for the Democrats. The Founding Fathers never intended a number of things in our current system, such as: income tax, social security, the Supreme Court making laws from the bench, partisan filibustering to block effective government (both sides equally guilty), rights without responsibility, freedom without sacrifice, etc. If Madison were resurrected, he would kill himself when he saw how his Constitution has been perverted and twisted by the last 100 years of political machination. On that, we totally agree.

You're right, we mostly agree. Also, though, I never said there were not lone voices of dissent; obviously there are (myself included). But as a general trend, there really are no truly "Liberal Media" in this country any longer. I stand by that statemement.

And, I do think, given the general trend, there may soon come a time when dissenting voices are not tolerated at all. We are almost there as it is.

[jj]

Originally posted by Mark

And, I do think, given the general trend, there may soon come a time when dissenting voices are not tolerated at all. We are almost there as it is.

Are you sure? You have seen http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33432 haven't you?

[American]

Originally posted by Mark

OK, American, I am going to go to hell for admiting this...but you just made me laugh out loud. Good one.


Most Wellesley broads hate being women. Hillary is just one of them.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Thank you for your input. Now, could you be a little more specific about what policies of Hillary's you don't like?

Politically she and I disagree on environment, guns, medicare, welfare, and a few economic policies. On those things we do agree something needs changed, she tends to take a more extreme approach or an opposite one than I favor.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Troll


Politically she and I disagree on environment, guns, medicare, welfare, and a few economic policies. On the things we do agree soemthing needs changed, she tends to take a more extreme approach than I favor.

Did you miss the word "specific"?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Did you miss the word "specific"?

Did you miss "be a little more specific about what policies of Hillary's........"?

Or is that your way of asking me to elaborate on the policies I mentioned?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by swellman



Ssshhhh. Don't interupt the adults.


I'll try not to -- let me know when they show up.

[Troll]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger



I'll try not to -- let me know when they show up.

Dude, let me know when they partake.

Everytime someone new comes in they show their ass by claiming "they hate a powerful woman" when we got that out of the way at like the 10th or so post.

[Zero]

Well, the right wing spent a decade making up stuff about Bill, they can't resist the same sort of nonsense when it comes to Hillary.

[BTox]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Not a particular fan of Sen. Clinton, though not opposed to her either. As politicians go, she seems all right and certainly no worse than most.

But here is the thing that I don’t get about the Hillary haters: many of the things that the Hillary-haters cite (when not talking policy – i.e. the personal/biographical, etc) when explaining why they hate her, are qualities that in a man or other “politicians” with whom they agree they would find admirable or excusable.



I'd agree that many Hillary haters use the attributes you cite, just as irrational as the Bush haters, IMO.

My main beef with Hillary, besides her politics, is the fact that she was a carpet bagger in NY. I had no problem with her running for senate from Arkansas.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, the right wing spent a decade making up stuff about Bill, they can't resist the same sort of nonsense when it comes to Hillary.

who the hell here is making stuff up about her? Pinpoint the person making something up, outside of American, he's just being a clown.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Troll


who the hell here is making stuff up about her? Pinpoint the person making something up, outside of American, he's just being a clown. Not here, specifically...it is a general right-wing strategy, though. It is a sport, sort of like golf without the ugly pants.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
Not here, specifically...it is a general right-wing strategy, though. It is a sport, sort of like golf without the ugly pants.

You, for one, are proof that the left uses this strategy with the same, if not more, frequency.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


You, for one, are proof that the left uses this strategy with the same, if not more, frequency. Nice try, chum. :p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Troll
Did you miss "be a little more specific about what policies of Hillary's........"?

Or is that your way of asking me to elaborate on the policies I mentioned?

Well, I would like you to elaborate a bit.... :)

E.g., what, specifically, is it about her policies about the environment (to pick your first choice) that you disagree with her about?

That kind of specifics, you know. The specific ones.

