|
25 Nov 03 - 10:53 PM (#1061025) Subject: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie People are becoming concerned that no one person at this point has captured the Democrats' hearts and minds and energies to put up against the Bush in 2004. Each of the current nine candidates has some good points, each has some major flaw or weakness. So my proposal is, how about Hillary Clinton? At the very least, her entry into the race would get out the vote, probably in historic numbers. She is tough, knowledgeable, articulate, has connections, experience with the office... What say you? (Slinging mud is fine, but expect to be able to define and defend your reasoning!) |
|
25 Nov 03 - 10:56 PM (#1061030) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc I'll put my money on her for 2008, but not 2004 -- I don't think she wants to go in with the Bill Clinton rep hanging over her. |
|
25 Nov 03 - 11:03 PM (#1061036) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: artbrooks If I recall, she made a pretty clear pledge to serve out her term in the Senate. Going back on a promise wouldn't be the best way to start a campaign. |
|
25 Nov 03 - 11:15 PM (#1061040) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Rapparee Not now, if ever. Too much baggage from Bill, too much "she only moved to New York so she could run," too much -- well, hate towards her. And there would be the "this is Bill's way of getting back into the White House." She's intelligent, articulate, and tough but I don't think that she could get elected. I do think that the Democrats had better get their act together and start attacking Bush instead of each other. |
|
25 Nov 03 - 11:15 PM (#1061041) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Amos The general tide on the Democratic side is to support Howard Dean, who is building up enough momentum to make a difference. If we're lucky! A |
|
25 Nov 03 - 11:16 PM (#1061042) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie I agree that a race in 2008 would (probably- but we know from the B. Clinton years that some people will NEVER get over it) be less rancorous but, concerned as I and a lot of other people are as to the potential ramifications of a Bush win, isn't it quite possible that others are also deeply concerned? If the powers that be become convinced that Clinton was the only candidate that had a good chance to trim the shrub, don't you think heavy pressure would be brought to bear upon her to run? |
|
25 Nov 03 - 11:32 PM (#1061049) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bill D it would not be considered 'nice' to swear NOT to run, and then step in late, after the blood-letting....unless there is a REAL groundswell/grassroots demand. (not likely) She could likely do just as good a job as most of the men running, IF she could get the job...but there may still be too much baggage, and many men would simply vote for Beelzebub rather than a woman. (I, personally) would have voted for in an instant, if the chance had come!) |
|
26 Nov 03 - 12:00 AM (#1061068) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Why risk an '04 loss which could tarnish her image.... '08, if we still have elections... Bobert |
|
26 Nov 03 - 12:15 AM (#1061083) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: DonMeixner There are a lot of people in New York state who are really pissed that she is doing a pretty OK job of things. Nothing to really complain about and they can't stand the thought of her running for President with a winning track record behind her. I don't care for her much myself but I will vote for anyone who will fire John Ashcroft. Don |
|
26 Nov 03 - 12:59 AM (#1061106) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Little Hawk I can't vote for her, but I'm still hoping to serenade her from beneath her balcony and wangle a date. "Oh, Hillary, sweet Hillary...be mine forevermore..." (I say these things in order to drive Amos slowly mad...) - LH |
|
26 Nov 03 - 01:16 AM (#1061116) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie I'm shocked, Little Hawk, shocked, I tell you. |
|
26 Nov 03 - 02:15 AM (#1061132) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: michaelr For HRC to run in 2004 would be handing Bush the re"election". There may be a slim chance that Joe Sixpack comes to his senses and votes en masse for a Democrat, but neither for a woman nor a Clinton. I think Dean/Clark may be the ticket. Or Clark/Dean? Cheers, Michael |
|
26 Nov 03 - 02:19 AM (#1061134) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Cluin Waiting till 2008 will give enough time to make a couple of hit action flicks, where she kicks non-American bad-guy butt with as much explosives as you can fit into a 2 hour movie. Then she'll be a shoe-in. |
|
26 Nov 03 - 01:26 PM (#1061390) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: DougR Too late for 2004, Ebbie. Not enought time to build a campaign staff, raise the necessary money, stuff like that. Anyway, I don't think she could beat Bush. That's the real reason she didn't announce earlier, I believe. She and Bill have their sights set on 2008 (but I doubt she can beat Jeb either). I hope the Democrats pick Howard Dean myself, and Clark would be a good one to have on the ticket with him I think. DougR |
|
26 Nov 03 - 01:41 PM (#1061401) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: mg I smell a rat on the Clark campaign and the rat's name is Hillary...something fishy there...maybe she has cut a deal to be his running mate and de facto president, God forbid. I lean towards Kerry, Lieberman and what's his name, the blond Midwestern man..would love to see a woman v.p...(or president)anyone else..hope Rice teams with Bush and Cheney leaves the team...mg |
|
26 Nov 03 - 04:02 PM (#1061499) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: McGrath of Harlow And there would be the "this is Bill's way of getting back into the White House." Weren't there lots of polls indicating that, if he'd been allowed to run again, that is just what an awful lot of Americans would want? Actually is there any constitutional bar on him running as Vice-President? |
|
26 Nov 03 - 06:54 PM (#1061620) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie I would imagine there would be a bar, McGrath, since the VP is constitutionally first in line for the presidency. |
|
26 Nov 03 - 07:27 PM (#1061657) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: McGrath of Harlow Amendment XXII says someone can't be elected President more than twice - but it doesn't say anything getting in the backdoor, so to speak. I suppose in theory the Supreme Court, being a law unto itself, could arbitrarily decide that a Vice -President automatically succeeding a President who had died or resigned was to be deemed as "elected". I'd think that would be a serious contortion of the normal sense of the word, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them. |
|
26 Nov 03 - 09:49 PM (#1061738) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bill D oh, pooh! I didn't double check yesterdays post..I 'tried' to say I would have voted for Barbara Jordan in an instant, given a chance... (I have always thought the 22nd amendment should have allowed someone to run again after a 4 year break...) |
|
26 Nov 03 - 10:32 PM (#1061754) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: SINSULL If Hillary runs, I will vote Republican. The woman is basically dishonest and, as her stint as first Lady proved, will do anything for power. |
|
26 Nov 03 - 10:40 PM (#1061758) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Well, I gotta agree with my pal, Dougie.... Dean/Clark can win. Hey, I ain't wild about 'em but I'll pound doors fir 'em..... They are electable if they carry 55% of the vote because that should be enought a buffer to offset the election corruption of the Bushites... What a lot of folks don't take into consideration is the fact that on election day, every right winged nut votes but the average working class stiff doesn't. Hey, he's got to work that day... So Bush can't squeeze any more votes than the last time and maybe less. That means that if the same folks that voted for Gore and a few energized unemployed or underemployed get on Bush's case then maybe the 55% to override the corruption is possible.... Hey, got to start some place. Getting these facists out is at good start... Bobert |
