BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 10:01 AM

Also sprach Cruiser: That is an unfair ploy people use to distort what someone said. I am guessing it was just an oversight, correct?

Not so, gentle reader. Absolutely incorrect.

The edited quotation is a referent, employed to avoid taking up space unnecessarily. The presumption being that you, gentle reader - even unto the slightly to moderately brain damaged - seeing the ellipses will know that something has been redacted and may resort to the full text of the original by dint of the onerous task of scrolling back several posts.

Now we have established, dear reader, that placing the ellipsis indicates that something has been left out. Surely were I attempting the alleged nefarious practices, my machiavellian intellect would suggest that I not give myself away quite so readily.

Now, as to the pervasive "oral sex is not real sex" argument, gentle reader, this demonstrably predates the Clintons by decades if not milennia. Surely Clinton's behavior has had the same deep and lasting effect on teenage behavior as did Nancy Reagan's fatuous and idiotic 'Just say no'.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: mg
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 12:14 AM

I have nothing against her staying a state senator. I think Barak Obama will be the next candidate and probably president and I like him. I think she will be blown out of the water if she runs. I am liking Bill more as an ex-president and her more as a senator. I don't trust either of them separately or together and I do not care whatsoever if either have had dozens of affairs. I do care about the predatory aspects of what he seems to have done or has been credibly accused of..not with Monica L. but a number of other women. I think there is a point at which you leave someone and I think he crossed it and it might be an oh but I love him case or it might be more calculating to stay with him but it is her choice to keep him and mine not to vote for her. I would love to see a good woman running but I would rather we have an African-American (one could be both of course) right now and we have a great one under the microscope right now. A woman VP (ABH) would be great...I like Maria Cantwell and others I like seem to be Republican...bottom line I don't trust Hillary one bit. mg

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Cruiser
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:52 PM

Big Mick,

Sounds good to me; Thanks. I also make incorrect assumptions. Your ability to acknowledge what you did states volumes about your character.

The bit about the sex will always be open to interpretation and opinion. I certainly do not mind you challenging what I stated. That is what debate is all about. Good luck with whomever you consider the best candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:19 PM

Fair enough, Cruiser, I stand corrected on your comments about voting. You did, indeed, make those comments and I had forgotten them. It appears to me that you are a person who thinks their way through things and is genuine. I am sorry about my incorrect assumption.

But I don't buy the bit about oral sex. There is no doubt that Clinton disappointed many of us, but to lay this at his doorstep goes beyond what I am prepared to accept. Just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:04 PM

Interesting comments, Cruiser. I understand perfectly your disillusionment with both the Republican and the Democratic candidates who are seeking your vote. It is indeed a dilemma. A corrupted system which taints virtually everyone who rises up the political chain of command has basically robbed people of a decent choice at election time.

The same has happened in Canada with our main political parties, although it's a much more muted situation here, and the stakes are not nearly so high.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Cruiser
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 08:33 PM

Greg F

Here is what I wrote:

"partly because of Clinton's actions and subsequent statements, teens thought oral sex was not "real" sex."

What Greg F wrote:

the current dramatic rise of STDs of the oral cavity in young teens ... because of Clinton's actions and subsequent statements...

My full sentence:

A recent professional discussion on the current dramatic rise of STDs of the oral cavity in young teens revealed that, partly because of Clinton's actions and subsequent statements, teens thought oral sex was not "real" sex.

Greg, you edited out important words and took what I said out of context by using ellipses (…) to omit words in their proper phrase. That is an unfair ploy people use to distort what someone said. I am guessing it was just an oversight, correct?

I did not make a direct scientific causal (cause and effect) relationship between STDs and what Clinton said or did. It does not work that way. What I stated is my OPINION based on news reports, interviews, and what I have read and seen.

The point is, what Clinton said, to paraphrase: that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, has been partially responsible for leading some people, including teens, to say oral sex is not sex. Therefore, they could still justify calling themselves virgins if they had oral sex but not vaginal sex. Now, if there is a greater number of teens having oral sex because of the current laxer attitude towards oral sex and "partly because of Clinton's actions and subsequent statements, teens thought oral sex was not "real" sex" then it logically follows to me, some professional investigators, and some interviewers, that there is a greater chance of teens getting oral STDs.

