[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Fair enough. I retract my outrage.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that I’d go so far as to do that. Furniture stealing and keyboard jokes are pretty low on my priority list, but if someone actually wouldn’t vote for her because of this, and this alone, I guess it’s fair game.
Now, gun control, that’s a different story. If she shot up the White House in a drunken orgy, I’d reconsider my position (and beg the lack-of-god-above that there be no pictures)
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Oh come on. If someone gives a bullpoop reason that’s based on a lie aren’t you supposed to refute it? Is the purpose of this thread to assemble a hate Hillary laundry list? If so have a mod move it to IMHO.
It’s perfectly acceptable to point out when someone posts a lying piece of propaganda as a reason for hating Hillary in the Why the Hatred of Hillary thread.
[/QUOTE]
Of course…but the one I’m talking about isn’t a matter of “fact” and it’s not lying propaganda of any kind. It’s a matter of opinion & political philosophy. My issue isn’t exactly with refuting it, anyway…this thread isn’t exactly the place for it, but if someone wants to give a cogent argument for why such tax hikes are needed, that’s one thing. But this act BrainGlutton is putting on where he acts confused over how anyone could oppose those tax hikes is BS, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=control-z]
The fact that she ran for Congress in New York and WON! WTF??!?! Never did figure that one out. What does Hillary have to do with New York?
[/QUOTE]
She lives there. I am not aware of any other requirements.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
She lives there. I am not aware of any other requirements.
[/QUOTE]
Why would the New York voters vote for someone from Arkansas, why would they think Hillary would represent the interests of New York? Was it for the novelty value? And why would Hillary even run in New York? Why not Oregon or Nevada or North Carolina?
[QUOTE=control-z]
Why would the New York voters vote for someone from Arkansas, why would they think Hillary would represent the interests of New York? Was it for the novelty value? And why would Hillary even run in New York? Why not Oregon or Nevada or North Carolina?
[/QUOTE]
It was Rep. Charles Rangel’s idea. Anyway, the people of New York did elect her – twice. Can’t chalk up the second time to novelty value. (BTW, she grew up in Chicago, not Arkansas.)
[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
Hillary is a good, conservative Christian? That’s one more reason to hate her! Please add to my list.
Thank you
[/QUOTE]
Actually you misunderstood. I was saying that it is the conservative christians who bash her yet she is upholding one of their traditional family values..which republicans claim that they have more of than democrats..I am making the point that the right wing is hypocritical and they only find reasons to tarnish her name because she is much more liked and has a higher chance of winning than any of the republican canidates..that and they hate Bill for whatever reason so they are picking on her.
[QUOTE=xxfireangel13xx]
Actually you misunderstood.
[/QUOTE]
No, I was making a joke. This happens sometimes, yet I find I’m not very good at it.
You see it’s not just Right Wing Dittoheads that dislike her. While BobLibDem (capitalization right?) and I have very little in common, he’s far to the left of her and I’m on a whole different axis, we both dislike the Republican Party and Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
[
(BTW, she grew up in Chicago, not Arkansas.)
[/QUOTE]
BTW to your BTW, she grew up in Park Ridge, which is a separate city,albeit a suburb of Chicago.
Aside from the aforementioned history, I don’t like her because she bends her principles to the will of the political wind. They all (politicians) do that, but she has to be the most egregious example I’ve ever encountered.
She’s shrill, she’s mean, she’s false and is only in it, and has only EVER been in it for the power.
I will say this though, if she does win the election, there are going to be a LOT of upset lefties. That woman will, sometime in her 2 terms, (she’ll be elected twice if she’s elected once) be forced to prove herself, and will unleash the dogs of hell on anyone in the middle east (or anywhere else for that matter) who tests her mettle, and she will do it like nobody’s ever done it before. If she’s got the balls, she may just do it in the first term. In any case, Hillary Clinton will be a war President.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But, they should be increased, and far more than increased . . . so what is your point?
[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you talking about?
My sense on Hillary is that she simply isn’t qualified to be president. She wasn’t governor of Arkansas, she wasn’t president of the US, she rode on the coattails of her husband. She’s only senator because enough of her husband’s halo effect rubbed off on her to get her elected to represent a district that she isn’t even from. And she’s willing to go through the nationally visible humiliation of sticking with her oogy husband in order to retain her political capital. That’s why I don’t like her.
As to why I doubt her electability, I have adult memory of the Clinton years when the name “Hillary” was behind only “Satan” and “Ted Kennedy” as names that would stir conservatives into a spittly froth. If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, you can be assured that the Republicans will see a groundswell of saliva-encrusted fanatics come out to vote against her. Hillary is the thing that can heal the rift between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives… they both hate her.
