Did it ever occur to YOU that one example of dishonesty (perceived or real - the effect is the same when dealing with people’s opinions) does not cover the entirity of the situation?
Hillary is a politician. Politicians are dishonest. I don’t like liars. I think that sums up my point of view…
Well, can’t argue with logic like that… :rolleyes:
Let me see if I can summarize you thoughts: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean some one isn’t out to get you!” :rolleyes:
Le Sang, I agree. Politicians are liars, they can’t make it without lying. But:
Peace
This is truly a bizarre hijack to join in on, but…
Edmund Hillary was not much of anybody before summiting Everest. Yeah, he’d climbed several mountains and been involved in a couple of British ventures in the year or two previous, but he was no one special. He was one of over 200 climbers involved in the British Everest expedition in 1953, and he and Norgay just wound up being the only ones to complete their summit bid (not to say he wasn’t a great climber; he was, but he wasn’t a leader of the expedition or anything). If anyone in the United States had heard about this beekeeper in New Zealand who liked to climb the occasional mountain, much less named a child after him, I would be very surprised.
Jeez, I’d think the worst thing you could say about a carpetbagger is that they are opportunist. Besides, New Yorkers like having high-profile Senators: they voted for Robert Kennedy (a carpetbagger from MA), and they tolerated the erudite Moynahan despite his lackadaisical constituency service.
New York has a fairly conservative “upstate” as well as a region known as Long Island. With such support, D’Amato, a fairly conservative Republican, was elected and re-elected a couple of times to the Senate.
And come on, what about Steve Forbes or Pat Robertson, who ran for President having far less political experience than Hillary? Where was the right-wing outrage when Arianna’s Huffington’s husband spent 12 gazillion dollars to campaign for one of California’s Senate seats?
The right wing hates Hillary because she is a high-profile member of the opposition, and they need a bug-bear for their fund-raising letters. Similar to Gingrich, in a way.
I wouldn’t mind seeing some support of this statement. I think all politicians are lying scum, but this statement seems pretty preposterous.
This Dem was breathing a sigh of relief after 1996 that a) Clinton got re-elected, and b) we’d never have to deal with him again. He’s proven what any rational person already knew: that even a moderate Democrat could beat the bejesus out of any Republican when it comes to running the country competently. So he eliminated the deficit, has an unemployment rate not seen since the sixties, rapidly lowering crime rates, and has a seven year bull in the stock market to his credit.
Then comes Hillary.
Enough already! These two managed, with that health plan in '93, to install the Republicans in control of Congress on a semi-permanent basis. This is NOT an accomplishment, unless you’re Trent Lott. I fully expect her to characteristically shoot herself in the foot long before her first year in the Senate is out.
Put 'em both out to pasture. They’re the last things we need.
Peace
I request substantiation for both parts. Calling someone a liar (as opposed to a dissembler, for example) is rather strong language, IMO.
Furthermore, given the propensity for many people to take offense at candid public statements, I really can’t blame politicians for blurring the truth every now and then. Those with less to lose (such as the posters in this forum) can and should be held to a higher standard of accuracy.
Heck, what I’d really like to hear is a substantiated statement like, “Hillary lied more than Nancy”. That might have some entertainment value.
peace:
Hoover
Roosevelt
Bush
Clinton
Get the point? How many times would you like to see the messes cleaned up before you get the point? Or do you like hitting your head against the wall, because you like it?
I don’t hate Hillary, but I don’t like her. Why? Because she’s a condescending hypocrite. This is the ‘caring liberal’ who believes that rich people should be taxed more, while being rich herself and doing everything she could to avoid taxes. Including donating her old underwear to charity so she could claim it as a tax deduction. Has anyone else here ever had the gall to claim their used underwear as a tax deduction?
She and her husband campaigned on a theme of, “The 80’s were the decade of greed, typified by the S&L scandals”. This while having best friends who were some of the worst S&L offenders around, and while almost certainly engaging in S&L fraud themselves (Whitewater has all the earmarks of a classic S&L fraud).
While she was crusading against greed, her and her husband were pulling in huge salaries. And apparently this wasn’t enough, because she managed to turn $1,000 into $100,000 in the futures market, in what was almost certainly an illegal stock scheme, and may also have been a scheme to buy political favor and move the money through a trading office to launder it.
She claims to be a champion of working people, but one of her first acts upon entering the White House was to fire a whole bunch of career employees in the travel office so that she could put in some of her cronies from Arkansas. and to make matters worse, the Clintons trumped up a bunch of fake charges against the travel office people in order to make the firings more politically palatable. Several of those people spent their entire life savings attempting to clear their names, which they eventually did. It turned out that all the charges were completely false. But those people are now broke. Do you think we’ll be hearing any apologies for that from the new Hillary?
Politically, she is disingenuous. Her personal beliefs are much farther to the left than she lets on, judging by what she has said in the past and by the company she keeps. But I can accept this, as there isn’t a politician alive who isn’t somewhat hypocritical when speaking to the public.
Her management of the failed health care plan showed the ‘true’ Hillary, in my opinion. She showed an unbelievable disdain for the 'common person’s judgement. Her advisors on that plan made up the who’s who of the extreme left. Anyone who disagreed with her was considered evil.
Her latest hypocrisy is accepting an 8 million dollar advance for her book, after she vilified Newt Gingrich for getting an advance less than half that size (and which he subsequently turned down under political pressure, if I recall correctly).