Big Mick:

There have been several news programs on radio and TV that have discussed the subject. Below is a link on the NBC interview about a year ago. I could not find the other TV documentary with a Google search. I guess not all shows are cataloged on Google.

As far as being a Republican and not criticizing my party, I said I despise Mr. Bush it the same post above that you quoted and I have said elsewhere on this forum that I voted mostly for Democrats this time around and voted for Kerry last time. I will state this now: I am very disappointed with my party and I would vote for a Democrat if any were worthy of my vote. There is not one major Republican currently in Congress, or in the Executive Branch, that I would ever vote for. The dilemma for me is the same applies to Democrats.

This following exchange of small panel of teenagers is not a good sample size of a representative population but it illustrates some opinions, that vary wildly as our discussion has on the subject.

Excerpt from the NBC interview:

Back in 1998, these teens were between the ages of 6 and 11. So how much is their nonchalant attitude about oral sex the result of a presidential affair?

Couric: "President Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman -- with Monica Lewinsky -- when she was having oral sex with him. Do you think that had an impact on kids and the way they view oral sex?"
Group: "Yes, no. Somewhat."
Spencer: "They showed the news thing and the impeachment trial in my school. And it had a big impact. It was everything anyone was talking about. And I guess, most of the kids got from that was if the president can do it, then we can do it."
Couric: "Wait, hold on, hold on, that's Spencer's opinion."
Kameron: "That's not really the effect it had on me, honestly."
Couric: "But on kids your age?"
Group: "No, I don't think so, I don't really think so."
Natalia: "I don't think people paid attention to it that much."
Kameron: "It was more like a chain of things. I think that being televised so much made it easier to talk about oral sex."
Whatever the reason, according to our survey, oral sex is almost always a one-way street.

NBC Interview

I have found that it in my personal and professional life that it often does not matter how much evidence you have on any subject, people tend to think or believe what they want anyway. This thread is not at scientific discussion but just a discussion regarding opinions.

Therefore, my OPINION is if you Democrats put Hillary up as your presidential candidate all of the rightwing Christians will vote in mass, swamping your chances of gaining the White House and forcing all of us to live through at least 4 more years of Republican rule.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 07:59 PM

All too true. But it is possible to keep informed, especially in this day of the internet, with the possibility of getting one's news from a whole variety of sources, not just the stock, domestic outlets (i.e., the six o'clock news).

But you have to work at it a bit, and all too many people can't be bothered.

Don Firth

P. S. Gore Vidal made an interesting comment on a radio interview I heard a few weeks ago. Although these days, just reading a newspaper is hardly adequate, the principle of what he said still holds. "They say that only half of the American people ever read a newspaper. It's also said that only half of the American people every bother to vote. One would hope that these are the same people."

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:52 PM

An "informed electorate"???? In a society where all the main media outlets are all owned by a few very rich people who are mainly interested in getting a lot richer and maintaining the status quo? Ha! I'd call that "The Impossible Dream".

It's more like a drugged, brainwashed, and sedated electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:47 PM

As far as the Whitewater "scandal" is concerned, the Clinton's—along with several other people—made a real estate investment, and the deal went sour. The Republicans tried to make some kind of a big deal out of it, claiming that the Clinton's had scammed a bunch of people, but the truth is, they got scammed themselves. They lost in the neighborhood of $60,000 of their own money.

People who have heard something about Whitewater, particularly the Republicans' initial attempts to make political hay out of it, but never bothered to learn the facts, are perpetually bringing up this up, merely reinforcing the principle that, in American politics, to be accused—even if proven, not just innocent, but one of the victims—is to be condemned forever.

So much for the "informed electorate" that Thomas Jefferson said was necessary if democracy was to survive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:16 PM

Nothing - she's too far away. Alas.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:02 PM

Perhaps you could get taken on as an intern...