|
26 Nov 03 - 10:51 PM (#1061761) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc Don't you have a law in the US that requires your employer to give you sufficient time to vote? Or aren't your polling stations open at least 12 hours? |
|
26 Nov 03 - 11:19 PM (#1061771) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Heck, no, pdc........ Hey, if they made Election Day a holiday then Boss Hog's boys would never win any elections.... Now that would make Boss Hog very grumpy..... Bobert |
|
27 Nov 03 - 01:24 AM (#1061797) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Little Hawk Naw, Bobert, I bet there are lots of people on the right who don't vote come election day...but it would be interesting to see the comparative proportions of those who do or don't on either side of the political divide. People who are older and more financially secure tend to get out and vote (because they're used to doing so), while those who are on the low end of the economic scale and in ghettoes tend not to, I think. This means that those who have the most vested interest in maintaining a system of privilege and maintaining the status quo are far more likely to vote than those who are suffering worst under the status quo...and that does favour a right wing economic agenda. While in Communist Russia, it would have favoured a left wing (hardline Communist) agenda. Ironical, isn't it? The well established in any society will generally support a repressive system, because one hand washes the other. (There are mavericks, though, among the young and rebellious...Fidel Castro grew up in a rich and privileged family in Cuba, with every reason to support the Batista government, but became a revolutionary. It's relatively rare, but it happens. It happens when idealism and principle weigh larger in a person's mind than immediate advantage and sheer greed. Castro could've had anything he wanted. He chose to risk his life, suffer tremendous privation, and fight against tremendous odds, and he won....just like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did...and they were among his heroes!) I suggest a reading of several good books about Cuba, for an overview of what I've said above. Castro anticipated support from the USA for his revolution, but he underestimated the power of large corporations and the Mafia to influence American foreign policy. He kicked them out of Cuba...they made him a pariah in Washington. He could have been a valued US ally all these years, if principle outweighed the dollar in America. It doesn't, sadly enough. It doesn't in most other governments either. - LH |
|
27 Nov 03 - 02:57 AM (#1061823) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie Hey, Bobert, did you overlook pdc's question? Yes, the polls are indeed open at least 12 hours on election day, so most people can stop in and vote on their way to work or on their way home, or during their lunch hour, or vote absentee several weeks ahead. I have never had a problem. You can even vote in a different precinct if you don't mind a questioned ballot. (All that 'questioned' really means is that you will have to prove your identity, you won't be able to vote on District candidates and your ballot will be looked at more closely.) |
|
27 Nov 03 - 05:34 AM (#1061873) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: John Hardly there is, to me, something unsettling about the way things seem to be shaping up in presidential politics... The USA is proving that mankind demands a monarchy. How ironic (G. Washington is spinning). We could concievably have a Clinton or a Bush for the forseeable future -- and with no other qualification than the name(s). A country of 200M and we can't find ANYONE more capable than a Bush or a Clinton? God save the.... We seem to be under the collective illusion that president=king. what I think it stems from is a childish notion that government=daddy/mommy -- a huge parent whose job it is to care for all of us in our minutest need. Give me a weak president and a strong congreff any day. As for Dynasties -- I didn't even like "Dallas", much less a hack spin-off. |
|
27 Nov 03 - 10:43 AM (#1062015) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Little Hawk The media and the political parties like a "monarchy", John, because it's easy to market it. It's a simple concept, and it permits endless photo ops, and turns elections into a popularity contest rather than a serious look into real (and complex) issues. For this reason, all the parties are obliged to select a potential monarch, and they are all obliged to lie to the electorate while campaigning and make a long list of false promises which can't possibly be honoured once in government, because they are unworkable. Thus, I favour banning all political parties forever, and voting for local, known individuals who all get an equal amount of funding for their campaigns (from a public trust)...on the basis of their character and their ideas...NOT their party. Either that, or select qualified individuals by lot and form a governmental assembly, which then chooses a cabinet, etc., and governs as a single cooperative body (with different opionions among the members, no doubt), not as 2 or more competing party structures out to discredit and destroy one another. I frankly think it would work better than the present system and be far more honest and responsible. Service would genuinely become service...and would be considered quite a privilege, I would think. But what a blow to the media.... :-) - LH |
|
27 Nov 03 - 12:18 PM (#1062054) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: McGrath of Harlow The woman is basically dishonest and, as her stint as first Lady proved, will do anything for power. Are you suggesting that that doesn't apply to Bush, Sinsull? How about Carter for President with Clinton as Veep? That'd be an example of Narrative politics, which seesm to be the way to win elections these days - "a rough rule of narrative politics is that the candidate whose life story makes the best Hollywood movie will win the race." |
|
27 Nov 03 - 01:56 PM (#1062105) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,Frankham There seems to be a good deal of Hillary bashing from the right wing these days. She was right, however, in saying that there was and is a right wing conspiracy against her. It's all too obvious. She is not dishonest. I read her book "It Takes A Village" and was impressed by her concern for children. Those who accuse her of dishonesty have no proof of this and are merely mud-slinging. Whether they like her style is another question. I think she handled the right-wing attack on the minor infraction of her husband with great dignity. Clinton's "big lie" which caused the taxpayer much money due to the Grand Inquisitor from Pepperdine College and the sargeant-striped supreme court justice is quite small compared to the immense mendacity of the current administration. She was right about the right wing. Frank Hamilton |
|
28 Nov 03 - 01:51 AM (#1062362) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Kim C I just don't like her. I never have. She seems to me to be cold, calculating, and manipulative. That is simply an impression I get. And I don't like the fact that she purposely moved to New York for no other reason than to run for the Senate. It wasn't that she cared for New York so much; I imagine she might have moved anywhere if there had been an open seat. Now, if Tipper Gore wanted to get into politics, I'd be all right with that. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 07:36 AM (#1063567) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Wolfgang I'm still curious what the correct response to McGrath's question is: Could a two-term president run as VP later or not? My guess is that Ebbie is right, but why? Wolfgang |
