It may be reason enough to oppose her politically, but is it reason enough to despise her personally?
I dunno about you all, but what I’m getting with the last two presidents (Bubba and Dubya BOTH) is that with both of them there’s a vocal faction out there who somewhow think the man’s not just wrong about ideology and governeance (thus ruining the country and threatening freedom), but is outright evil, seeking deliberately to ruin the country and crush freedom apparently for self-pleasure. And in the particular case of the Clintons, the vitriol extends to Hillary apparently out of the sense of a possibility of a comeback, which Bill would not have.
It seems to me that the incumbent party is somewhat more vulnerable to disillusionment (either outright abandonment or apathetic “maybe I’ll bother to show up if it’s not raining, and the lines at the polls aren’t too long, and there’s nothing good on TV, and…”).
This touches on the fundamental issue of equality before the law. What would happen to you if you got a subordinate at work to give you a blowjob at the office during working hours?
Actually, Sam was the one who said the co-president thing. And then, only to point out accusations from the right, not that she was actually setting policy. It’s not like she was consulting a psychic and then telling her husband who to make treaties with, after all.
Wait, where do the illegalities and immoralities come into play? Because, if being smug and arrogant and self righteously superior is immoral, then you really need to start writing letters to the people currently representing your party. Yes. Complaining about HRC being arrogant and smug and then saying it’s ok for Condi, or Cheney, or Bush himself because (wait for it…) “The Clintons did it fiiiiiiiiiirst!” is not a viable excuse. And, to my knowledge, you have yet to bring up one illegality on HRC’s part. The woman has never been convicted of anything, much less brought up on charges. AFAIK, the Dems have never elected a convicted felon. And you want to tell ME about how immoral MY party is? Please.
Well, yes, and fun is not a bad thing, now is it?
I must admit, after reading a right wing board; it’s difficult to be on the minority end. And for some reason, right wing boards don’t have many moderates, they’re all frothing. Hostile, even. I like it here, too. There are enough right-leaning and right wing and moderate people to make the discussion interesting. How, I don’t know, but for the most part, this board has managed to attract people who are able to back up their assertions and positions with more than “that’s the way I feel, dammit!” Now, if we could just get either side to admit the other side may have a point occasionally…
Not at all. She was frequently alluded to, usually facetiously, as a would-be co-president during the first year or two of Clinton’s first term. There were even bumper stickers around at the time that read “Impeach Clinton and her husband.”
Oh, please, yourself. I never, I repeat: never, said Clinton was smug “first.” And I don’t have to bring up an illegality on Hillary’s part. That’s not what the OP is about and it’s not what I’ve alleged, although I’m far from convinced that she hasn’t engaged in some illegal activity. Still, no conviction so no certain knowledge.
Well, I will admit Bush hasn’t done a very good job of bringing the country together. But (and you knew there’d be one, didn’t you? ), 9/11 changed everything. Had that not occurred he may actually have been a unifying president. He was a unifier during his time as governor in Texas, both with the state’s politicians and its voters.
Even if I accept that most Americans feel as you do about the above issues, here is where your train goes off the tracks:
To the contrary, honoring the marriage vow one made – “…until death do us part…” – is VERY moral. Mrs. Clinton’s decision to honor her vows in spite of her husband’s disregard of his is perfectly reasonable.
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.
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=Starving Artist]
Not at all. She was frequently alluded to, usually facetiously, as a would-be co-president during the first year or two of Clinton’s first term. There were even bumper stickers around at the time that read “Impeach Clinton and her husband.”**
Mm. Yes, I remember. I’m just not sure why it wasn’t moral for her to be delegated responsibility in an official capacity. She wasn’t doing anything behind the scenes. It may have been implied, but IIRC, other than Eleanor Roosevelt, there is no other first lady I can think of that was actually qualified to sit on the committees she was on (healthcare, social reform, etc.) She may have been appointed by Bill, but it’s ridiculous to argue her qualifications.
How hard could it possibly have been to unite Texas? Aside from Austin, it’s pretty much Conservative/Christian all the way. And not only has he not done a good job of bringing the country together, people now view opposing parties as “the enemy.” That’s not supposed to be how it is, is it? Two warring factions just trying to get over on each other? The left feels like a defeated enemy, and is pretty much treated that way. “Don’t like it? Move to Iraq!” Bush has done everything he can to make damn sure Dems know their place: under his boot.
Whether you want to admit it or not, this country works best when no one party is completely in control. I despise Newt Gingrich with every fiber of my being, but when the conservatives were in control of Congress and a Dem president was in the White House, this country enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity we hadn’t seen since post WW2.
It’s NOT this, it’s’ NOT that. What the fuck is it then? 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.
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? People don’t get a pass because they belong to a certain group, they get a pass if they stop trying to tell other people how to live their lives.
Maybe if you’d take your head out of your fucking asshole, you’d realize that not every little thing is about how evil Bush is, or how nefarious the Republicans are. I’ll be holding my breath while I continue to scroll by your worthless drivel of pedantic drive by posts and you continue to be a waste of god damned space.