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:51 PM

Oops. "First Gentleman", I meant. Got so excited that I made a typo on that.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:50 PM

Actually, let's get down and talk seriously here. You are no doubt going to get further chances to talk to Hillary, Mick, so here is my plan. You just happen to bring me along next time, and introduce me as "an old and trusted friend". Then, step aside and let the Hawk take over. (LOL!)

Yup, I can see this going just great. I may even get to live in the Oval Office someday soon, who knows? I may get to be "First Genteleman". I'll be nice to Bill, but he is going to have to find another roof to sleep under after Hillary and I are an official item.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:10 PM

Gad, Mick, you've had conversations with her??? Yikes! Be still, my beating heart!!!!   I am totally, absolutely gobsmacked and green with envy! Yowsa! I am hyperventilating!

Do you think you can arrange to pass on one of my love letters to her next time you see her? ;-)

Quite seriously, aside from the (I hope) obvious jokes I made above, I believe you when you describe her as a very intelligent and intense woman. I think she might just be a little too good to ever be found acceptable as presidential material by the American mainstream...but we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: dwditty
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:20 AM

I am of the mind that there is simply no such thing as an ethical politician - and I believe any politician's morals could be argued one way or the other, too. WHo would think that a Yale student jacking off into the Geronimo's skull would become president? (Skull & Bones) So, if you are looking for a leader to set an example of "rightness" (not politically right, necessarily), forget it. There is no candidate to fit that bill.

That being said, I will vote for Hillary, should she be nominated.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:12 AM

Cruiser, you contend the rise in oral STD's is due to Clinton. Source for that claim, please. Or is it just an ill informed opinion?

I would have respect for your opinion, and your claim, I am a registered Republican, but notwithstanding that, I try to use reason on such political issues, if I saw you bringing the same moral outrage on the numbers of Republican, and conservative, hypocrites that we have seen lately and over the years.

I have met and had conversation with Hillary Clinton on several occasions due to my political activity. While I don't claim to be a friend, what I can say is that I have had several opportunities to observe her and talk with her at length. She is strikingly genuine in her beliefs. When she speaks with you, unlike most politicians, she is focused on you and engaged in the conversation. Her intelligence fairly leaps out of the conversation. She reminds me of Senator Carl Levin, in that when you speak with her, bring your A game. She will ask the kinds of probing questions that will expose phoney statements or poorly thought out beliefs. The conversation will challenge you to demonstrate why you think the way you do.

I believe it is easy to have opinions as to why she reacted to a very tough situation in her personal life, which was played out in public. I don't know that any of you could have handled it as well as she did. Black and white pronouncements on that specific issue seem to me to be easy to say.

As to whether she should be President, I am not sure. I agree with LEJ's observations about how she handled and bungled, the attempt to get the Health Care Initiative passed. But I also know that the Clinton's were coming in with an attitude that they could do anything they wanted. They soon got a lesson on "inside the beltway" politics, as well as the error of thinking the American public was ready to embrace radical change. This is the real big leagues of politics. It is my opinion that the Clintons you see after 8 years in the Crucible are not the same that you saw come marching in at the beginning. She is very intelligent and intense, and certainly possesses all the skills necessary to be a great President, as well as the first woman President. I just don't know if she is electable, but there is a side of me that has met her and hopes she runs and is successful. I will say this, if she gets the nod for the nomination, I am coming out of my political retirement to work for her.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:05 AM

I still think she was in a position that was unfair to any woman to have to live out so publicly. She's human and has feelings. Can you imagine the mortification of having the entire world watching this? Would you all be happier if she had freaked out and started divorce proceedings? She was First Lady. She maintained that position with dignity despite what it may have personally cost her. I think she is intelligent and capable. If she became president, I think it would be immensely satisfying to see him have to be subordinate to her.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:04 AM

It wasn't a gender issue when Margaret Thatcher was it; it wasn't a gender issue when Golda Meir was it; it wasn't a gender issue when Kim Campbell was it; why would it be a gender issue with Hillary Clinton? As long as people see leadership through gender-issue eyes, then the sex of the individual will always be judged before the actions of the individual.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Gervase
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:58 AM

Here's another Brit who rather hopes she wins. It is odd trying to work out just why the redneck right hate her with such a vehemence - maybe it's because she's 'uppity' and forgetful that a woman's rightful place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: SINSULL
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:35 AM

Sorry Greg but going all the back to Honest George American presidents have not been honorable, ethical or moral. Politics rules out those qualities. They do however work hard at projecting the image and some succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:31 AM

The President of the United States should set an example of trust, honor, ethics, and moral standards...has done irreparable harm to the Presidency... is responsible for the death of innocent humans.. .It is equally as serious to have persons of the world, enemies and allies alike, who do not respect the office... & on & on...