I don't really see why this should be so difficult. Apparently, it is.

[richardm]

All these claims that Hillary is hated because of her policies would be much more convincing if it hadn't been abundantly clear that she was hated while just First Lady.

[epepke]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I thought briefly about replying to the thread, but then I saw it would not be necessary:

Since my attitudes and the real impetus for them has already been divined without any need to consult me, everyone has saved me the trouble of posting my feeble so-called "reasons" for any attitude that I may have.

:con2: It's rhetoric. You can tell that it's rhetoric by noticing that the same people don't have a tendency to make such reflexive criticisms with respect to, say, Margaret Thatcher. And certainly not Ann Coulter.

Of course, it's also sexist rhetoric, dating from a time when women were not to be taken seriously, neither as doctors and scientists nor as demagogues and fatheads.

Besides, does anybody really actually hate Hillary Rodham Clinton any more? There was a bit of it when Bill Clinton pulled his "two for the price of one" schtick, and I think it was deserved at the time. (Boy, if Margaret Thatcher had tried to pull one of those with Dennis, he'd have been bored so many new orifices by the press that he'd have wound up looking like a piece of Emmenthaler.) But as a junior senator?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by epepke
Besides, does anybody really actually hate Hillary Rodham Clinton any more?

I don't recall that I ever did, really, but then I am probably lying about that, too.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by BTox


I'd agree that many Hillary haters use the attributes you cite, just as irrational as the Bush haters, IMO.

My main beef with Hillary, besides her politics, is the fact that she was a carpet bagger in NY. I had no problem with her running for senate from Arkansas.

Has anyone ever considered Hillary an Arkansan???

No one complains about the Bush family being carpetbaggers. Werent they from Conn. or Maine??? Yet the Bush boys end up being govs of Texas and Florida???

[Nasarius]

Again (directed to BTox and anyone else), I'm from New York, I live in New York, I really couldn't care less where my senators are from.

So why does Hillary's carpetbagging bother you so much? Why do you seem to take it so personally if you aren't even from New York, and she isn't your Senator?

Would you be so deeply offended if GWB decided to run for Senate in some random state that isn't Texas after his presidency? Why or why not?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Nasarius
Again (directed to BTox and anyone else), I'm from New York, I live in New York, I really couldn't care less where my senators are from.

So why does Hillary's carpetbagging bother you so much? Why do you seem to take it so personally if you aren't even from New York, and she isn't your Senator?

Yeah, why it Btox upset? Seems to me the New York people knew she was not from NY and voted for her anyway. It seems the majority ruled. Does Btox think the people of the state of NY should be overruled?

I just don't get that argument.

Lurker

[Mark]

Originally posted by American



Most Wellesley broads hate being women. Hillary is just one of them.

Sorry, dude; it worked as a gag once. Using the same joke twice just makes you look silly. And if you now say you weren't joking, you'll just look even sillier.

Hire an editor.

[American]

Originally posted by Mark


Sorry, dude; it worked as a gag once. Using the same joke twice just makes you look silly. And if you now say you weren't joking, you'll just look even sillier.

Hire an editor.


Well, she sure loved being a woman when she was doing Vince Foster. Then she became so mad at herself for putting out for a man that she had him murdered.

Can't blame her for being angry since she married a rapist (http://members.cox.net/cjacobs5/politics/rape.htm).

[Mark]

Originally posted by American



Well, she sure loved being a woman when she was doing Vince Foster. Then she became so mad at herself for putting out for a man that she had him murdered.

Can't blame her for being angry since she married a rapist (http://members.cox.net/cjacobs5/politics/rape.htm).

Congratulations! Now you're just being an a*s. I expected anything else?

[Dyskolos]

Originally posted by richardm
All these claims that Hillary is hated because of her policies would be much more convincing if it hadn't been abundantly clear that she was hated while just First Lady.

Why do you see those two things as incompatible?