In short, she’s an elitist masquerading as a populist. She doesn’t think the rules apply to her. If other people got rich in the 80’s, they were selfish and greedy. If SHE did, it was okay because her heart was pure and therefore she deserved it. She wants the government to look after us, because deep down she really believes that the rest of us are too stupid to look after ourselves, and that we really need someone as smart and caring as she is to look after us.
It takes a village, as long as the village chief is Hillary Clinton.
Pantom, you are too shallow for me, I’d rather be hitting my head against the wall. Roosevelt did a lot, but:
1.Do not compare him and his time with Clinton and his.
2.He did not end The Great Depression. Probably, The Great War ended The Great Depression.
What about the other couple? Oh, I forgot: you believe that the economy and the wallpaper in the White House change with the president.
Stoidela,
A bit out of touch, eh?
Come to Miami.
I remember driving to work and passing a guy holding up a huge sign over his head that said "Reno Negotiates Like A Pearl Harbor Jap."
Reno is probably the most despised person in the Clinton administration. Personally, I despise the late Sec. of Defense Les Aspin a lot more, but that doesn't do any good.
As for Hillary, she’s widely percieved to hold a grudge. What goes around comes around.
Plus, I thought her handling of the Hillary Health Care thing was probably the biggest example of political arrogance and hubris since the Viet Nam war. I mean, this lady deliberately shielded her plan from public debate for months…kept it shrouded in secrecy. Did she really feel that no one outside of her liberal circle would have anything to offer?
The plan deserved to fail on the basis of her arrogance alone.
And does anybody really think she would have stayed in New York if she had lost the Senate race?
peace, learn a little history, then come back and tell me I’m shallow. Or try learning how to add. (is 4% unemployment less than 7%? Don’t take too long now…)
Yes. Last year I stuffed a garbage bag with old clothing from me and a friend and gave it to Good Will. I asked for a receipt and scrawled “$10” as its fair market value (or something like that). Slipped the receipt in my tax file. Processed it all during tax season, like I do every year. No big deal. It never occured to me that this action would subject me to such opprobrium. (Full disclosure: the bag may or may not have contained underwear.)
Some organizations will estimate the fair market value of your in-kind donations for you. If they said the items were worth $30, I would not have argued.
I even advocate a more progressive tax structure, and while I oppose tax evasion, I see nothing wrong with, as they say, “taking the tax deductions that you are entitled to”, as the H&R Block ads say. Frankly, I don’t even consider the above example to be finagling.
(Extracting multi-million dollar subsidies from local governments, as sport-team owners are prone to do, is an example of an activity that bothers me, in contrast.)
Actually, they invested and lost money in what appeared to be a crooked S&L. And we both know that Starr’s multi-million dollar investigation came up with nada on this score. How many times do we have to repeat this?
I’ll grant that the above 1970s transaction was malodorous. I haven’t examined the issue though.
Wow. This seems really inaccurate. While I would have preferred Henry Aaron of Brookings to lead reform, I hardly think that Ira Magaziner is a member of the extreme left. Let’s take a look at his resume: Boston Consulting Group 1973-79, Corporate Stategist. Telesis, founder, 1979-1986. Towers Perrin, Manager of U.S. strategy practice, 1986 - 1989. In my view, Mr. Magaziner was too lawyerly and not enough of a wonk, but that’s a different matter.
Furthermore, let’s not forget that the left-friendly single payer system was rejected out of hand early in the process. What remained was, IIRC, a varient of the “Jackson Hole” proposal, a group with rather strong establishmentarian credentials.
To drive the point home, if the Clinton proposal was “extreme left”, the nations of Great Britain and Canada must truly be in throes of perpetual revolution, what with their mind-boggling radical single payer system. :rolleyes:
stoidela, all politics aside, I am against Hillary for one simple reason:
Being maried to a doctor does not make one a surgeon.
Hillary Clinton is a “Socialist”? Maybe even a Communist?!?
I posted a link to George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” back in Wildest Bill’s Are Democrats Socialist? thread.
People who accuse Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton, or the Democratic Party in general) of being “socialist” or “communist” aren’t using language in any meaningful way anymore. Why not just call Democrats or liberals a bunch of petaQpu’ jay’? It has about as much objective meaning, it adequately conveys that you don’t like them (well, it does to Trekkies, anyway), and it doesn’t confuse the issue by using real words which do have objective meanings.
Ha ha I’m going to hijack.
I agree with ya. Remember not so long ago when extremist was the political buzz word? It was used so often that I thought an extremist was anyone with a strong opinion.
Marc
Sam has nicely pointed up why there’s so much popular disdain for Hillary.
There is nothing Satanic or especially evil about she and/or her surrogates have done. So what if illegal closed-door sessions on health care were held and then lied about afterwards? Or if low-level travel office staffers were fired so that her rich buddies could profit? Or if law records in a criminal investigation disappeared and then rematerialized magically in the White House? Or if cronies were sent on a nighttime raid of a deceased colleague’s office to retrieve potentially damaging documents? Or if she sent a signed note of appreciation to a group of Muslim backers of Hezbollah who raised 50 grand for her Senate campaign, and when found out, claimed that her autopen had done it without her knowledge?
With the old-style pols who were in it for the power and money, at least it was generally recognized they were hacks. The sanctimonious stench that surrounds Hillary Clinton’s activities is what many find particularly repulsive.