|
01 Dec 03 - 08:13 AM (#1063588) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: kendall Sinsull, if Hillary runs, you should stay home. If you vote republican, you can just cook your own friggin' turkey dinner next year! |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:05 AM (#1063717) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: John Hardly a two-term president couldn't run as VP because he couldn't constitutionally fill the presidency in the event of the death or incapacitation of the sitting prez. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:09 AM (#1063722) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Peg I like her. She is smart, compassionate, and seems to see the big picture (like her husband). I do not comprehend the accusations of "carpetbagger' against her, since the vast majority of state senators serve states other than those they were born in... I am not sure why anyone would call her dishonest. What has she lied about, exactly, that has affected her constituency in a negative way? Investments that are no one's business? Isn't it also dishonest to, say, lie about trading arms for hostages, or undermine women's reproductive rights with a series of cleverly-rhetorical bills designed to infuse fetuses with civil rights, or to invade a poor country where some Saudi Arabian terrorist MIGHT be hiding (that country invaded is not Saudi Arabia, oddly enough) just to show a propensity for revenge, or to claim there are weapons of mass destruction where there aren't any? There are lies, and there are damn lies. And there are lies that will bury us. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:23 AM (#1063731) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie It isn't that she wasn't born in New York. It's that she never lived there for any length of time. I personally would not vote for someone in Tennessee who just moved here to get the senate seat. I prefer someone who has lived in the state for awhile and knows the state and its people. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But I don't live in New York, and the people there elected her, so there you go. I saw her on Good Morning America this morning. Her rigid demeanor reminded me of Lilith on the TV show Frasier. She didn't smile one single time. But here's the thing. I don't think she is really like that. I think she is putting that game face on, for whatever reason. She doesn't seem to me to be "authentic," as it were. That bothers me. Now, if she did decide to run at some point, I would at least listen to what she had to say. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:40 AM (#1063741) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Little Hawk One thing I like about Hillary. One of those crazy newspapers you see in the supermarket (News of the World?) ran a cover story claiming that she was having passionate nightly trysts with a space alien aboard his flying saucer...and they had an apparent photo of Hillary and said alien (handsome chap with conelike head) at some fancy restaurant! When quizzed about it by the press, she said: "That story is untrue. We simply went out for dinner." Ha! Good answer, Hillary, and it proves you have a good sense of humour. - LH |
|
01 Dec 03 - 12:31 PM (#1063773) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie She ought to show it more often, and use it to her advantage. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 01:19 PM (#1063801) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Mark Clark In the U.S., a Vice President who succeeds to the presidency at the death (or resignation) of a President may still be elected to the office two times. It's common for people to move to another city, congressional district or state to seek public office there. Elizabeth Dole moved her husband to North Carolina rather than return to their home in Kansas precisely to run for the Senate under favorable circumstances. Sinsul wrote: “The woman is basically dishonest and, as her stint as first Lady proved, will do anything for power.” I don't recall anything that would lead one to the conclusion that Ms. Clinton is dishonest. As for the power thing, that is exactly what is admired in a male candidate. If a woman runs for the presidency, do you want her to know her place and stay there? Maybe she should wear an apron and have publicity events showing her taking the kids to the dentist. - Mark |
|
01 Dec 03 - 01:30 PM (#1063810) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Amos Little Hawk: I am honored to have been picked out for your target practice in the battlefield of relative sanity, but I do not think even your most direct hit could succeed in your stated goal of driving me mad, slowly or otherwise. Not unless you upgrade your ammunition dramatically. Your proposal to serenade Hillary Clinton meets with my full approval and I only hope to someday recieve a Quicktime movie of the event, in all its ...umm... fulfilling details!! Regards, Amos |
|
01 Dec 03 - 01:32 PM (#1063814) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Wasn't there some question of her honesty regarding some stock trading or something? I don't remember what that was all about. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 02:17 PM (#1063834) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Peg Exactly. Most people who think she is 'dishonest' tend to mean it as a general impression and don't actually have any specific facts or evidence to base it on...so far no one who has offered that opinion has offered anything solid to back it up. As for her demeanor on TV, I saw her on a Sunday Morning segment yesterday in a piece about her friendship of four decades with a woman she has known since grammar school. They both smiled and laughed together and were physically affectionate with one another. I am sure if she showed this side in public more often people would think she was "too feminine" or "emotional." She talked a great deal about the Lewinsky thing prompting her to wear a neutral expression, etc.in public because she knew that if she ever appeared angry or emotional, the media would have a field day with it, and the Republicans would eat it up and point to it as proof that Bill's infidelity (which was only her business, and his, and no one else's) was clearly monstrous and indicative of an evil heartless ruler who would ruin the country. They tried to do that in any case. Kinda hard for her to win anyone's approval when so many people are just looking for reasons to be against her. This seems to be true of so many women in the political arena. Why? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 03:09 PM (#1063867) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Don Firth ". . . some stock trading or something? I don't remember what that was all about." Accusations only, Kim, nothing proved. The right-wing character assassination team went to work on the Clintons the instant Bill was elected (actually, before) and it didn't let up for a moment. Hillary was especially targeted because she didn't just do "wifely" things like busying herself with redecorating the White House. Knowing her interests and capabilities, Bill asked her to help in developing a health care plan, and she came up with some very good ideas, which, unfortunately, got trashed right from the start. You see, Hillary was (and is) an "uppity woman." That's intolerable!! Also, I think the right-wing is scared s**tless that she might actually run for president someday, so they make it a point to keep dumping on her, just in case. The right-wing character assassins operate on the principle (or lack thereof) that if someone is accused of something—anything—the public will assume that there must be something to it. In short, "to be accused is to be condemned." The dislike of Hillary that you and many other people have—without being able to pin down a real, specific reason for it—shows that the right-wing character assassination team is very good at what it does. A very simple (and very mild) example of the kind of thing I'm talking about was the constant drumbeat in the last presidential campaign that "Al Gore is boring!" Al Gore is a very intelligent man (reading any of his books, such as World in the Balance amply demonstrates this, but how many people actually read them?) and he's not particularly flamboyant, but he is definitely not boring. Yet I'm sure that oft repeated epithet affected a sufficient number of unthinking voters to cost him many thousands of votes. Look for a lot of "put-down" sound-bites and character assassination tactics in the coming campaign. Karl Rove in particular is a master at this, and that's one of his functions in the White House. It's already going on, but it seems a bit diffused right now because with so many Democratic candidates vying for the nomination, the character assassins have to scatter their shots in several directions. It will become very obvious when one candidate is selected and they can really target their venom. Don't be politically naïve. They count on that. Don Firth |