Yo, Cruise: and you figure the current corrupt lying sack of crap in the White House has measured up to these standards of yours how, precisely?

as for
the current dramatic rise of STDs of the oral cavity in young teens ... because of Clinton's actions and subsequent statements...

puh-leeze!

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Cruiser
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:08 AM

Joe,

If Hillary won the presidency, many people like me would strongly resent the fact that Bill Clinton would live in the White House again. Even if she were a competent administrator, Bill's "legacy" would overshadow those accomplishments. Unfortunately, for Hillary at least, this is a prime example of "you can't unring a bell" The damage has been done. Obviously, many people can forget about what happened given the Clinton's present popular status. I guess I am just behind the times, my views are passé and I guess I just do not get it.

Being a bit facetious here, I wonder if ole Billy boy would have a penchant for nostalgia when he visits the Oval Office; How about just one more time for old time's sake? Ah…thanks for the memories! I wonder what Hillary would be thinking about if she were president and while sitting in the Oval Office. Could she keep her mind on critical current foreign affairs or would her mind drift to Bill's and Monica's past affairs, perhaps that occurred in the very spot she attempted her contemplations.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:56 AM

On the divorce thing, as to why no proceedings were stsrted. Could that possibly have been something to do with the fact that a wife cannot be made to testify against her husband and vice versa?

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Zany Mouse
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:47 AM

From a Brit's point of view it always seemed that she ran the country during her husband's 'reign' anyway.

Incidentally, I agree with Joe on this one.

Rhiannon

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 02:06 AM

I like her, and I think she'd make a terrific president. She's intelligent, articulate, and fairly balanced in her outlook. I think she wants what's best for her country, and she'll do her best.

I don't see another potential presidential candidate that I like nearly as well, although McCain and Obama would certainly be interesting possibilities.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:31 AM

True, Cruiser. ;-) I figure, quite seriously, we would have better, more honest governments if there were no political parties at all and no elections either...but if leaders and representatives were chosen by lot at regular intervals from among a very large pool of all the qualified people from the ordinary public who were willing (and able...meaning they had the basic qualifications, education, etc) to take on the job.

You could also have a recall system, with voting, at scheduled intervals, to replace said representatives with someone else if they proved to be incompetent for whatever reason.

But I'm just dreaming, of course. Things are going to go on as they have been, and I know it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Linda Goodman Zebooker
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 12:23 AM

It IS a good joke, Ebbie. It shows self-confidence, is all.

When Hilary Clinton began to campaign for Senate I was still living in the state, and it got my hackles up- such an outsider! But immediately she went around on the "Listening Tour" and spoke to EVERYONE. It was clear she had a real grasp of the problems of that fairly rural+plus+ rustbelt Western New York Region, which continually lost two jobs or more for each new one gained. --Linda Goodman

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Cruiser
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:26 PM

Little Hawk, I cannot say Dipwallow! to what you say.

We have all known so many good intelligent people in our lives and it is so frustrating that those people cannot, will not, or for whatever reason run for public office. It is almost as if we need a Draft to force people into the public service of their country. BTW, I am also for reviving the military draft.

Some inequities and conundrums in life are like the lyrics in the old country western song: "It's jus one of them thangs you cain't do nothin' about".

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:02 PM

Cruiser, I think it is probably very difficult for anyone who reaches the office of president of the United States these days not to be a "very flawed unethical" person by the time they get there. Why? Because of how the political system works, and what you must do to succeed in it and work your way to the top. Lying is part of the game. Handing out favours under the table, accepting same, and influence peddling of every sort is part of the game. The system does not encourage "honor, integrity, honesty, (and) the ability to admit mistakes". It encourages the antithesis of all of those.

