I was with the State Department during Clinton’s presidency and never heard that. The Clintons came to Uganda and I’m sure we would have been warned about it, were it so. She walked the reception lines and chatted with us, and I’m absolutely positive that we, as government employees, would have been told about eye contact being a problem. Any and all quirks were relayed to us prior to visits. On the other hand, we WERE warned about not staring at Madeline Albright’s hairline. She was apparently very sensitive about it receding.
Thanks for adding this, Chefguy. Shouldn’t have posted so quickly for as I read the rest of the thread I saw that the claim lacked factual credibility. It’s just that it left me startled that any politician in a First World nation would request something so freaking absurd. Wouldn’t say much about the self-esteem (or lack thereof) of her staffers either.
Oh, and BTW, I’m bald like a bowling ball – should we ever meet, you may stare at my shiny pate all you want. Just bring some shades…
Lets see, George Bush has massively expanded the intrusion of government into our private lives while at the same time he has pushed government spending to levels unthinkable to previous administrations. Yea, I’d say you could make a pretty good case that he’s the most liberal president of my lifetime.
Dude.
Listen.
As I have said many times already, I don’t for a moment think Senator Obama has that attitude. He offered up an unusually poor (for him) choice of words, that’s all.
However, YOU, Diogenes are teeming with that attitude. “WE know what’s best for you, WE know the best use for your money, WE are going to pass laws ensuring that you are forced to comply with whatever WE deem important, and if you don’t agree than you’re evil/meanspirited/stupid.” That’s YOU, to a tee.
Cite? I concede that I have opinions about how tax revenue should be spent. So does everybody else. But what “laws” do I want passed?
If only the social liberalness went with the economic. The parties do seem to be defined along the social spectrum these days.
I’m not so sure. While the “evil/meanspirited/stupid” remark isn’t uncommon around here, I can’t recall **Diogenes **using that line. He tends to assume that whatever his interpretation is always right, but not so much about how money is spent, per se. Usually it’s more along the lines of how to interpret a given law or a clause of the constitution or to understand the reason why certain people behave in certain ways. Maybe I’ve missed that, but nothing comes immediately to mind, as it does with a poster like Der Trihs, Evil Captor and a few others.
Yes, the oil companies are predominantly run by Republicans. But you’re saying the Silicon Valley electronics corporations aren’t run predominantly by Democrats? Or are you saying they aren’t corporations? And for that matter, my wife and I own a corporation. That’s no big deal. Stop by your lawyer’s office with a few hundred bucks, fill out some paperwork, and you can own one, too.
Oil companies represent what tiny fraction of the corporations in this country - even of the major corporations. But companies aren’t Republican or Democrat anyway: the people who run them are. And if you think the net worth of folks like Stephen Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and so forth are “a joke” compared to the net worth of the CEOs of the oil companies, you have an odd definition of “joke” – or perhaps you haven’t done your research.
Yes! Well said. I agree completely.
It’s not that you have opinions about how tax revenue should be spent – or about anything else, for that matter. As you point out, so does everyone.
It’s your fairly consistent view that you’re completely right, that no other view could have any validity, that anyone holding an opposing view is an idiot.
Now, there are opinions and there are facts. I won’t blame you for asserting that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and that someone claiming it isn’t is dead wrong.
When you bring that utter certainty into areas that simply don’t support utter certainty of any kind, you cross the line. You fucking DESTROY the line when you announce that your view of what the Constitution means is correct, and the Supreme Court’s isn’t.
I suppose, if you were seven years old. But most first graders are better informed than that.
as far as the site, I was just trying to find something that backed this up in a quick google search … I agree it’s a pretty slanted site. But you have to say it’s clearly not out of character for Hillary to have a ‘no eye contact’ rule.
As far as any of you who question the acquaintance’s brother who worked for Hillary … don’t any of you have acquaintances or friends who have told you something? Are you not to believe it simply because you did not see it firsthand? The acquaintance is an attorney and democrat, her brother is also an attorney and democrat. He worked for Hillary and loved his job too… just because he told his family about the no eye contact rule does not mean he does not support Hillary… he was simply discussing his office. And you have every right to be skeptical if you choose. But this woman had no reason to lie to me, none whatsoever.
Of course I’m opinionated and of course think my I opinions are correct. If I didn’t they were correct, they wouldn’t be my opinions. But you accused me of wanting to pass laws to make other people conform to what i think would be good for them. Cite?
By the way as a sidenote, this same acquaintance, Alexandra, lives in NYC and was in the WTC during the 9/11 attacks. She and her brother were getting coffees in Au Bon Pain on the ground floor. They ran out of the bldg and were safe but it did affect her emotionally.
I knew her from the George Magazine messageboard forums. She was also a regular there. After it closed down after John Jr’s death, a number of us GeorgeMag regulars started posting on another forum which still exists. She stopped visiting the newer forum after the 9/11 attacks though, so i kind of lost track of her.
Anyway that’s the background.
If you were voting as frequently as we were, you’d…
You would…
I need a nap.
I’m a native New Mexican in my mid 30’s. I’m pretty surprised myself that I didn’t know.
Your reply was not patronizing at all. Fighting ignorance is what we’re here for. 
Just imagine the uproar we’d be hearing if Obama called Davis “Boy” instead of the other way around. Heads would asplode.
I just hope he never asks for crackers with his soup.
I know first grade seems like a stunning level of intellectual achievement to you, but really, I don’t think you even need that to understand the difference between liberal and conservative and to realize that there isn’t a conservative administration in power now.
I’m sure he did. I’m just as sure that Christopher G. Adamo, freelance writer from Wyoming, who “has been active in local and state politics for many years”, is the expert on Hillary’s office. Everyone knows, after all, that nothing gets a senator to perk up her ears like coming to Washington with a basket full of Wyoming libertarian votes.
BTW, “FBI agent” doesn’t sound like a job title that’d necessarily get you close to the First Lady on a regular basis. AIUI, “FBI agent” is not a very exclusive group. If all one had to do to find out about the President’s secret underground tunnels and the First Lady’s monarchical quirks was to be on the level of an “FBI agent”, then every single person in the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, the NSA, and all the rest of the alphabet soup would’ve heard it all within months of Clinton taking office and it would’ve undoubtedly become public information before his first term was up.
I see where you’re coming from, but the picture is a little different when the denier in question is slurring his words, bumping into his walls, and stumbling over broken bottles.
That doesn’t make a lick of sense. He’s almost the exact same age as our last two presidents were when they came into office. If Senator Whoever was referring to his youth, where was the indignation over Presidents Clinton and Bush getting the nod at the same age?
That’s one reason, yes, but not the biggest or the first one, by far.
So, in other words, you heard a ridiculous story about a FOAF on the Internet and didn’t question it even for a moment? Maybe you ought to spend some more time at Snopes.
I agree, except that it hasn’t stopped his opponents from trying to play up the “he’s young and inexperienced” angle. My assumption was that this was the point Davis was trying to make.