Hillary was outspoken about her political policies and positions long before she was First Lady. Many people from Arkansas hold grudges against her from her time in the statehouse with Bill. Her mismanagement of the Arkansas Education System was ledgendary. It was that past performance that immediately raised eyebrows when Bill tagged her for the Health Care Task Force.

Her direct political involvement goes all the way back to Watergate. Further than Bill's, actually. She simply was never an elected official before she became Senator.

[DavidJames]

"Her mismanagement of the Arkansas Education System was ledgendary."

Please provide some independent facts to support this claim.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Nasarius
Again (directed to BTox and anyone else), I'm from New York, I live in New York, I really couldn't care less where my senators are from.

So why does Hillary's carpetbagging bother you so much? Why do you seem to take it so personally if you aren't even from New York, and she isn't your Senator?

Would you be so deeply offended if GWB decided to run for Senate in some random state that isn't Texas after his presidency? Why or why not?

Dude, she's a US senator, not just a NY senator. She has a say in things that affects all US citizens. So she is his, your's and my senator.

[DavidJames]

"Dude, she's a US senator, not just a NY senator. She has a say in things that affects all US citizens. So she is his, your's and my senator."

Ok, all the more reason it shouldn't matter where she is from, no?

[Troll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Well, I would like you to elaborate a bit.... :)

E.g., what, specifically, is it about her policies about the environment (to pick your first choice) that you disagree with her about?

That kind of specifics, you know. The specific ones.

I don't really see why this should be so difficult. Apparently, it is.

Not difficult at all. Try being more specific in your question next time.:p

Things I dislike about Hillary as related to the issues:

She made a claim that reform to medicare should be made in small steps. Yet she offered a really dramatic change and criticizes the new change as not being enough. To me she just changes her tune if it ain't her idea being implemented.

She's one of the boycott violent media types. In other words hurt the industry instead of telling the parents to be responsible themselves. This view of mine is based upon her own words at a talk about school safety back in 1999.

Society should be blamed over the parents of kids that freak out. Based upon her comments in on Good Morning America. I'm more of a blame the kids and the parents kind of guy.

She has said that NY's share of federal tax is too high and yet opposes tax cuts.

The following quote makes me somewhat uneasy about her idea of equality among states.

"If I were in the Senate, I would try to create a coalition of the big states to stand up for our interests. It may be that we’ll never get a dollar-for-dollar exchange, but we sure ought to get more than we’re getting now."
Source: Listening event in Jamestown NY Aug 4, 1999

I'm sure even the little states feel they need more money, what's her beef against them?

Though she has said little publically on this subject, she did support the closing of parks to some forms of recreation such as snowmobiles, which is one of those overkill things I mentioned in an earlier post.

Now granted, there are a few things that she and I may see 100% eye to eye on, but they are outnumbered by the things we partially agree on or completely disagree on.

Now since you and a few others had that lame excuse of "they're just afraid of a powerful woman", would you like me to compile a list of women I admire more than Hillary that are in one way or another either now or have been in the political arena? Or are you convinced by other posts that you may have made the wrong dumb statement?;)

[Troll]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Dude, she's a US senator, not just a NY senator. She has a say in things that affects all US citizens. So she is his, your's and my senator."

Ok, all the more reason it shouldn't matter where she is from, no?

Where she's from? Nope doesn't matter a bit. I agree.

I was refering to this comment by Nasarius:

"Why do you seem to take it so personally if you aren't even from New York, and she isn't your Senator"

[Zero]

Originally posted by American



Well, she sure loved being a woman when she was doing Vince Foster. Then she became so mad at herself for putting out for a man that she had him murdered.

Can't blame her for being angry since she married a rapist (http://members.cox.net/cjacobs5/politics/rape.htm). Wow, three lies in one post...you ARE good!

You still believe in Santa too, don't you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Her mismanagement of the Arkansas Education System was ledgendary."

Please provide some independent facts to support this claim.