And that is why both the Republicans and Democrats have placed some very immoral and flawed people in high office. I expect they will probably continue to do so.

I do not expect good government from either one of those parties, and I will frankly be quite surprised if they ever manage to provide it.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:25 PM

That defines dammned near the whole US Congress, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:23 PM

her ill concieved, cowardly "centrist" support for invading Iraq from the start.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:19 PM

Oh, BuffY, I would give Cruiser lots of credit for explaining at some length where he was coming from. I wouldn't ask for more. You might add a little background about yourself as well. If you were a Mudcat member you could find out more about me if you were interested.

I was less than impressed with Bill Clinton when he was first running for President in 1992 and he and Hillary paid a visit to Democrats in Portland, Maine. Hillary made no impression at all. I was impressed that he got elected and re-elected and depressed that he was indiscreet enough to get sexually involved with an intern. That was poor judgment on his part and overshadowed the major things he accomplished in other parts of the White House such as reducing the budget deficit four years in a row.

I hope Hillary stays a U.S. Senator and a new person makes his or her own way to be Democratic candidate for President. Of course, whomever they are they will in turn be demonized by the Republicans.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Cruiser
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:00 PM

Mr. Bill D,

Okay, we are philosophically going to disagree on this one issue. My point is, in my opinion, and based on my values alone, Hillary would have put her self-respect, honor, and potential professional aspirations ahead of her marriage if she had the moral character I want to see in someone seeking that high an office.

Bill Clinton is in the same liar's category as Nixon (whom I voted for and later regretted because of his revealed deep flaws) Clinton is unworthy of any moral acclaim. He did well with the budget and with foreign affairs mainly because of his Cabinet. In addition, I think people often put charisma ahead of what really matters, at least to me, for someone in high office; honor, integrity, honesty, the ability of admit mistakes, and the self-respect not succumb to the most basic of human temptations while in a position of trust. The end does not justify the means, especially in this case.

My definition of a sexual creep would include anyone who would penetrate any woman vaginally with a cigar in the Oval Office (Clinton demeaned it to the "Oral" Office). In addition, remember that the oral sex, including oral-anal sex, was not a one-time spur of the moment "weak moment". It happened about 9 times according to sworn testimony.

Therefore, if Hillary is willing to stay married to a creep like Bill Clinton she does not have the moral fiber or self-respect to hold high office.

I would take a Jimmy Carter anytime, any day, over a Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: GUEST,Buffy
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:42 PM

Cruiser could use a good blowjob. He's should have the stick surgically removed from his backside first though; he'll snap it off in the clinch...

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:32 PM

That rumor about them destroying public property (computers) as they left was a bold faced lie. That loudmouth, O'Reilley spouted it all ove Faux tv, and even when he found out that it was a lie, he still didn't apologize.

I was looking toward John McCain until he came out in favor of sending more troops to that quagmire in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:22 PM

Cruiser....what you implied, and what I rejected, was that she should have DIVORCED Bill over his stupid (sure he was stupid) bit of messing around IN the White House with an intern! (even if, as seems the case, she started it). IF that had not happened, most of what we remember would be that he dealt with the budget and had a VERY comprehensive knowlege of foreign policy.

As to the health care debacle, it is questionable whether any serious plan would have gotten thru a Republican dominated congress......sure, she was pretty naive about how to push and what to include, but I have no doubt she would not make THAT mistake again.

I, also, have some doubts that she can be elected, given the knee-jerk response to her name for many folks, but I STILL think she could handle the job.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:23 PM

Bobert

The best product in the world would gather dust on the shelf if you couldn't sell it. Selling the health care package was part of Hillary's job. And don't tell me it was up to Bill, or the Congressional Dems. It was her baby from day one, and she blew it.

Now she has considerably improved her sales skills, I wonder if she has a product. Other than herself, I mean.

LEJ

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:29 PM

Well, well, well...

I'm surprised that no one yet has mentionesd the first thing that comes to my mind about what I hacve against Hillary Clinton and that is...

...her support for the war!!!