SA, perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you came to this deep understanding of her psyche and motivations. Please also tell us if you apply the same standards to, say Nancy Reagan as a person.
The reasons you propose are all in your own imagination. You hate because you hate. You don’t even realize that your purported reasons are simply rationalizations of your hatred. The fact that others inhabit your same echo chamber, and have done this such as print bumper stickers to express their own hatred, in no way lessens your own.
It’s odd (or at least it should be odd) to hear that a President should not be able to delegate tasks to a trusted longtime associate with substantial demonstrated capabilities if that person happens to be his spouse as well. Get the fuck over that, too.
This makes no sense whatever, either:
Wrong wrong wrong. The divisive acts were his determination to invade Iraq and his failure to press the capture of bin Laden and exterminate Al Qaeda. You do know, I hope, that it had nothing to do with 9/11, right? You do know that it was widely understood ahead of his Iraq fiasco that he was telling falsehoods about the reasons, right? You do know he wasn’t (and isn’t) willing to listen to any views he doesn’t already hold, right?
9/11 was a strongly *unifying * act. At no time have we ever been as strongly supportive of a Commander in Chief. We virtually all agreed that the Taliban had to be ousted and Al Qaeda eliminated. He actually made good progress toward those goals before using them as rationalizations for the pre-existing PNAC agenda that caught his fancy. If he’d kept doing what he should have been doing, he’d be known as a unifier, right. But he didn’t, and he isn’t, and only a reflexively-partisan hater would say the opposite.
You can keep this shit up if you like, though. It only serves to discredit your position.
I don’t know. If I had to guess, then I would say “probably”.
I guess I just don’t understand this position so many posters here are taking that I have no right to judge the actions of the President/First Lady/Potential President. Of course I have the right to judge them. I’m a taxpayer, a citizen and a voter. Why would I not have the right to make judgements on what I see and think and then act upon them?
I mean, if you disagree with me about the Clinton’s being moral people, or about what is or is not moral behaviour that’s fine. But, how can you possibly argue that it’s not right and proper to judge the people I’m voting into office? If a possible presidential candidate is a thief, a liar, cheats on his or her spouse, or engages in any behaviour that I don’t find moral I have every right in the world to make judgements about it and act on those judgements in the voting booth.
It seems to me that some poeple here are taking the politically correct “everybody has a right to do whatever they want” attitude to a rediculous extreme here.
This question has been asked and answered. Then asked again, and answered again. Here it is one more time: If you are a liar about one thing, then you are likely to be a liar about other things. If you lie and cheat regarding relationships, then that’s an indicator that you’d lie and cheat regarding other things as well.
I’d only add to this that I would prefer my leaders have the same values and morals that I do. I’d vote for a less qualified candidate for president as long as he valued same things I do, if the other option did not.
I’ve explained why my post was not a fallacy. Your continued deliberate ignorance about that particular fallacy is now your own doing.
Your analogy is stupid because not voting for a person based on race is racist and unfair. Not voting for a person based on their actions or behaviour is perfectly sensible and fair.
Oh, but she was, though. That was a very large part of the resentment that was brought to bear on her. She closeted herself away behing closed doors with a huge team of advisors whose names were kept secret and together they set about trying to construct the largest government social program that had ever existed. She was not elected, no one knew much about her at all, and she had no standing through experience or public mandate to be trying to foist this pet project of hers onto the American public. While it may have been ‘legal’ for Clinton to allow her to do this (I say ‘allow’ because I don’t recall her even having been assigned a title or position…she was just the president’s wife) just as it would with any appointment he might make, it is also our right to disapprove, just as we might with any other appointment. In her case, this disapproval is especially strong because she really had no standing other than being married to the president in going behind closed doors and trying to cram this program down our throats.
I’m not arguing her qualifications, I’m arguing her standing as health czar (and whatever else she might have tried to take over had she gotten away with that). I don’t see how being a small-time Arkansas lawyer qualifies her for such a position anyway.
Maureen, such was the case decades before Bush took office. The right and left in this country have been at war since the late sixties. I blame most of the “enemy” quality regarding the way each side views each other on simple politics and the media. Regarding politics, starting in the sixties it became popular to demonize the other side in order to motivate action in favor of the demonizer. The left started it through wholesale rejection of the values and way of life that existed prior to that time and were abetted by a willing and same-thinking mass media. The right began to feel defeated and minimized and things continued that way until Rush Limbaugh came onto the scene. He was brilliant at demonizing the left and all the pent-up frustration and resentment the right had been feeling finally found a voice. Then on the heels of Limbaugh, came cable television and the Fox Network with O’Reilly, Hannity, et al. These people have done an excellent job of giving the right a voice and now the two sides, socially-speaking, are about equal…with each side despising each other and believing that if the other side prevails, civilization as we know it will come to an end.