Dyskolos clearly is from Arkansas. ;)

Originally posted by Troll
Not difficult at all. Try being more specific in your question next time.:p

Funny, I thought "specific" meant "specific"....

Originally posted by Troll
She made a claim that reform to medicare should be made in small steps. Yet she offered a really dramatic change and criticizes the new change as not being enough. To me she just changes her tune if it ain't her idea being implemented.

What "dramatic" change? Isn't that your evaluation of the reforms, rather than the reforms themselves? Perhaps those steps were small to her - it would seem that she thought just that, since she complained that it wasn't enough.

I can't really see what you are blaming her for here.

Not convincing.

Originally posted by Troll
She's one of the boycott violent media types. In other words hurt the industry instead of telling the parents to be responsible themselves. This view of mine is based upon her own words at a talk about school safety back in 1999.

Society should be blamed over the parents of kids that freak out. Based upon her comments in on Good Morning America. I'm more of a blame the kids and the parents kind of guy.

A little vague here. What "violent" media types? Is she talking about the cinema ratings? What do you mean, "kids that freak out"? Are they schizophrenic, drug addicts, gun crazy, what?

Not convincing.

Originally posted by Troll
She has said that NY's share of federal tax is too high and yet opposes tax cuts.

Not contradictory at all: One can believe that the tax is too high, and still acknowledge that the budget can't have a deficit. Few - if any - politicians will say that the tax is not too high, and few - if any - will accept a deficit.

Not convincing.

Originally posted by Troll
The following quote makes me somewhat uneasy about her idea of equality among states.

"If I were in the Senate, I would try to create a coalition of the big states to stand up for our interests. It may be that we’ll never get a dollar-for-dollar exchange, but we sure ought to get more than we’re getting now."
Source: Listening event in Jamestown NY Aug 4, 1999

I'm sure even the little states feel they need more money, what's her beef against them?

Are you sure she's talking about US states?? To me, "states" could also mean countries. I'm not familiar with the problem. Did you dig deeper into this issue, and try to find out what she really meant?

Not convincing.

Originally posted by Troll
Though she has said little publically on this subject, she did support the closing of parks to some forms of recreation such as snowmobiles, which is one of those overkill things I mentioned in an earlier post.

Should a politician only deal with the Big Issues? Snowmobiles are damaging to the environment, partly because there are so many of them.

Not convincing.

Originally posted by Troll
Now granted, there are a few things that she and I may see 100% eye to eye on, but they are outnumbered by the things we partially agree on or completely disagree on.

I was hoping for some Big Ones. Sure, you came up with Health Care, but that wasn't really the issue - it was more how you and her viewed how "small" the steps were. Not what the reform was about. Form above function.

Not convincing.

Originally posted by Troll
Now since you and a few others had that lame excuse of "they're just afraid of a powerful woman", would you like me to compile a list of women I admire more than Hillary that are in one way or another either now or have been in the political arena? Or are you convinced by other posts that you may have made the wrong dumb statement?;)

Heavens, no. It took some coercion to get you to say what the disagreement is about, and the things you came up with don't seem all that substantial. It's like you have picked some soundbytes over time, and made up your mind from that, instead of going through her program and see what you thought of it.

Not convincing. Oh, well, you gave it your best shot! :)

[Troll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Dyskolos clearly is from Arkansas. ;)



Funny, I thought "specific" meant "specific"....



What "dramatic" change? Isn't that your evaluation of the reforms, rather than the reforms themselves? Perhaps those steps were small to her - it would seem that she thought just that, since she complained that it wasn't enough.

I can't really see what you are blaming her for here.

Not convincing.



A little vague here. What "violent" media types? Is she talking about the cinema ratings? What do you mean, "kids that freak out"? Are they schizophrenic, drug addicts, gun crazy, what?

Not convincing.