Yeah, that's 'nuff fir me, thank you... I can compromise on other issues but not this one... She'd have to come almost full circle for me to support this otherwise capabale and smart woman... Like say flat out... I was wrong!!! (with no qualifiers...)

As for the health care thing that she tried to pull off as First Lady, she impressed me emensely... I don't rememebr any other First Lady takin' on such a large and controversal issue and I think she did a very good job with her various comitteees and her final product...

BTW, had the Repubs not shot this down, the country, IMO, would be a lot better off today...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Cruiser
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:27 PM

Ebbie et al.

Firstly, I replied to your thread mostly because you are a woman. I have a great deal of respect for women and I look forward to the day when the first competent qualified woman becomes President of the United States. I do not want a masculine woman (think of past world leaders, how is that for male bias?) I want a "real" woman who is capable of reasoning and has the educational credentials to lend credence to her ability to think critically.

I acknowledge to sometimes being black and white it my views, but only following thinking things through and mostly only regarding human social behavior and based on my opinion. I have spent a good deal of my life in the science field and have dealt with scientific methodology. I am acutely aware of the non black/white shades of grey chromatic nature of life. I welcome that diversity and variability as the fact of evolution and view life as extremely beautiful, even to the extent of recognizing the beauty of a deadly virus or bacterium under high-powered microscopy. I do draw the line, in my own mind at least, when it comes to issues involving certain current social mores.

Bill D, jaze and others: WHERE the act occurred and by WHOM are of utmost importance. WHAT occurred is not the issue.   Mr. Clinton was in a position of authority "over" a subordinate in the office that should symbolize what is, or should be, good, right, and honorable about our democracy.

I have been in a position of authority when I could have taken advantage of potential consensual sexual situations. However, no matter how strong sexual urges are, there are just some situations where ethical, moral men and women abstain from disgracing a position of trust and authority. I missed several experiences I know I wanted but would have regretted because I would have violated my employer's trust and more importantly my own self-respect. In Clinton's case, his employers were also the American people and it had ramifications (no pun intended) throughout the world. The President of the United States should set an example of trust, honor, ethics, and moral standards worthy of emulation. If you have read some about Clinton, you will remember he idolized JFK and likely emulated Kennedy's sexual exploits subconsciously or consciously. Young men and women should in turn not think what Clinton did was cool and worthy of emulation.

A recent professional discussion on the current dramatic rise of STDs of the oral cavity in young teens revealed that, partly because of Clinton's actions and subsequent statements, teens thought oral sex was not "real" sex. The scientific evidence of infections of the buccal cavity illustrates otherwise. During the discussion a group of young teenaged girls, when asked why they would do something so intimate to someone they did not love and barely knew, retorted while giggling; "President Clinton did it!" I do not have a daughter (just a son), but if I did I would not want her life marred by permanent STDs anywhere, but especially not of the mouth and throat.   

I am most certainly not a prude, I am an atheist, and without further details, I have experienced just about everything sexually pleasurable a woman can do to a man. I still would not do certain things in certain places no matter how strong the stimuli. A free will, the ability to reason and exhibit moral behavior are several of the many characteristics that separate us from other members of the animal kingdom.

Furthermore, I despise Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton equally. They are both deservedly the brunt of jokes and have done irreparable harm to the Presidency. One fool is responsible for the death of innocent humans while the other "killed" the high moral standard of and respect for the most important office in the world. It is equally as serious to have persons of the world, enemies and allies alike, who do not respect the office and power of the presidency. Such disrespect will often lead to disputes then war, which inevitably leads back to senseless killing and destruction.

In closing, JFK was not worthy of the office either and further reading by anyone will reveal he was also a very flawed unethical immoral man. Just because we have had many very flawed past presidents does not justify those flaws that have worldwide consequences. Perhaps having a woman in the office of the presidency will change the paradigm of political science to the betterment of our Nation and the world. However, unless some of my aged college professors consider running, I do not see any woman now that has the integrity and qualifications that should be required for that high office. Hillary will only cause the Democrats to lose any chance of regaining the White House. If she has any moral bearing whatsoever she will not ever run for that office. Unfortunately, I do not think the Democrats have a chance with the current field of potential candidates, male or female.