|
01 Dec 03 - 04:14 PM (#1063909) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Thanks, Don. I didn't keep up with it the first time so I didn't remember. It seemed like a bunch of hooey. I'm not looking for reasons to be against her. As she is a prominent woman in the political forum, I would like to have a reason to be FOR her. Perhaps I just don't know enough. She just strikes me as being cold. If she is just putting on a face so people won't think she's "too feminine"...... well, I don't care for that. If she is, in fact, feminine, then she ought to Be Who She Is and Screw What Anyone Says About It. Isn't that what the women's movement was supposed to be about anyway? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 04:38 PM (#1063930) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie Damned if she do and damned if she don't. I suspect that women in the U.S. are as biased against women as are the men. Who was it who said (paraphrasing here) that women have to be twice as good as men in order to get half the respect. Personally, I'm tired of the mindset- I wish we'd grow up. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 05:03 PM (#1063946) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Stilly River Sage I posted these links on another thread but they belong here also: The billionaire financing all of the lawsuits and other troublemakers during the entire Clinton administration: Richard Mellon Scaife Go here for the chronology of dirty tricks and harassing lawsuits and charges. All of the Whitewater stuff was found to be baseless in court. ALL of it. SRS |
|
01 Dec 03 - 05:12 PM (#1063952) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Stilly River Sage And if Hillary's health care plan (that she took so much flak for when she worked on it as an "unelected official") had been allowed to go into effect, it would be a heckuva lot more efficient and fair than the monstrosity that the republicans have just forced through (in which the government is NO LONGER allowed to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare patients, along with other equally spurious boondogles). SRS |
|
01 Dec 03 - 05:23 PM (#1063960) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc May I start a political movement right here please? Just a small one to keep in mind for when the mud starts to fly. Don Firth is absolutely correct when he states that much of the muck will come from Rove. Start putting out the word: "Oh, that's just a Rovism," "Forget it, it's a Rovism," "C'mon, you don't take a Rovism seriously, do you?" etc. Given word of mouth and the Internet, if we start using that term now, by the time of the primaries, the phrase might well have defused a lot of stuff that will be done by the GOP, Rove especially. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 05:26 PM (#1063961) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc NO, NO I was wrong -- here's an improvement. "Forget about it, that's just a Rover." "What's a Rover?" "A lie put out by Rove that he hopes will spread around the country. A real dog." |
|
01 Dec 03 - 05:31 PM (#1063964) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bill D "..She didn't smile one single time." ...she smiled a lot in the many interviews I have seen, and was interesting and witty....and seemed brighter and better informed about the issues than several of the MALE candidates! I don't know if she'd be my ultimate 1st choice, but I'd have no problem taking a chance on her IF she were the nominee..(which does not seem likely). Yes, she acts like a politician sometimes--hard to get elected without playing that game, but nothing I see makes me feel she is "basically dishonest". |
|
01 Dec 03 - 05:38 PM (#1063972) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Well, gol-danged?!?!?!.... Ain't this sumthin'?.... Hillary Clinto fir president?.... You all jokin' I'm sure... You know that womenz can't be no presidents... Says so right there in the Bible... Plus they're moody and bossy and okay, answer me this one... Like there's Hillary in some kind o' important meetin' repersentin' the united sates of America and well, I don't know no other way to put it but, ahhh, its that time of month... See where I'm going with this one, don'tcha, boys... So like some one says somethin' that they thought was nice, like, ahhh, "yer hair looks nice" an' next thing you know a danged stapler is zinging by yer danged ear at 95 miles an hour!!!... You all want that??? Heck no, you don't... Presidentin' is men work... Says so right in the Bible... Okay answer me this one, will ya?... Why the heck do they say *Mister President* anyway... Well, gotcha thinkin' now, don't I? Huh? Admit it...An' everybody knows that no woman can lie like a man, right? An' if yer gonna be a President yer gonna have to lie real good, right? It's right there in the Bible... I mean look at George Bush, will ya!... Now that5's the ways its done, folks. No pussy-footin' around with him, no sir... You think Hillary Clinton can lie like that?!?!?... No way... She don't hold a run down flashlight to him... That's some serious presidentin'!... Serious... And lastly, I never met a woman that liked a good ol' fashion war!?!?!?... Now you can't have that. War's good for the economy... Says so right in the Bible... Yup, you want to keep the econmomy rollin', don'tch?... Well then don't electercate no womens 'er it'll be 1929 all over again... I promise... I hope I've gotten you all straightened out so I don't gotta give you all no refresher course on this subject... geeze... Bobert |
|
01 Dec 03 - 05:54 PM (#1063984) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie So right, Bobert. :) |
|
01 Dec 03 - 06:26 PM (#1064014) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Don Firth Excellent, pdc! Don Firth |
|
01 Dec 03 - 06:45 PM (#1064024) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: TheBigPinkLad And lastly, I never met a woman that liked a good ol' fashion war!?!?!?... Guess ya'll never hearda Missus Thatcher, ner Golda Meir thun, hey? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 07:30 PM (#1064056) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc Bobert, Bobert, Bobert. If you have a woman who has her "time of the month," (what a quaint old-fashioned gentleman-coward phrase), she'll get over it in a couple of days. What do you think she's going to do, push the red button? Most women who run for president will be past that age anyway, so don't worry your little head about it any more. Many women don't have a problem with "that time of the month." Now, men. Men have drinking problems, generally, and not just at certain times of the month. Men have problems with this little thing called macho image. Men have problems with testosterone. Male leaders have pissing contests with other male leaders. Women are generally far more peaceful, and just plain nicer than men. Shall I go on? Hello? |
|
