# Why is Hillary Clinton so hated? RE: potential White House run **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 14, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511 "2005-03-14T20:10:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/161 "2005-03-17T18:51:44Z")
Wow! **Elvis** seems to have come up with an entire paragraph consisting entirely of bullshit. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **debaser** , why do refuse to consider that the objections to your position are based on your own hypocrisy? This is bullshit. I’m not a hypocrit. All I’ve said here is that if Hillary didn’t want to be embarrassed than she should not have stayed with a cheating spouse while in such a highly visible position. I’d say the same thing about a Republican or Libertarian in her place. > [@](#): > > A moral standard that varies depending on its subject is nothing of the sort. The only time I’ve suggested that I would vary my standard is between a presidential candidate and an average citizen. I hardly think this is shocking news to anyone. > [@](#): > > You are intensely fascinated by a certain couple’s private life when no other couple gets your scrutiny at all, much less to the same standards. How am I intensely fascinated by anything? I can’t remember the last time (on the SDMB or anywhere else) that I have ever talked about the Clintons. I just wandered by and chipped by $.02 in. You are participating in this thread also, does that mean you are intensely fascinated by them as well? > [@](#): > > You decry any and all lies by the Clintons, Cite? > [@](#): > > but are willing to excuse (and even applaud!) Bush’s. (See my earlier post. Remember: concentrate on having an open mind. I know it’s tough, but you can do it!) I don’t think that Bush did lie. He said the same thing about Iraq that Bill Clinton did, in fact. All the major intelligence services in the world agreed with him at the time. The NY Times agreed with him just this week, by saying that the WMD’s were looted. I’ve disagreed with lots of stuff Bush has done. I’d be quick to say something if Bush did lie. He hasn’t. In fact, he’s one of the most honest president’s we’ve had in a while. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/162 "2005-03-17T18:56:50Z")
Hate =/= loathe or despise? If you say so :rolleyes: If you’re looking for huge government spending and record deficits, I give you today’s Republican Party. Yours. Republicans \*used \* to think balanced budgets were important, when they could blame the other guys for it. Not anymore. Add another item to the list of things you don’t know and are proud of not knowing. **Debaser** : “I disagree with you” is not an argument. That shit doesn’t work this side of Free Republic. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/163 "2005-03-17T19:01:41Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’m going to need you to open your mind up really wide… > > There are some people that disagree with you! > > Get it? Yes, I get that. Lots of people, on lots of different subjects. Has nothing to do with keeping an open mind. > [@](#): > > I find it very annoying and quite odd that so many people on the left continually insist that their opinions (Bush being a liar chief among them) are absolute facts that everyone agrees upon. Further, that those of us who do support Bush agree with these negative things and still like him anyway. Well, then yes. I’m sorry. But you ARE a hypocrit. Because you’re decrying the left for supporting HRC, for a lot of the same reasons. > [@](#): > > I mean, I disagree with people on the left about some things. But, I am capable of understanding that they just have a different viewpoint than me. I don’t force myself into believing that they agree with me that Kerry, or Clinton is bad for the country and still vote for them anyway. That would be nuts. Uh huh. Brilliant, Einstein. That’s why the left didn’t vote for Bush. I’m glad we’re making progress. > [@](#): > > So, I’m a hypocite for holding the President of the United States to a different standard than Joe Schmuck walking down main street? I disagree. Have you tried looking up the word? Maybe you are just confused as to it’s meaning. No. You’re a hypocrit because you lionize the Clintons, then cheer GWB for doing the same thing. That, my blinder wearing friend, is hypocracy. Holding someone to one set of standards, then holding someone else or yourself to another set=hypocracy. Accept it, deal with it, learn from it. > [@](#): > > Here it comes again: Open up your mind really wide and listen carefully: > > I disagree with you. Bush didn’t lie about WMD’s in Iraq. He may have been incorrect on some of what he said, but that wasn’t the result of a lie. It was the result of bad intelligence. Psst! I have an open mind. Just not so open that it dribbles out my ears. Which it would have to be to believe that fetid pile of horse shit. > [@](#): > > **I don’t expect you to actually agree with me here. Just try and get your idiot liberal mind to grasp the concept that I have a different opinion on it than you do.** I do accept that you disagree with me. I also accept that you’re a hypocrit and you probably won’t do anything to change it, because you refuse to look at it. And, you obviously do espouse certain Republican political leanings if you think liberal=idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/164 "2005-03-17T19:04:49Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > A very good point, **Bricker** , under most circumstances. > > However, in this case we who dislike her don’t feel that she was staying with him out of loyalty to her vows, but because she a) didn’t care…at least until it became a political and social embarrassment, and b) it was politically expedient. Then she hypocritically feigned ignorance of his philandering and blamed the trouble on her famous “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and was supposedly so displeased over it that she made him “sleep on the couch” for a month. Again, this for appearance’s