(I am a registered Republican, but notwithstanding that, I try to use reason on such political issues, if that is even possible with politics)

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:19 PM

Actually, that is why the major parties in the USA often pick totally unexciting milquetoast individuals as their candidate for president. They don't dare to try running anyone who is controversial in any sense or outspoken or anything like that....some people might not like him/her! ;-) This results in some truly mediocre candidates for president, and you can only watch and wonder, "What were they thinking?" as they run some personality-less schmuck who is so totally lacking in charisma that a dog wouldn't vote for him.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:08 PM

The only thing I have against Hillary is her determnation to run for president, wich will inevitably deliver the presidency into the hands of the Republicans. She Cannot Win- Period. This is not to say that she is not qualified to be president- hell, look at the incumbent!-
but that given the (largely undeserved) negative baggage she carries, and the foam-at-the-mouth reaction of the Bushite contingets, she is unelectable.

I'm still in hopes someone can convince her to step aside. The last goddamn thing the U. S. needs is Ptresident Vicar of Bray Feet of Clay tocheslekker McCain or President who the hell needs public services or infrastructureGeorge ( what IS it with that first name anyway? ) George Pataki.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:04 PM

Well, I really don't have anything against her but, as MarkS said above, she really doesn't have any track record of her own. Just about everything for or against her is really a reflection of Bubba (for whom I voted twice and who is running away better than the current incumbent). Given two junior senators, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama, she would not be my first pick.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Scoville
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 05:03 PM

The REPUBLICANS ran her health plan into the ground. Remember all that outcry about "We elected her husband, not her?".

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: My guru always said
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:55 PM

Oh Boy, am I glad it's not me you're chatting about - I wouldn't even want to be President *grin*
Hil

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:48 PM

"Or she is the most idiotic woman on the face of the earth."

Ummm...no, SINSULL. That would more likely be my mother's friend, Helen.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:43 PM

Here's what I have against Hillary

1)She went into congress during the first Clinton term with a universal health plan that made a hell of a lot more sense than what we have now, but tried to ram it through without rallying any support for it, by attaching it to a budget appropriations bill. She and the bill went down in flames, setting ANY health care reform back twenty years.

2)Having learned the value of compromise and keeping a low profile from this awesome defeat, she has become the ultimate Senate compromiser aand concilliator, refusing to take a high profile stance on ANY controversial bill or stance. She has become one of the most popular Senators across party lines due to these skills and this strategy.

That's what I don't like about her. What I do like about her is the fact that I think she still holds the belief that real and necessary reform is possible, despite the fact she rarely talks about it. And somehow I think the new compromizing Hillary may have the political will and skill to get these reforms accomplished.

Oh, one other thing I don't like. She can declaim "GOD BLESS AMERICA" to a crowd of New York police officers and make it sound like a 7th grade math teacher telling them to pipe down.

But that's Hill for you.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:36 PM

Clinton's non-sex was none of my business. The same goes for all the other presidents including some recent Republicans.
My objection to Hillary is her "hurt wife" routine when the scandal went public. She knew about his indiscretions and chose to do nothing about it IMO because she was more concerned about her own political asperations than her marriage. The wounded wife nonsense made her a first-class liar who thinks the public is made up of first class fools. Or she is the most idiotic woman on the face of the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:32 PM

I don't dislike and mistrust because she's a 'strong woman' (whatever that means in relation to someone who is essentially a nepotist).
I dislike and mistrust her because of the Whitewater corruption, the White House travel scandal, her failure to accomplish a health plan, her covering for Bill's dishonesty, the theft of stuff from the White House, and her running for office in a state she didn't come from. All wrapped in a selfrighteousness that implies anyone who doesn't vote for her is a sexist.
It doesn't make me a sexist because I like my politicians more honest and more productive.

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:31 PM

As Johhnny Carson in his turban used to say, May the sewers of Rangoon back up into your breakfast cereal, Little Hawk!!!


LOL!


A

Subject: RE: BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:27 PM

Humph. NO sympathy here for my Hillary heartbreak, is there? Well, phooey on you people. I hope you all find weevils in your breakfast food, specially Amos. ;-)