01 Dec 03 - 07:44 PM (#1064069) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Cluin I was relaxing after a gig this summer and, while flipping around the channels, came across the end of a Chris Rock stand-up routine. Never been much of a fan of his, but he was saying some pretty funny stuff in this one. To paraphrase part of it... "Guys, if you want to get in good with your woman, memorize this line: Baby, that bitch don't know who she's dealin' with!" `cause guaranteed there is some woman at work or her club or whatever that she just CANNOT get along with. Guys, we'd take it outside, duke it out then probably go for a beer afterwards and work it out that way. But women will forever be backstabbin' and cuttin' down and gettin' all tore up about every little thing with that other woman..." |
|
01 Dec 03 - 07:51 PM (#1064077) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie And you believe every single thing a comedian says! Men. :) |
|
01 Dec 03 - 08:06 PM (#1064088) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Cluin I thought it was funny because it's sooooooooo true. ;) |
|
01 Dec 03 - 08:20 PM (#1064095) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert GUEST, pdc: That's exactly what I was sayin in the first place... Hey, no woman in the world can hang in a "pissing contest" with a man. No, that ain't in the Bible but it sure 'nuff in Bridgeman's Anatomy book... Jus' further everdince that womenz ain't 'spozed to do nuthin' but have babies, cook and drive the kids to soccer. An' that is in the Bible, I'm sure... So you all womenz that got any presidental amitions, firget it... We men are doing a fine job running the joint... You all got it, yet????....... Bobert |
|
01 Dec 03 - 08:26 PM (#1064099) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage Chances are very good that Hillary isn't bothered by "that time of the month" anymore. Now she's invincible, into the truly wise and powerful period of a woman's life. You need to listen to Christiane Northrup talk about the modern rendition of "crone." SRS |
|
01 Dec 03 - 08:40 PM (#1064105) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Yeah, SRS, it's that great thing called menpause where the mood swing is every danged day rather than jus' one a month... More Bridgeman's Anatomy... BUt thank you fir bringin' that up... I almost forgot that last little piece in my letcher on why the womenz should jus' stay home and let the boys fight it out... Hey, its worked since Ally Opp, ain't it? Any other pinko commie feminists want a piece of Professor Bobert's butt on this subject? Didn't think so... Hey, I likes womenz jus fine... Ahhh, my mom is a womenz... 'an some of my best friends is womenz... Heck, my wife is a womenz so lets not make this all personal an' all... You all jus' do what yer 'sposed to 'cause we menz got it handled.... Hey, why'd God make *us* first anyway... See, jus' further proff that we got everything unner control... Now break it up... Nuthin' to see here... Bobert |
|
01 Dec 03 - 08:57 PM (#1064117) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc Bobert, you of the quaint accent and little brain: If men are so good at running the world, and if they've been running it in all cultures for millennia, why is the world in the disastrous shape it is? I believe it's time for women to take over, and as usual, clean up the mess than men have made. There will be a good place in it for men like you -- we will need people to lift heavy things, for instance. For reasonable men, we will be happy to share the burden of leadership with you, which is more than you've ever done for us. And SRS, your crone comment was right on the money. That's a beautiful old word that was distorted for too long. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 09:11 PM (#1064129) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Well, pdc, I wouldn't go throwin' the *Big D* word around. As in disastrous, when the *little d* word is more accurate. Yeah the joint could us a little *dustin'* and maybe some new curtains... Geeze, see what I mean, boys???... We go an start a few danged wars and smoke up the neighborhood with our SUV's and this is what we gotta listen to... I'm tellin' ya that if we let the womenz run the joint we ain't gonna have no more fun... And, pdc, what accent? Yer the one talkin' funny.... Bobert |
|
01 Dec 03 - 09:25 PM (#1064137) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie Yeh. I have a friend originally from Colorado and he drives fast and comfortably on ice, snow, driving rain- you name it. It's his contention that *if* something unexpected should pop up, he'll take care of it, no problem. Twice we have almost been hit, once close enough that we had to take to the grassy median. He doesn't understand why I won't ride with him anymore. True enough- he took care of it- but I'd rather drive defensively, not to say, wisely. It's kind of analogous to how well men have been doing in this latest administration. Sure, if something unexpected should happen - someone doesn't respond in the manner projected, so that a 'small' nuke is set off, or someone is assassinated (hey! That wasn't supposed to happen!) or the economy is driven to its knees or global warming symptoms reach a critical phase- Sure, they'll take care of it. Right! |
|
01 Dec 03 - 09:35 PM (#1064138) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc Right on, Ebbie. All I want for Christmas is an across-the-board 10% reduction of testosterone in world leadership. No, 20%. |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:23 PM (#1064178) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Well gol-danged, boys, men!!!... These is fightin' words... Hey, we don't have to take this abuse...We're men, dang-it, an' men do stupid stuff, gals! Get over it... Yeah, we *like* to blow stuff up.... 'An we *like* to drive on the ragged edge... An' we *like* our little wars... Shoot, we ain't tellin' you all how to make no biscuits 'er how to get grass stains outta the knee parts of the kids pants, are we??? Huh, yeah, didn't hink you all would have noanswer fir that one!!! Ha... An' what the heck is wrong with testosterone, anyway? We happen to *like* it too. Makes us wanta scratch and spit. You know, men type stuff that *every* president since GW did!!! Yeah, spittin' an' scratchin' is what made America great!!! You all gonna tell me that Hillary Clinton can do that??? Hmmmm??? Strike that last question.... I mean, yer average womanz ain't into no spittin' 'er scratchin' and that's my point... But menz, now, they born to do it... An' while I'm at it, whats with this big toilet seat conspiracy you all got going against us menz, anyway???... Don't take no more effort to put it down than to put it up... But, hey, since you all has been good sports about not wantin' to be president we figgured that the least we could do was to capitulate on this one thing but now you go running Hillary an' the deal is off... Right, guys? We can only be pushed so far.... Bobert |
|
01 Dec 03 - 11:50 PM (#1064184) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Little Hawk Christ...I can't figure out if they're taking you seriously or not, Bobert. Look, you wanna join the Young Republicans and get out there and kick ass? I figger it's time we all started livin' up ta the great egzample thet John Waybe set back in thuh days when America was still America and women, Injuns, and wetbacks knew their place! (that oughta do it...) (or else it'll cause a "nukular" meltdown out thar amongst them liberal feminist commie types...) Whew! Where's mah case of Coors!?? - LH |
|
