| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Hillary Clinton; I don't get it | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 6 2008, 04:15 PM (1,525 Views) | |
| Minuet | Feb 6 2008, 05:26 PM Post #16 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Feel free to wait until you get home to answer. Frankly most of these answers seem more like anti-liberal propaganda then real answers. Take some time to think about it.
May I ask how this equates to holding the military in contempt? I don't quite get it. When she lived in the Whitehouse her husband was Commander-in-chief. Was he the first President ever to have military people serve drinks? Or is this a long standing tradition. I mean come on, serving drinks as proof for holding people in contempt? Surely you can come up with something stronger then that, can't you?
And those great people chose a democratic style of government. One that was vastly different from the parliamentary tradition of it's forebearers in England. I see the people and the government as intertwined. Members of the government are citizens too.
First of all that is a company - not "people". Second, could you provide a transcript of her entire speech rather then just a sentence that could quite possibly be being taken out of context. Thank you.
Thank you for FINALLY mentioning some actual policies. It is your right to disagree with those policies and mentioning those makes your case a whole lot stronger then the nonsense posted previously.
Bill is no angel, but you are accusing him of a crime he did not commit. The man is not a rapist. He did many wrong things ethically - none of which could be considered a "crime", And this comment does not answer the question. You made a direct accusation of her having contempt for the American family structure. You have not yet defined exactly what you mean by "American family structure" nor have you shown that she holds your definition, or any other in contempt. Define your terms so that we can A) determine if you are using an accurate definition. And B) whether or not she holds it in contempt.
Could you provide a direct link to this story. I haven't heard anything about it and would like to check it's veracity.
I personally am not of the opinion that she did this in response to any polls or comments. This is not really a good example because no one knows for sure, although lots of people have opinions. Besides which you stated "positions" as well as routine. You have not provided an example of a position that she has changed her mind on. And her political position is supposedly far more important then her personality. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Feb 6 2008, 05:47 PM Post #17 |
|
Admiral
|
8247, Your reasons match well with what I typically hear and, as such, are also typical of what I don't understand. Those are huge generalities. Take, for example, "socialist". I suspect she gets that label because of work on universal healthcare as First Lady. But, agreeing with Socialists on one specific thing doesn't make a person a Socialist. Similarly, I could probably think of some examples for other items on your lists, but not enough for her to earn the generic labels. 38957, Not liking her politics is fine. That I can understand even if I don't agree, but it doesn't explain the extraordinary animosity that she receives. This is part of why I started this thread. When it comes right down to it, it seems to me that her adversaries really just don't like her politics too. So that makes me question why she gets so much more negative attention. HistoryDude, I honestly wasn't aware that anyone else besides me was blaming it on her being a strong woman. The main reason I'm doing so is I can't identify any other reason that hold truth for me. Saying she is a "socialist" for example (not picking on 8247 - a lot of people have used that same label for her) isn't accurate IMO and such a blown out of proportion label strikes me as a symptom of a larger issue. That issue is what I'm trying to understand. Right now the only guess I have to explain it is that she's a strong, intelligent woman which makes her stand out and become a target. I do see her as more vilified than most. She was vilified as First Lady, vilified when she ran for Senator of New York, vilifed at anytime people suspected she was considering running for President, and now vilified again while running. That's not to say there aren't a few others I can think of who are subjected to a lot of animosity - Ted Kennedy, for example - but I also have a greater understanding of where it comes from concerning those people. Telling people what they want to hear - is there a politician out there who doesn't? Dan, How is she more manipulative than any other politician? (The "crying", if you can really call it that - more like a little choked up, was a one-time occurrence which happened long after the animosity began.) How does she "force her views" on others? What did she do to overstep her bounds as First Lady? I don't agree that it's hard for me to see simply because my views align in large part with hers. That's true of a lot of people who don't get nearly the same negative attention. You do make a valid point, however, about other strong women, although Hillary has been in an unusual number of higher positions comparatively - attorney, First Lady, Senator. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Feb 6 2008, 06:08 PM Post #18 |
|
Admiral
|
I'm aware that a lot of people didn't like her work regarding national healthcare. But is that really IT...? Because, that's among the very few "explanations" that make any sense at all to me. And how many involving Hillary specifically were proven? Regarding Rice and Coulter, they aren't a threat to the establishment in the same way that a woman President would be. Hillary's Presidential aspirations have been known for some time - long before she started running - and I think this contributes greatly to the negative attention she receives. Bringing Meir and Thatcher into this is almost irrelevant since they were in power in other countries. I don't believe the anti-Hillary sentiment extends beyond our borders except in normal numbers (meaning no more or less than for any other American politician). I don't get how she's not - which is also true for many feminists. I think her staying with Bill is her business not to be admired or scorned by those of us who really have a minuscule outsiders understanding of the matter. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 8247 | Feb 6 2008, 06:37 PM Post #19 |
|
Apparently we look like this now
|
Marines are not bartenders. That incident was a disgrace, and showed what she thought of them. Not to mention the fact that the military was reduced significantly under Bill's presidency.