Not contradictory at all: One can believe that the tax is too high, and still acknowledge that the budget can't have a deficit. Few - if any - politicians will say that the tax is not too high, and few - if any - will accept a deficit.

Not convincing.



Are you sure she's talking about US states?? To me, "states" could also mean countries. I'm not familiar with the problem. Did you dig deeper into this issue, and try to find out what she really meant?

Not convincing.



Should a politician only deal with the Big Issues? Snowmobiles are damaging to the environment, partly because there are so many of them.

Not convincing.



I was hoping for some Big Ones. Sure, you came up with Health Care, but that wasn't really the issue - it was more how you and her viewed how "small" the steps were. Not what the reform was about. Form above function.

Not convincing.



Heavens, no. It took some coercion to get you to say what the disagreement is about, and the things you came up with don't seem all that substantial. It's like you have picked some soundbytes over time, and made up your mind from that, instead of going through her program and see what you thought of it.

Not convincing. Oh, well, you gave it your best shot! :)

Oh, I'm sorry Claus, were you wanting me to convince you to dislike her or just state why I do? The media would be movies and games. Kind of a Tipper Gore of other media forms of entertainment. Her original idea of health care was a pretty dramatic change and severely flawed, Claus. even you admitted that earlier.

And yes she was talking about US states and US federal dollars. What it sounds like to you is not convincing to me. :p

And I'm sure you dislike snowmobiles and SUVs and people hunting and fishing and all, but not everyone agrees, she and I differ there. Not convincing to you does not mean it's not an issue to me.

And me taking a little time to post the things I dislike was due to my checking in on some of her things to see if I can find things I do not dislike, in case you were going to ask me about that as well. That and I rented a bunch of movies and there's a new Thai restraunt that just opened in my little town and I'm a slave to Thai food.

Now since I was obviously supposed to try to convince you to dislike her, rather than give you my reasons for not liking her, convince me to like her by using her view on specific policies.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Troll
convince me to like her by using her view on specific policies.

Now you want me to do your homework for you: Go through her program and present it to you in nice little soundbytes. Just like you are used to.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Not convincing at all.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Troll


Where she's from? Nope doesn't matter a bit. I agree.

I was refering to this comment by Nasarius:

"Why do you seem to take it so personally if you aren't even from New York, and she isn't your Senator"

Well the whole post was directed at people bashing Hillary for carpetbagging. If you don't care about that, good on you. I don't really like her either, I just see that particular issue as irrelevant.

[American]

Originally posted by Zero
Wow, three lies in one post...you ARE good!

You still believe in Santa too, don't you?


"Better put some ice on that." -William Clinton's comment after raping a nurse

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by American
"Better put some ice on that." -William Clinton's comment after raping a nurse

What are you talking about??

[Zero]

Originally posted by American



"Better put some ice on that." -William Clinton's comment after raping a nurse Nice lie, what lying right-wing liar did you hear that from? Or did you make that one up yourself?

See, this is the sort of thing I don't understand...this hatred of the Clintons that turns people into intellectual zombies. Any and every bad story is believed, no matter how obviously a lie or a distortion, or how unreliable the source.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Now you want me to do your homework for you: Go through her program and present it to you in nice little soundbytes. Just like you are used to.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Not convincing at all.

Actually Claus, I already did the homework. If you recall I mentioned things she and I agree on as well. I was just trying to get you to see the folly of your "not convincing" crap.

But on a positive note for Hillary, at least she's not Boxer or Fienstien.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Troll
But on a positive note for Hillary, at least she's not Boxer or Fienstien.

I think everyone hates Dianne Feinstein for one reason or another :)

Originally posted by Zero
Nice lie, what lying right-wing liar did you hear that from? Or did you make that one up yourself?

See, this is the sort of thing I don't understand...this hatred of the Clintons that turns people into intellectual zombies. Any and every bad story is believed, no matter how obviously a lie or a distortion, or how unreliable the source.