02 Dec 03 - 09:51 AM (#1064416) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Danged friggin' right, Little Hawk... Looks like them boyz is having more fun over there. Heck, they get to sit 'round scratchin' an' spittin' an' drivin' their SUV's an' havin' their wars an' do you think for one minute they gotta grind up no gray matter doin' it? Heck no, they don't. Get all their political positions right off the bumper stickers form their neigbors pickup trucks... Now, that's livin' folks... An' you don't hear their womenz whinin' 'bout wantin' to do no presidentin', no sir... This is waht America is all about... It's right there in the Bible, Little Hawk... An' I'll tell you somethin else 'bout joining the Republicans... Yer always gonna be in the winner's circle on Election Day... Hey, they got it all rigged up... Who cares as long as we can stand in the winners circle with them flashbulbs a'poppin' and all, right? That's what I mean... Shoot, you think yer gonna stand in a winner's circle with a bunch o' danged womenz? Heck no, you ain't... All they do is a bunch of "he said, she said stuff" that you can't hardly keep up with... An; you try to get 'em to talk about Stroker Ace 'er Fireball Smith 'er football an' they just go an' ignore yer sorry butt... You want a president that cares more about kids and gosip than car racin' and football?!?!?... Heck, no!!! An' worser yet, if them womenz takes over they still gonna make us put the danged toilet seat down... There just ain't no danged justice... Yep, if fir no other gol-danged reason in the world to keep the womenz out the White House, other than as First ladies, then that one alone shoud be enough!!!... Danged, Iz gettin' ill as a sore tailed cat.. Where do I sign up, Dougie???... Danged... Bobert |
|
02 Dec 03 - 11:03 AM (#1064464) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Amos Holy Moley, Bobert -- I think your West Ginny slide rulle done overheated of late!! Mebbe yore suffrin' from that there sleep DEPrivation thang I heard about? I recommend a long rest and then go confess to the PVine 'bout the things you been writin' here and ask her to forgive you. Otherwise, you'll be wearing your grass stains and skidmarks until they dress you up for the viewing! :>) A |
|
02 Dec 03 - 11:56 AM (#1064481) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie Here I'd gone thinking that football, NASCAR and skydiving, as an evolutionary device, were a natural outgrowth, a culmination if you will, of civilization, a means for men to get that 'rush' that fighting lions and armored toughies used to give them and still live to fight and throb another day. But maybe history is circular, rather than linear, maybe it's time that we reinstitute the colosseums? Sure, it would mean more widows and orphaned children but think of the pride they would feel in their men. Facing off and fighting each other takes *real* courage. Installing our menfolk in the proper entertainment format would free women to run the nations. Men wouldn't care- hey, they're scratchin' and spittin' and kickin' the sod to their hearts' content out there. As for toilet seats- let's compromise. We'll *both* put down the toilet seat AND the lid. That'll let the womenfolk show off the fuzzy color-coordinated covers. |
|
02 Dec 03 - 12:47 PM (#1064502) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert You lost me after the colosseums thing, Ebbie... Things were going good then you not only did the power grab but re-affirmed you all's anal fixations on them toilet seats seats... Hey, why don't we all leave 'em up so we can show off our purdy blue toidy water... See whad I mean, guys. Here Ebbie tries to trick me with the gladiator thing and then slip in a little coup on the side... Hah, I say... See, womenz ain't even tricky 'nuff fir presidentin' 'cause I picked right up on that little slight of tongue... Hey, I mean lets lok at one of the great presidents of our time, Richard Nixon. What made him so great?... Well, I'll tell ya!... He was *tricky*, that's what... Even got him a handle from it: "Tricky Dick"... Now you think if we electercate Hillary Clinton that she can be in the same league as Tricky Dick??... Answer me that one, womenz... No, don't... I'll tell ya... Heck no she can't... Why, she... Opps, gotta go. I hear the P-Vine comin'... Bobert |
|
02 Dec 03 - 01:07 PM (#1064511) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Amos BOBERT!!! REPENT AND CONFESS!!!! TELL THE P-VINE ALL!!! Only the TRUTH can save you now, Bobert!!!! A |
|
02 Dec 03 - 01:14 PM (#1064517) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie LOL I love 'slight of tongue', Bobert. |
|
02 Dec 03 - 05:37 PM (#1064694) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,Frankham You don't have to date her. Just elect her! Why she's so unpopular with some is because she's tough. That's one thing that a real prez could use. If Bill gets back in inadvertently, it wouldn't be a bad thing. He did keep our budget from going out of control and gave us a surplus as well as jobs. The economy under his watch was boosted. Now, the Radical Right has cooked the books. Their numbers don't add up. "Fuzzy math" has turned out to be "crooked math" in the Bush administration. I could think of worse than Hillary for the White House. I appreciate that she is one of the real advocates for children. Frank Hamilton |
|
02 Dec 03 - 05:42 PM (#1064696) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Peace I thought that Hillary showed real class when Bill was caught dipping his wick--or cigar, depending on who ya choose to believe. She definitely wants political power; beyond that, I don't know a heckuva lot about her, so I'll be quiet now. |
|
02 Dec 03 - 06:17 PM (#1064729) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,JB Hillary Clinton was foremost among the Democrats who agreed with the Bush decision to bomb Iraq just like all of the other Democrats. This means she is just as guilty as any Republican. Name me one noteworthy Democrat who stood up one year ago and really challenged Bush? I don`t like Bush, but all the Democrats were cowards and not one of them deserve to become president. It`s a little too late now to voice disagreement with the Bush administration. Hillary on the other hand is quite an actress and her going to Iraq one day after the cowardly Bush visit simply highlights how farcical and cynical American politics have become. There is simply no level to which any of them will not stoop to win favour with the electorate. In closing, I would not claim that I don`t feel Hillary has been dishonest, but anyone who had kept pace with Time Magazine during her husband`s tenure as president would surely been aware that she was certainly most devious. When I see that an Austrian called Schwarzenegger can become governor of one of American`s most important states, I`m afraid that it is very difficult to take Americans seriously any more. In other words, I now firmly believe, Bush will be re-elected, and this time with a legal majority. JB Vote in Bush again if you want, there doesn`t seem to be anyone or anything better out there anyway. JB |
|
02 Dec 03 - 06:36 PM (#1064738) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Well, danged... (sniff...) Too late, Amos... I got caught and so now the P-Vine says I gotta come here and say "Sorry, Hillary. You'd be a great President." So, ahhhh (the Bobert looks down as his feet as if they made him write this stuff...)...(ahhh, sniff..)... sorry, Hillary... (Sniff...) Bobert |
|
02 Dec 03 - 06:56 PM (#1064751) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie JB, how does Hillary Clinton rank as 'foremost' in a group? Might that mean that in your mind she stands out- because she is female? "Hillary on the other hand is quite an actress and her going to Iraq one day after the cowardly Bush visit simply highlights how farcical and cynical American politics have become. Clinton's visit was scheduled, ya idjit, while Bush's was not. You got it backasswards. I do believe that part of the reason Bush went to Iraq was in order not to be shown up. |
|
02 Dec 03 - 07:44 PM (#1064773) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST A wise woman once said, "The only thing women have in common is their distrust of other women." |
|