Did you feel that way about the many decades in the last century when Congress was pretty much permanently in the hands of the Democrats and we had either primarily impotent Republican presidents who couldn’t accomplish much because of Congress or Democrat presidents who were aligned with Congress in the way it is now with Republicans? I suspect not.
Well, then, why on EARTH did you vote for George W Bush? Because the only thing on that list he has NOT done (as far as we know) is cheat on his wife.
No. I just don’t think that you can hold a certain standard to one person and not another. It’s called “hypocracy.”
Okay. How about if you lie and get a lot of people killed? Surely that’s still a bad thing, would you not agree? See, twisting and turning and trying to say “but, he cheated on his wife! And she let him get away with it!” and then turning around and refusing to apply those same principles to someone, just because he represents your political party totally nullifies your argument.
Peachy. So, again: Why did you vote for GWB? Because, really, he’s done everything you’ve been decrying all along, here. And cost a lot of lives in the process.
Except that your explanation is hypocritical. Putting your hands over your ears and yelling “lalalalalalalala” won’t make that go away.
I find this very difficult to believe. When I heard about the Lewinsky affair, I wasn’t surprised in the slightest. Do you think that I knew more about his philandering than his own wife did? She knew he was a cheater and stayed with him anyway.
Who’s saying that?
(a cite would be great)
It’s her choice to stay in the relationship. Nobody is disputing that. What I’ve simply pointed out is that if you do stay with a cheating husband then you should expect to be embarrassed and humiliated. This isn’t my fault. It’s the fault of the cheating husband.
Your conclusion here is far from “logical”. I’m not the president. He gets to lead the free world, but at the expense of some privacy.
So it’s wrong, wrong, wrong to look at a candidates marriage when judging them, but it’s OK to look at a candidates children to make judgements? This doesn’t make sense.
Just for the record: I’m an atheist. I’m not one of these big “family values” right wingers. Actually, AFAIK, there aren’t even any of those types on this board at all. I just think if you tolerate a cheating spouse then you should understand that you look like a fool.
debaser, why do refuse to consider that the objections to your position are based on your own hypocrisy? A moral standard that varies depending on its subject is nothing of the sort. 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. You decry any and all lies by the Clintons, but are willing to excuse (and even applaud!) Bush’s. This claim of yours about your moral standards is transparent rationalization for your own hatred.
SA, you do know that the health care proposal was going to have to go through Congress first, right? That our other elected representatives were going to have their own chance to do whatever they wanted with it before anything tangible ever happened, right? That there wasn’t going to be any down-the-throat action on the part of the Hillary Cabal, right? Well, maybe not - there’s so much else you don’t know, and are proud of not knowing, that those things are probably among them.
Speaking of false claims to the use of moral standards: How do you feel about Cheney’s energy-policy task force?
Nice crocodile tears about “the media” being at fault for our partisan divide. It is, in fact, hate-ridden persons such as yourself who are most responsible for it. The media only provides a product if it has a market. Hateful commentary exists because it has a hateful audience. If you could accept some adult responsibility, and your compatriots could do the same, guess what would happen?
you with the face, since this statement keeps coming up, perhaps I’d better claify it. I never said nor intended to say the Clinton’s marriage was a “sham.” That would imply it existed for appearance’s sake only. I think they are truly fond of each other, I just don’t thing Hillary cared about Bill’s philandering until it became a public problem. She strikes me as the type that during her college days, which were after all during the free-love era, she might have decided, in her smug, superior and misguided way, that society was silly to put such emphasis on physical fidelity. After all, it’s just sex, isn’t it? What’s important is how you feel about each other.
I knew many people during that era who adopted that attitude and being her, I wouldn’t be surprised if her feelings of moral and intellectual superiority over most of the rest of us have caused her to adopt this attitude and continue it throughout most of her marriage.
I’m going to need you to open your mind up really wide…
There are some people that disagree with you!
Get it?
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.
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.
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.
I don’t refuse to apply principles to anybody bcecause of a political party. (I’m not a republican BTW).
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.
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.
My ears are uncovered. I hear everything just fine, thank you. Maybe you should check yours?
Dear, dear, Elvis. You’re so wrong about so many things, where do I start?
First of all, you seem to have latched onto this ‘hater’ thing where I’m concerned. Please, this is not so. I hate very few people in this world and if you’ll recall from earlier in this thread I demurred from using the word in regard to Hillary herself, instead using the more appropriate words “loathe” and “despise.” If you continue to call me a hater and propose that my beliefs are guided or driven by hate, you will only continue to expose your own ignorance. Most of the friends I’ve made on these boards are liberals and most of the friends I have away here – even though we often disagree – are liberals.
And yes, of course I’m aware that Congress would have had to vote on Hillary’s health care program. But you know…Democrat president/Democrat Congress/Huge Government Spending Program…
), 9/11 changed everything. Had that not occurred he may actually have been a unifying president. He was a unifier during his time as governor in Texas, both with the state’s politicians and its voters.