Agreed; it's amazing that people like Rush Limbaugh are still obsessed with Bill Clinton even after he's out of politics.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Zero
Nice lie, what lying right-wing liar did you hear that from? Or did you make that one up yourself?


The lying right-wing liar that is the source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Clinton_in_crisis/Story/0,2763,208597,00.html) of that claim is the alleged rape victim.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Agreed; it's amazing that people like Rush Limbaugh are still obsessed with Bill Clinton even after he's out of politics. It is pretty bizarre, but then again, the ultra right-wing has never been known for making sense. Even after 99% of the claims have been shown to be groundless, they just wait six weeks and start using them again. We'll hear right-wing lies about the Clintons for at least another 10 years...it is really the only platform that the right-wing has: hate their opponents and make up lies about them.

[Zero]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The lying right-wing liar that is the source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Clinton_in_crisis/Story/0,2763,208597,00.html) of that claim is the alleged rape victim. Oh, that old lie...I figured it was that one, but I wasn't sure.

Mrs Broaddrick's story surfaced in an American supermarket tabloid magazine in January, along with subsequently disproved claims that Mr Clinton had fathered the son of a black prostitute in Little Rock. Uh huh, this is reliable, oh yeah...LOL.

[CFLarsen]

American,

So, when is Clinton going to jail for this?

Oh, wait....he's not convicted of this crime?

Oh, wait....he's not even charged with this crime?

Oh, wait....Broaddrick did not even report the crime to the police?

Ah. Seems like some people will state a rumour as a fact.

[Nasarius]

I'm still trying to figure out:

When it was over, Mrs Broaddrick claims, Mr Clinton told her that she should not worry because he was sterile due to a bout of childhood mumps.

But but...Clinton has a daughter.

Ohhhhh, but then I found this:
http://www.ishipress.com/billskid.htm

Very amusing :D

[Mark]

"Juanita Broaddrick denied the encounter in an affidavit in January 1998 in the Paula Jones case, in which she was known only as "Jane Doe No. 5." Through all those years, she refused to come forward. When pressed by the Jones lawyers, she denied the allegation."

If the Clintons were (are) so evil, one wonders why right wing zealots have to keep making stuff up about them. Surely the truth would suffice.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, that old lie...I figured it was that one, but I wasn't sure.

Uh huh, this is reliable, oh yeah...LOL.

I didn't call it reliable. You asked for the source, I provided it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
American,

So, when is Clinton going to jail for this?

Oh, wait....he's not convicted of this crime?

Oh, wait....he's not even charged with this crime?

Oh, wait....Broaddrick did not even report the crime to the police?

Ah. Seems like some people will state a rumour as a fact. And, let's not forget that there was lots of money to be made at this sort of thing...you got the money in advance, and it didn't matter how fake the story was.

[Mark]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I didn't call it reliable. You asked for the source, I provided it.

Nice back pedal.

[Zero]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I didn't call it reliable. You asked for the source, I provided it. And I appreciate it, trust me...nice to know it is an old rumor, and not a new lie.

[American]

Originally posted by Zero
Nice lie, what lying right-wing liar did you hear that from? Or did you make that one up yourself?

See, this is the sort of thing I don't understand...this hatred of the Clintons that turns people into intellectual zombies. Any and every bad story is believed, no matter how obviously a lie or a distortion, or how unreliable the source.


Nice ass, lardass. You obviously don't care when women are raped, only if they actually report it and there's a conviction. It's what I have come to expect from dealing with you over the last couple years. Oh well, guys like me know the real story, and that's why I hate Hillary for marrying a rapist just to further her career that she chose all because she hates women who bake cookies. God forbid you have a happy life and be married to a normal, non-rapist guy who ain't running for president and wants to let queers in the military so we can have pink triangles on the back of Volvo tanks. If Dean gets elected, our enemies may as well make rainbow-seeking missles for all the bumper stickers the gaywads are going to put on our equipment.