02 Dec 03 - 08:45 PM (#1064811) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert I'm baaaackkkk! Whew, that was a close one but the P-Vine has gone to bed so....... Ahhhhh, actually, in spite of my little tangent, I'd take just about anyone over the current Resident. I think Hillary, though a Dem, has done a credible job as both a First Lady and a Senator... I respected the way she took on *health care* as a First Lady even though it was a forgone conclusion that the mediacl and pharacudical lobbies were gonna stone her. And they did... And I've admired the way she has stepped into the Senate and, while being respectfull of the a**holes in the Senate, has taken tough positions on most of the important cuases. She di get caught up in the Iraq Resolution trap, however, but so did a lot of folks who weren't particularly interested as being branded a terrorist for not going along with Bush on every danged thing the idiot wanted... So there, I've come clean on this one... but it sure was fun (and easy) talking like a knothead... Don't require any thought at all... Bobert |
|
02 Dec 03 - 09:44 PM (#1064839) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie "but it sure was fun (and easy) talking like a knothead... Don't require any thought at all..." Great line, Bobert! |
|
02 Dec 03 - 10:11 PM (#1064857) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Stilly River Sage JB, that was a load of tripe you unloaded in the thread. Are we to get the idea that you don't like Hillary? That's fine. But your fabrications make your argument laughable. Ol' George Dubya saw that he was going to be one-upped by Hillary and another Democratic representative, who were making an announced and orderly visit to Afghanistan AND Iraq, and he had to race over there in Air Force One and try to steal her thunder. She didn't sneak in under cover of darkness--it took a lot more balls to go in and have the world know where she was and leaving herself far more vulnerable than Dubya ever was, copping a quick feel of the place and heading out after the photo-op with the tray of turkey. One had to ask "which is the REAL turkey in this photo?" SRS |
|
02 Dec 03 - 10:54 PM (#1064885) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Don Firth Where have you been all this time, JB? Keeping your head where the sun doesn't shine? Name me one noteworthy Democrat who stood up one year ago and really challenged Bush? Patty Murray, Democrat, Senator from Washington State. On the day before the Congressional vote, she delivered a powerful speech to Congress (broadcast nationwide) against giving Bush war powers. Since then, several vicious stories have been circulating about her, including a PhotoShopped picture (head cut-and-pasted in) of her playing a guitar, surrounded by tough looking men in Arab garb. Several prominent Republicans have called her a traitor, and a number of blatant lies about her are being circulated by supporters of two Republican candidates in Washington State who plan to run against her for her seat in the Senate. Jim McDermott, Democrat, Representative from the 43rd Congressional District, Washington State. Went to Iraq prior to the war, assessed things for himself, then delivered several speeches to Congress and around the country opposing the war and opposing Bush's domestic policies. Republicans savagely attack McDermott continuously, and many keep repeating that he is a traitor. These are only two of many. And apart from the firm stand they took (and continue to take), the spiteful and malicious response to their stand is indicative of the ethical standards of the Republican Party. Don Firth |
|
03 Dec 03 - 02:31 PM (#1064931) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie Not to mention Robert Byrd. Read his speech, JB, and then get back to us. |
|
03 Dec 03 - 04:49 PM (#1065026) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Mah main man, Robert Byrd! I'm proud to have him as my Senator! He's got alot of courage. And the boy has come a long ways since his days as a KKK symphathizer, 'er whatever he's accused of having been. The operative word here is "been"... Reckon I'll have to vote for him next time around.... I swaer I didn't have a clue he had it in 'em but when the chips are down, you learn alot about a man.... Bobert |
|
03 Dec 03 - 06:30 PM (#1065096) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie (Emphases mine- Ebbie) US Senator Robert Byrd - Senate Floor Speech We Stand Passively Mute Wednesday 12 February 2003 To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. *In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. *This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under-funding scores of essential programs for our people. *This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. *This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. *This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. *This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. *In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. *This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. *This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. *This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer-found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. *Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? *To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein? *Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? *Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? *Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? *Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and make proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq - a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 - this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. |
|
03 Dec 03 - 06:46 PM (#1065106) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Little Hawk "war must always be a last resort, not a first choice" Yes, if one is wise and interested in pursuing peaceful coexistence... No, if one is an arrogant aggressor bent upon conquest amd plunder. War is the FIRST choice of an aggressor who believes he has the power to win, easily and decisively. Hitler made "pre-emptive" attacks on various nations too. Senator Byrd was quite right to be as concerned as he was with the USA's pre-emptive strike on Iraq, and its effect upon World order. - LH |
|
03 Dec 03 - 07:22 PM (#1065126) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Amos War is an early option to those whose goals are empire of matter. It should never be an early choice to those who prefer the empire of the mind. That is the big difference that Bush's brown-shirts don't seem to get. A |
|
03 Dec 03 - 07:45 PM (#1065141) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Peg um, how does the election of Schwarzeneger reflect on ALL Americans? How does ANY election result do this? |
|
03 Dec 03 - 08:28 PM (#1065171) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Thanks, Ebbie, for posting Senator Byrd's speech. After reading it, I am prouder than ever to live in West Virginia. Yeah, we maye be the poorest state but we certainly are wealthy to have Senator Byrd.... Bobert |
|
03 Dec 03 - 08:30 PM (#1065174) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie I agree with you, Bobert. A few more politicians like that and we can once again be proud Americans. |
|
04 Dec 03 - 02:01 AM (#1065274) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Hrothgar Is this bloke Byrd Republican or Democrat? If a Democrat, should he be ahead of Hilary? |
|
04 Dec 03 - 08:44 AM (#1065424) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: kendall Peg, another republican in a state house is a help to the current buch of thieves to get elected.(Maybe for real this time) |
|
04 Dec 03 - 09:49 AM (#1065454) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Peg Kendall, my comment was in response to the person who thought the election of Arnie in California was somehow reflective of the position of ALL Americans. |
|