Still, stockholders are people. And, it isn't up to the government to decide what a company does with its profit. I posted it a while back. The title of the thread was Hillary Admits She's a Socialist.
Welfare harms families, and she wants to broaden it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060009
Well, her vote on the war, for one. Oh...And, here's the story on that hideous cackle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etk_O-nhlA4 |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| STC | Feb 6 2008, 07:19 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Commodore
|
Why are you so bothered about Marines, or any military personnel. serving drinks from a bar?
That is a matter of opinion, and a value judgement. If that is your opinion then you are perfectly entitled to hold it of course :). But it is not a universal truth. Others disagree with that. I for one certainly do, as I do not believe in the intrinsic right to retain all private income as I think government has a duty to correct market failures through re-distribution.
In the context of your earlier quote you appear (correct me if I'm wrong) to say that more government is bad. Again, you make it sound like this is some kind of consensus or agreed universal truth. Well I disagree, as I suspect Clinton does. IMO more equal distribution of health care, regulation of banks (no offence but I think you need that over there right now) and control of carbon emissions seem to me like good things for government to do. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Feb 6 2008, 07:28 PM Post #21 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
You didn't respond to my direct questions. Has this been a standard thing that has been done for other presidents or not? Please respond with a yes or a no.
I am not going to go search for an old thread. You made the accusation, you do the search and provide the link. As I recall that thread I believe it was a tempest in a teapot.
Boy you really are avoiding answering this question, aren't you? I would say nice try - but this weak response doesn't qualify. It's answers like this that prompt my accusations that you are giving me nothing but Conservative/Republican talking points. This question had nothing to do with welfare and it is only your opinion that it harms families. I don't agree with that. I think that properly done welfare can strengthen families. By giving a hand up. But to refocus on the original comment I ask once again - How do you define "American family structure"? And how EXACTLY does Hillary show contempt for it?
Do you read your own sources???
I really don't think quoting a hymn qualifies as mocking people. Try again.
Gee, you don't like her laugh. That's a good reason to reject a candidate :rolleyes: As to her vote on the war - did she change it in response to her constituency? Or because further facts were brought to the fore that she did not have previously? Or maybe a combination of both. A lot of people changed thier stance as new information became available. It is a politician's job to be in touch with what the people who voted for them want. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Feb 6 2008, 07:32 PM Post #22 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Interesting RTW, that that is your definition of a true feminist, one that should sabotage career and status just because her husband couldnt keep it in his pants. From what I've seen their marriage is based more on best friends than archaic promises at the altar. I don't think anyone would proceed into a marriage with a guy like Bill realistically expecting life long fidelity |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Feb 6 2008, 07:36 PM Post #23 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
All I can say Dante is that this is your opinion only. Obviously a lot of people believed she was sincere. How else to explain that she actually won the election? It is certainly not a proven fact that she has mocked anyone. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Feb 6 2008, 07:40 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
Why do some women get offended when they're specifically asked to fetch the coffee at a business meeting? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Feb 6 2008, 07:43 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
Are you implyng that, without Bill, Hillary would have no career or status? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Feb 6 2008, 07:45 PM Post #26 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Answering a question with a question is a cheap avoidance of an answer. And no one yet has answered my question as to whether or not this has happened with any other President. We want facts, not sound bites. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Feb 6 2008, 07:52 PM Post #27 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Imagine how much better the USA would be if some socialistiic policies were enacted by their federal government : - universial health care - a proper pharmaceutical benefiits scheme - a better social safety net - reduced education costs - more of the money was spent on infrastructure and less of it went fund corporate wealthfare (the Pentagon and arms indusrtres) and if tight gun restrictions were imposed. No one objects to her because she is married to Bill ? No one objects to her because she is a woman ?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Feb 6 2008, 07:55 PM Post #28 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Same reason why you would be offended if asked to do the same thing I expect. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Feb 6 2008, 08:31 PM Post #29 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
So, what color is the sky in your universe?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Feb 6 2008, 08:34 PM Post #30 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Little additional tidbits as to why Hillary Clinton is not well-regarded. The "cattle futures" explanation. Whitewater The Health Care Task Force and it's resultant proposal. Shady dealings not withstanding, she suffers from the same "finger in the wind" disease her husband did. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |







9:17 AM Jul 11