sake and because it was politically expedient. If she really made him sleep on the couch it would have been because she was furious he allowed himself to get caught. What evidence supports this view? Frankly, it seems to me that this conclusion is arrived at by the same method as deciding Bush lied – a dislike for the person coloring the view of the actions. Bush is evil, so, naturally, he must have lied. Mrs. Clinton is evil, so, naturally, her actions are based on nothing but cold appraisal of appearances. I’d prefer to look at the evidence. It’s absolutely unclear to me that Mr. Clinton’s adulterous actions should be imputed to the detriment of Mrs. Clinton. He was the cheater: how does that possibly make her the bad guy? It’s true that she defended him and blamed a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” instead of accepting the truth. But this makes her no different that the spouses of cheating partners throughout history who have accepted the lies, even after experience should have taught her better. The sheer weight of numbers goes to Mrs. Clinton’s side here. It’s not reasonable, but it happens – when you love someone and want the relationship to work, you blind yourself to the obvious. That’s all the inference that the facts support. And as an aside – there WAS a vast, right-wing conspiracy. A peccadillo like Mr. Clinton’s, if committed by Joe Average, would never have been ferretted out by a grand jury. Hundreds of Joe Averages lie in depositions all the time, and opposing parties simply do not have the financial resources to expose the lies. The only reason Mr. Clinton’s lies came to light was the intense interest shown by the special prosecutor. It’s well to note that the vast, right-wing conspiracy (VRWC) did not _manufacture_ the wrong-doing, but it’s equally true that the only reason it came to light was the VRWC. So blaming Mrs. Clinton for mentioning the VRWC seems a bit misplaced. I’m sorry, but I don’t take Hillary Clinton at face value on anything. She seems to be one of those people who always have an angle behind everything they do. She’s too clever by half and she’s fooling no one…(well, some people maybe, but not me). [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/165 "2005-03-17T19:15:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What evidence supports this view? None, other than observations made through the looking glass of life experience. The OP inquired as to why she was hated. It didn’t ask for proof. Therefore, I have been stating my opinions and beliefs, not what I’m able to prove with evidence outside of observation. > [@Bricker](#): > > Frankly, it seems to me that this conclusion is arrived at by the same method as deciding Bush lied – a dislike for the person coloring the view of the actions. Bush is evil, so, naturally, he must have lied. Mrs. Clinton is evil, so, naturally, her actions are based on nothing but cold appraisal of appearances. Well, you might be surprised to learn that I don’t think Hillary Clinton is “evil.” I just think she’s smug, arrogant and has a false sense of superiority over almost everyone else. But like with Ted Kennedy, I think she feels she is fighting the good fight. > [@Bricker](#): > > I’d prefer to look at the evidence. It’s absolutely unclear to me that Mr. Clinton’s adulterous actions should be imputed to the detriment of Mrs. Clinton. He was the cheater: how does that possibly make her the bad guy? I’ve never said nor implied that Bill’s cheating makes Hillary a bad guy. Hillary’s own actions and demeanor are what cause me to disapprove of her. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/166 "2005-03-17T19:17:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Bush is evil, so, naturally, he must have lied. We’ve been over that in so much detail, so many times, that for you to continue to hold that position is sheer perversity. You say you’d “prefer to look at the evidence”? About damn time. I admire your ability, too, to go from “she … blamed a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” \*\*instead of \*\* accepting the truth” to “there WAS a vast, right-wing conspiracy”. Yes, there was. Oh, I get it - you think she didn’t believe her husband fooled around? That the stories that he had done so were manufactured? Come on now. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/167 "2005-03-17T19:18:54Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > However, in this case we who dislike her don’t feel that she was staying with him out of loyalty to her vows, but because she a) didn’t care…at least until it became a political and social embarrassment, and b) it was politically expedient. Let me get this straight. You dislike her because you think she didn’t care enough about being cheated on. But not because she didn’t act indifferently. Nay, it is because you _believe_ she didn’t _really_ care, but was just putting on a show _like_ she did. I’m trying not to laugh. What you don’t get, **SA** , is if anyone gets to decide how Hillary should feel about being cheated on, \* it is Hillary and Hillary alone\*. She and Bill were the only ones who took the vows that bind them together. What makes you or anyone else the arbiter of how Hillary should feel? Never mind the fact that there is no way you could know how she feels. For you to dislike her because she didn’t care enough for your standards is like hating the man who doesn’t get angry after being robbed. Oh, and then getting mad because even though the man acts angry, you’re convinced (somehow) that its all for show. Because…well because of nothing. > [@](#): > > Then she hypocritically feigned ignorance of his philandering and blamed the trouble on her famous “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and was supposedly so displeased over it that she made him “sleep on the couch” for a month. Again, this for appearance’s sake and because it was politically expedient. Firstly, how do you “hypocritically” feign ignorance? Secondly, the Lewinsky affair _was_ a multi-million-(taxpayer)-dollar-much-ado-about-nothing that can be attributed to a right-wing campaign against Clinton. Name all the people responsible for hyping up this crap. Any of them Democrats? Thirdly, she’s a political figure discussing a highly personal and embarrassing matter in front of the whole world. How about you trying to do that first before you start slamming her for doing and saying things for “appearance sake”. I’ve never been in her shoes, but that doesn’t stop me from seeing how hard that must be. > [@](#): > > If she really made him sleep on the couch it would have been because she was furious he allowed himself to get caught. Interesting theory. If you want to call it that. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but I don’t take Hillary Clinton at face value on anything. She seems to be one of those people who always have an angle behind everything they do. She’s too clever by half and she’s fooling no one…(well, some people maybe, but not me). Yeah, HRC, you ain’t foolin’ nobody, girlie. If we allow you get away with hiding your _true_ feelings, we might as well let you get away with hiding intelligence that could make or break a case for preventive war. And there will be none of that! What? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/168 "2005-03-17T19:19:47Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I don’t think that Bush did lie. He said the same thing about Iraq that Bill Clinton did, in fact. All the major intelligence services in the world agreed with him at the time. The NY Times agreed with him just this week, by saying that the WMD’s were looted. Can we put this bullshit meme to rest once and for all? The issue was never, I repeat NEVER about whether Iraq had some some sarin shells or maybe some anthrax floating around in the country. The issue was about whether Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States which could only be preempted by a direct, miltary strike against the sovereignty of Iraq. The presence of a few rusted out sarin shells left over from before GWI were not legally sufficient to justify an attack on the sovereignty of Iraq. Clinton never said that Iraq was a such a threat to the US that regime change was justified, so the incessant whining from Bush defenders that “Clinton said the same thing” are inaccurate regurgitations of White House spin. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/169 "2005-03-17T19:21:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Debaser** : “I disagree with you” is not an argument. That shit doesn’t work this side of Free Republic. I haven’t presented it as an argument. (I certainly don’t want to go 100 rounds on whether or not Bush lied.) But I don’t think he did. Saying the “I disagree with you” about this is simply a statement of fact. It’s a shame you can’t wrap your mind around the concept. Like I said before I find it very odd, also it’s very common on this board. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/170 "2005-03-17T19:27:01Z")
Hey, **Dio** : Our $100 bet still on that Hillary will run for pres in 2008? (If you want, I’ll let you out of it. It’ll only cost you $95. ;)) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/171 "2005-03-17T19:29:36Z")
[Transcript, providing context for those of us who think that matters:](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/hillary.today/) > [@](#): > > She made the statement during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show, where she was asked to comment on accusations and rumors that have caused a political uproar and even triggered speculation about the possibility of impeachment of the president. > > “I do believe that this is a battle,” the first lady said. > > “Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president,” Mrs. Clinton said. > > The first lady called the sex and perjury allegations swirling around her husband part of an effort “to undo the results of two elections.” > … > > “Bill and I have been accused of everything, including murder, by some of the very same people who are behind these allegations,” she said. "So from my perspective, this is part of a continuing political campaign against my husband. The evidence has proven her right. **debaser** , if you can’t support your own statements, that’s nobody else’s fault but your own. You’re welcome to your own opinions, sure, no matter how ignorant. But we’re about _fighting_ ignorance here, unfortunately for your desire to hold on to your smug, self-righteous hatred. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/172 "2005-03-17T19:31:30Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Let me get this straight. You dislike her because you think she didn’t care enough about being cheated on. But not because she didn’t act indifferently. Nay, it is because you _believe_ she didn’t _really_ care, but was just putting on a show _like_ she did. I’m trying not to laugh. And I’m trying to figure out what the hell you’re talking about. Besides, the reasons I don’t like her are legion. This is only one aspect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/173 "2005-03-17T19:35:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I admire your ability, too, to go from “she … blamed a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” \*\*instead of \*\* accepting the truth” to “there WAS a vast, right-wing conspiracy”. Yes, there was. Oh, I get it - you think she didn’t believe her husband fooled around? That the stories that he had done so were manufactured? Come on now. I acknowledged there was a VRWC. I pointed out that it did not manfacture the allegations of wrong-doing. There was actual wrong-doing. Mrs. Clinton said that her husband did not do that which he was accused of - that the wrongdoing was manufactured by the VRWC. This was not so. I don’t blame her for saying that, since there WAS a VRWC afoot. I accept. at face value, her account of the story: that she DID believe her husband’s denials until he confessed the truth. In short, I don’t believe Mrs. Clinton lied at any time relative to this issue. She spoke the truth, at all times, as she reasonably believed it to be. Are you disagreeing with me? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/174 "2005-03-17T19:40:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I pointed out that it did not manfacture the allegations of wrong-doing. The responsibility for blowing it up, harping on it to the exclusion of so many important subjects, the fostering of the faction of haters that we see represented even here, even today, is yes, “manufacturing” the attempt to destroy the Clintons personally. I already posted the relevant transcript. It does not say what you claim she said. I suggest you read it. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/175 "2005-03-17T19:40:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **debaser** , if you can’t support your own statements, that’s nobody else’s fault but your own. You’re welcome to your own opinions, sure, no matter how ignorant. But we’re about _fighting_ ignorance here, unfortunately for your desire to hold on to your smug, self-righteous hatred. It’s not about me not supporting my own statements. It’s about you (and others) lacking the ability to even acknowledge that some people have a different opinion from you. Like I said, it’s very odd that even now you have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. Since you don’t get it, you just keep bashing me. It’s quite sad. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/176 "2005-03-17T19:44:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The evidence has proven her right. You left out the part where she danced around the issue of what her stance would be on this so-called conspiracy should Clinton indeed be found to have been having an affair with Lewinski. This is perhaps not your fault as your cite was not actually a transcript but a reporter’s condensed version of it. However, I saw the interview and it was obvious that she thought she was being clever in her evasion of it. It was also obvious that she already knew Clinton was probably guilty. Hence my perception of yet another example of her hypocracy and dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/177 "2005-03-17T19:52:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The responsibility for blowing it up, harping on it to the exclusion of so many important subjects, the fostering of the faction of haters that we see represented even here, even today, is yes, “manufacturing” the attempt to destroy the Clintons personally. > > I already posted the relevant transcript. It does not say what you claim she said. I suggest you read it. Well, I agree she didn’t directly say that the allegations against her husband were false. My mistake there. And I agree that the campaign against her husband was politically motivated and, as I said above, resulted in the uncovering of evidence that never would have been uncovered if Joe Average had been the actor. None of this reflects in any way poorly on Mrs. Clinton. I don’t want to sully my defense of her, for which reason I entered this thread, with an attack on her husband. So let’s stick to the subject of this thread: was there ANYTHING in that Today interview, or in Mrs. Clinton’s statements, that is evidence of her lying or being deceptive? I contend the answer is no. I assume you agree. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/178 "2005-03-17T19:57:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I agree she didn’t directly say that the allegations against her husband were false. I recall seeing the interview, and if my recollection is accurate she strongly implied they were. IIRC, that was what prompted the question about her stance should he be proved guilty after all. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/179 "2005-03-17T20:02:50Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > It’s not about me not supporting my own statements. It’s about you (and others) lacking the ability to even acknowledge that some people have a different opinion from you. Like I said, it’s very odd that even now you have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. Since you don’t get it, you just keep bashing me. It’s quite sad. Actually, it very much is about supporting your opinion as to why you hate HRC. Every time you’ve twisted and tried to change your fallacious arguments, it’s been explained why they are based on nothing but hypocracy and hatred and very little else. Certainly nothing resembling fact. Not our fault your arguments don’t stand up. They’re baseless arguments. Hey…baseless… **Debaser** … hm. **Bone** , ITAVTRAC is a very simple concept. Children do not grow up in a vacuum. They have multiple influences, not just their parents. As such, every one of those influences should take responsibility for themselves to try to influence those children in a positive manner and help them become a responsible adult who contributes to our society. There. Now, that’s not so hard to grasp, is it? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511/180 "2005-03-17T20:04:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s NOT this, it’s’ NOT that. What the fuck is it then? I told you. Is English not your first language? > [@](#): > > It’s a pretty fucking clear statement. You’re so god damned quick to lump anyone who disagrees with you into some “crowd” or group that you can then vilify, it’s pathetic. I now expect that from _you_, you worthless pathetic piece of sub-human shit. Oh, my. > [@](#): > > **rjung** , I think Mrs. Laura Bush can go fuck herself too. Bush and his moral sanctimonious bullshit can go fuck himself. What part of “leave me the fuck alone and don’t try to impose your stupid fucked up morality on me” is so hard to understand? Well I have to admit you’re consistent. Scary and fucked-up, but consistent. So when do you have time to take a break from sitting on your front porch with a shotgun to post messages here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-hated-re-potential-white-house-run/294511.md?page=10)