04 Dec 03 - 03:13 PM (#1065631) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,JB Sorry Ebbie if you feel I am an idjit, you might actually be right, however I would like to present my case: I don`t feel I actually got it „backasswards" as you so „endearingly" put it. Perhaps one reason might be that I, as an Irishman living in Germany mainly have access to the German media. The news here was presented in such a way as to indicate that your President made a sudden visit to Iraq to boost the morale amongst the soldiers on Thanksgiving day and Hilliary made a flying visit on the following day to outdo Mr. Bush. Personally I feel that both of them stink as one way or the other it all reeks of cheap politics. Besides I have never ever trusted anywone (male or female)yet who writes books while still in active office. Surely there must be an ulterior motive here somewhere. As to the question why I used the word " 'foremost', that is simply and solely because this woman /Hilliary) so yearns to become the President of your country in 2008 that she is literally pushing herself into the limelight as if she were the no. 1 canidate. In fact her visit to Iraq will in no way have served any of the other Democratic candidates. On the contrary, it merely highlights the fact that she is actutely aware that the current panel of Democratic candidates are very pale in comparison and haven`t a hope in Hell of getting elected. In other words Hilliary has her eyes set on the bigger loot in 2008 and is already throwing shapes. Contrary to what you "Don Firth" stated that Mrs. Clinton`s powerful speech to congress about being against giving Bush special war powers, I can only once again tell you what I saw and heard on Germany`s primary national TV staion ARD. In no way did she really criticize or admonish Bush for attacking Iraq without a real UNO mandate, on the contrary she stated that this was the only way to go and tried to play the cunning, deceitful and clever politician`s game of not taking up any real position. In other words, the war was wrong but for Heaven`n`s sake do not criticise the Americans or Bush for going to war. The woman is a calculated strategist who really wants butter on both sides of her bread. In Ireland we say "Run with hare and hunt with the hound" I must admit that the Robert Byrd speech was sublime, but is Robert Byrd a Democraic Presidential candidate? Unfortunately I think not! If however, there are real voters out there who genuinely oppose BUSH for what he is, his failed foreign policy and disastrous domestic policies. then please allow me to stand corrected and I will join hands with you all in hoping for a new change of government. Sincerely JB |
|
04 Dec 03 - 03:37 PM (#1065655) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bill D a funny one, Robert Byrd...on the right (as in 'left') side of many issues, a historian of great depth and knowlege, an eloquent speaker from the old school, a parlimentarian without equal....yet one of the most shameless and accomplished stuffers of the Pork Barrel in Senate history! West Virginia is dotted with courthouses and projects that 'could' have fed hungry people in many other states..He embodies the best and worst of political realities in one amazing mix. |
|
04 Dec 03 - 03:54 PM (#1065671) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Don Firth GUEST,JB, your really need to read things more carefully. You say "Contrary to what you "Don Firth" stated that Mrs. Clinton`s powerful speech to congress about being against giving Bush special war powers. . . ." I said nothing about Hillary Clinton delivering any kind of speech to Congress. If you had actually paid attention to what I wrote in my post of 02 Dec 03 - 10:54 PM, you would have seen that I was not talking about Hillary Clinton, I was talking about Washington State Senator Patty Murray and her powerful speech to Congress. Do try to get things right, please. Don Firth |
|
04 Dec 03 - 04:19 PM (#1065691) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Ebbie Robert Byrd, born 1917, North Carolina, Senator from West Virginia for almost 50 years. March 2003, on Senate floor: But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe. Robert Byrd, November 2, 2003, on Senate floor, on the Homeland Security bill: There are a few things that I know are in it by virtue of the fact that I have had 48 hours, sleeping time included, in which to study this monstrosity, 484 pages. If there ever were a monstrosity, this is it. I hold it in my hand, a monstrosity. I don't know what is in it. I know a few things that are in it, and a few things that I know are in it that I don't think the American people would approve of if they knew what was in there... And this is one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation I have seen in my 50 years. I will have been in Congress 50 years come January 3... Never have I seen such a monstrous piece of legislation sent to this body. And we are being asked to vote on that 484 pages tomorrow. Our poor staffs were up most of the night studying it. They know some of the things that are in there, but they don't know all of them. It is a sham and it is a shame. We are all complicit in going along with it. I read in the paper that nobody will have the courage to vote against it. Well, ROBERT BYRD is going to vote against it because I don't know what I am voting for. That is one thing. And No. 2, it has not had the scrutiny that we tell our young people, that we tell these sweet pages here, boys and girls who come up here, we tell them our laws should have... This is a hoax. This is a hoax. To tell the American people they are going to be safer when we pass this is to hoax. We ought to tell the people the truth. They are not going to be any safer with that. That is not the truth. I was one of the first in the Senate to say we need a new Department of Homeland Security. I meant that. But I didn't mean this particular hoax that this administration is trying to pander off to the American people, telling them this is homeland security. That is not homeland security. |
|
04 Dec 03 - 07:39 PM (#1065734) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: McGrath of Harlow To get back to a point that I raised way back in the thread - the question whether there is any constitutional impediment to Bill Clinton being elected as Vice President. John Hardly responded "a two-term president couldn't run as VP because he couldn't constitutionally fill the presidency in the event of the death or incapacitation of the sitting prez." But that's my whole point. There's nothing I can see in your constitution that says anything about that. (I looked it up, and gave the link in my earlier post.) It just says that someone can't be elected a third time as President. A Vice President is not elected President, even if he (or she) succeeds because of the death or resignation of the President. Unless of course your Supreme Court decided that "elected" meant something different in this case. And I imagine the bunch who put Bush into the White House would be capable of doing whatever was necessary to suit him. Still I'm surprised it doesn't seem to have come up in real life, especially when you've got a power hungry man like Clinton kicking his heels on the side line. |
|
04 Dec 03 - 09:35 PM (#1065785) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc Some information missing from this thread: Hillary Clinton is on a Defense committee of some sort -- sorry I don't know the name -- and it is part of her job to go to war areas. Senator Byrd is a Democrat, and is still trying to live down the fact that he once belonged to the Ku Klux Klan. Although he resigned many years ago, his former membership still tarnishes his image, and makes him a figure of fun for Republicans. I'll try to get the proper name for the Defense Committee that HC is on. |
|
04 Dec 03 - 09:38 PM (#1065787) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: GUEST,pdc It's the Senate Committee on Armed Services. |
|
04 Dec 03 - 10:00 PM (#1065798) Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Clinton? From: Bobert Yo, my good friend Bill D: In spite of what Senator Byrd has been to corral in the way of bucks fir West Virginia, it still has the highest percentage of folks living below the poverty line (16.5%) of any state in the US... We could use some more pork to get us up to Mississippi or Alabama standards.... Just food fir thought... Bobert |