In summary-- Hillary bad, Bill raped a nurse, you're confirming your own stupidity, and I dress better than any single one of you losers. My shoes alone cost more than your whole outfit, and that's assuming you're all dressed up because of the cold outside.

[Mark]

Originally posted by American



Nice ass, lardass. You obviously don't care when women are raped, only if they actually report it and there's a conviction. It's what I have come to expect from dealing with you over the last couple years. Oh well, guys like me know the real story, and that's why I hate Hillary for marrying a rapist just to further her career that she chose all because she hates women who bake cookies. God forbid you have a happy life and be married to a normal, non-rapist guy who ain't running for president and wants to let queers in the military so we can have pink triangles on the back of Volvo tanks. If Dean gets elected, our enemies may as well make rainbow-seeking missles for all the bumper stickers the gaywads are going to put on our equipment.

In summary-- Hillary bad, Bill raped a nurse, you're confirming your own stupidity, and I dress better than any single one of you losers. My shoes alone cost more than your whole outfit, and that's assuming you're all dressed up because of the cold outside.

I started to argue with this...and then realized you can't possibly be this stupid and are just trolling again. Good job, though; you almost had me.

[Zero]

Originally posted by American



Nice ass, lardass. You obviously don't care when women are raped, only if they actually report it and there's a conviction. It's what I have come to expect from dealing with you over the last couple years. Oh well, guys like me know the real story, and that's why I hate Hillary for marrying a rapist just to further her career that she chose all because she hates women who bake cookies. God forbid you have a happy life and be married to a normal, non-rapist guy who ain't running for president and wants to let queers in the military so we can have pink triangles on the back of Volvo tanks. If Dean gets elected, our enemies may as well make rainbow-seeking missles for all the bumper stickers the gaywads are going to put on our equipment.

In summary-- Hillary bad, Bill raped a nurse, you're confirming your own stupidity, and I dress better than any single one of you losers. My shoes alone cost more than your whole outfit, and that's assuming you're all dressed up because of the cold outside. LOL, you confirm your own pathology, which would be more cool if I were a psychologist. This Clinton fixation is obviously part of a larger expression of projected self-loathing and feelings of inferiority. Go with those feelings, BTW.

Or, you could jest be kidding, huh? Nobody could be that nutty, could they?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Well the whole post was directed at people bashing Hillary for carpetbagging. If you don't care about that, good on you. I don't really like her either, I just see that particular issue as irrelevant.

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I sorta realized that after it was too late to edit.:o

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mark
Nice back pedal.
Hey, thanks. Tell me: what am I backpedaling from, exactly?

[Troll]

To be honest, and I've sort of touched on this before, it's merely a matter of difference in beliefs, priorities and how to go about things on a variety of subjects that causes my dislike for her. Not because she's a democrat, several democrats are quite moderate and I see eye to eye on them in many cases. Hillary and the other two women I mentioned and I don't see eye to eye on a larger number of issues. Do I dislike her personally? I don't know her personally, so I can't say, but i also never claimed that as a basis for my dislike of her.

[Mark]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Hey, thanks. Tell me: what am I backpedaling from, exactly?

Your quote:
The lying right-wing liar that is the source of that claim is the alleged rape victim.

The sarcasm presented in your quote was pretty blatant. Or were you genuinely agreeing that JB is a "lying right-wing liar?"

Give me a break; you are still back pedaling.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Zero
Or, you could jest be kidding, huh? Nobody could be that nutty, could they?

Oh, yes... (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/jolene.htm)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Troll
To be honest, and I've sort of touched on this before, it's merely a matter of difference in beliefs, priorities and how to go about things on a variety of subjects that causes my dislike for her. Not because she's a democrat, several democrats are quite moderate and I see eye to eye on them in many cases. Hillary and the other two women I mentioned and I don't see eye to eye on a larger number of issues. Do I dislike her personally? I don't know her personally, so I can't say, but i also never claimed that as a basis for my dislike of her. See, I can accept this. You don't agree with her politics. You aren't making nutty claims about her. No one expects everyone to agree with everyone else, that just won't happen.