And another thing… I realize that after 2 terms of GWB, any alternative is looking pretty damned good at this point. But is Hillary really who we want history to record as the first woman president? She’s nothing but a pure political player, and a particularly sketchy one at that. I realize this is what the presidency has been for nearly a generation now, but shouldn’t we be trying to get back to the point where we have leaders instead of people who play the power game well?
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
My sense on Hillary is that she simply isn’t qualified to be president. She wasn’t governor of Arkansas, she wasn’t president of the US, she rode on the coattails of her husband.
[/QUOTE]
Well, this appears to be an unusual election cycle. There are some current or former state governors in both parties’ fields, but except for Romney, they are not among the front-runners. This year it’s the senators’ turn. Just seems to have turned out that way. Really, who in the Dem field is better qualified, by yours standards? Richardson? At least HRC was an administration insider for eight years (despite holding no official position but First Lady). Presumably she knows everything about Washington her husband knows.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
I realize this is what the presidency has been for nearly a generation now, but shouldn’t we be trying to get back to the point where we have leaders instead of people who play the power game well?
[/quote]
Like who?
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Puh-leeeze. I think THAT honor goes to the Bush and his minions for saying/implying that those who don’t support his Iraq blunder are at best unpatriotic and at worst terrorists.
[/QUOTE]
cite, please
Actually it was HC who screamed that we have a right to dissent w/o being called unpatriotic, although GWB had never done anything like it.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Hasn’t this one been debunked enough times yet?
[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
Is it your opinion that America should be massively in debt?
[/QUOTE]
Budget deficit is now down to 1% of GNP and shrinking. That’s massive???
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
We have a whopping deficit now, and there is no way to reduce it without raising taxes. That is not a matter of opinion.
[/QUOTE]
See above. Now it’s not just massive, but whopping. Actually it’s tiny.
And it is certainly a matter of opinion. Your saying it is true does not end debate.
[QUOTE=Plan B]
Budget deficit is now down to 1% of GNP and shrinking. That’s massive???
[/QUOTE]
Not including The War
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
Do you have a cite for this? I don’t doubt that her reaction to the attack is recorded somewhere or that she mentioned her daughter living in the city, I’m just wondering what she lied about.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=saoirse]
Not including The War
[/QUOTE]
That article says nothing about this year’s deficit to GNP ratio. In fact I don’t even think the term GNP is used once.
[QUOTE=Plan B]
The most divisive comment in US history, the one about “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”
[/QUOTE]
Are you joking about this, because on its face it looks like one of the most incredibly stupid things I’ve ever read here.
Well, it’s in the top 500, at least.
HC’s hyperbole is nothing compared to yours. One can plausibly argue that while there’s no centralized conspiracy giving marching orders and formulating a master plan to “get” the Clintons, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Americans who did and still do gladly pass along any spurious rumour about them, any specious factoid, any negative claim no matter how ridiculous, implausible or already debunked. Though they aren’t working as a team, per se, their numbers and their widespread geography (every state in the union, I’d expect) are arguably pretty “vast”. So what percentage of Americans do you think would take active steps to smear the Clintons, facts be damned? 0.5? 0.1? 0.01? Even the last number suggests about 30,000 people.
As for calling it the most divisive statement in U.S. history… that is some serious bullshit, making you, I guess, one of the 30,000 who will casually abandon fact to try to make a point. At the very least, Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech was more influential and controversial. George Wallace’s “Segregation forever!” surely was more divisive. Any of Nixon’s Vietnam-related speeches would have to edge out Hillary’s moment of frustration. If I had to guess at the single most divisive comment, I might nominate the so-called Cornerstone Speech but there are plenty of other valid choices.
Please do me a personal favour and break open your piggy bank, go down to the corner store and buy some badly-needed perspective.
[QUOTE=Plan B]
That article says nothing about this year’s deficit to GNP ratio. In fact I don’t even think the term GNP is used once.
[/QUOTE]
Nobody really uses GNP anymore, GDP is the term now preferred to describe the national output (although in reality they don’t vary by much, maybe 0.1%). The article referenced does point out that the true impact of the war on the budget deficit is being delayed/obscured because the war has been funded from emergency appropriations instead of an actual budget item.
However, your figure of 1% seems suspect, so I did some digging. According to the CIA world factbook, the US public debt as percentage of GDP is 67% (cite ). In fact wikipedia puts this information in a table where you can see, unsurprisingly, that under GWB, the deficit as a percentage of GDP has risen to its highest point ever. (It also shows how “fiscally conservative” republicans Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 are the highest deficit-raisers of all time). I’m not certain what argument you’re trying to make here, but it’s best not to try for republicans being fiscally responsible or keeping the deficit down.