What I don't understand is the need to demonize someone to the point that they are willing to make up stories about their personal life, or to misrepresent what they say in order to make them look dishonest or stupid. Rational people can say things like, "I don't think she is a bad person, I even understand a little of why she thinks these policies are good, but I disagree with her position." Do we really need murder conspiracies?

[Zero]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Oh, yes... (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/jolene.htm)

LOL, ok, I take it back, people CAN be that nutty!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zero
See, I can accept this. You don't agree with her politics. You aren't making nutty claims about her. No one expects everyone to agree with everyone else, that just won't happen.

What I don't understand is the need to demonize someone to the point that they are willing to make up stories about their personal life, or to misrepresent what they say in order to make them look dishonest or stupid. Rational people can say things like, "I don't think she is a bad person, I even understand a little of why she thinks these policies are good, but I disagree with her position." Do we really need murder conspiracies?

No, we don't need conspiracies, but then if you offer the person's own words some nuts claim you're just using sound bites and it doesn't convince them to dislike the person, like that was the goal or something. :confused:

No offense, Claus.;)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mark


Your quote:
The lying right-wing liar that is the source of that claim is the alleged rape victim.

The sarcasm presented in your quote was pretty blatant. Or were you genuinely agreeing that JB is a "lying right-wing liar?"

Give me a break; you are still back pedaling.

What is he backpedaling on? He made no comment in agreement or disagreement. He merely used the words of the person asking and posted a link in response. Even then he made no claim as to credibility and refered to the source as the "alleged" victim.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Troll


No, we don't need conspiracies, but then if you offer the person's own words some nuts claim you're just using sound bites and it doesn't convince them to dislike the person, like that was the goal or something. :confused:

Hmmmm...then why do so many right-wingers intentionally misquote Dems? If you go back and look at the context of some of the things that Dems have said, they have been completely rational, and in complete opposition to Republican positions. Isn't that enough, unless the truth is that the Republican position isn't as good as the Dems' position?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Troll
No offense, Claus.;)

None taken.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...then why do so many right-wingers intentionally misquote Dems? If you go back and look at the context of some of the things that Dems have said, they have been completely rational, and in complete opposition to Republican positions. Isn't that enough, unless the truth is that the Republican position isn't as good as the Dems' position?

Seems to me to be a thing on both sides. Also, it appears that you're one of the ones making this a right and left thing. Are you denying that the left misquotes the right as well? I don't disagree with Hillary because she's a democrat. Granted her being one may mean that we will find more things to disagree about based soley upon positions on certain issues and how to deal with some others, but nowhere and for no reason would I deliberately misquote her or anyone else. That merely weakens the stance one has on the subject.

Now if you're referring to American, well he does tend to go for the sensationalistic approach, whether that be for humor or to just rile the other guy, I have no idea.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Troll


Seems to me to be a thing on both sides. Also, it appears that you're one of the ones making this a right and left thing. Are you denying that the left misquotes the right as well? I don't disagree with Hillary because she's a democrat. Granted her being one may mean that we will find more things to disagree about based soley upon positions on certain issues and how to deal with some others, but nowhere and for no reason would I deliberately misquote her or anyone else. That merely weakens the stance one has on the subject.

Now if you're referring to American, well he does tend to go for the sensationalistic approach, whether that be for humor or to just rile the other guy, I have no idea.

Well...it isn't an industry on the left like it is on the right...except for Michael Moore, of course.

I'm not refering to you, you are capable of rational thought. You ever read the spinsanity.com website? You would probably enjoy it, and The Daily Howler too.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Troll


What is he backpedaling on? He made no comment in agreement or disagreement. He merely used the words of the person asking and posted a link in response. Even then he made no