Reasons why you dislike Hillary Clinton.

[bbwMax]

Because the only reason she's doing as well is because of Bill.

And she's a woman

 

[AEM]

I despise everything about her. As far as I'm concerned, she's the political Paris Hilton.

 

[Thoth]

Gotta agree w/ Mamba that she does sound contrived. But, then what politician doesn't sound like they are pandering?

I hate freezing of the mortgages. Let the market correct itself.

She beats this damn universal healthcare into the ground. Decouple it from business, let individuals purchase it for themselves but w/ more choices. If people in a bad way then yeah let them suck from the tit of the government but only temporarily.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 18 2008, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Gotta agree w/ Mamba that she does sound contrived. But, then what politician doesn't sound like they are pandering?

I hate freezing of the mortgages. Let the market correct itself.

She beats this damn universal healthcare into the ground. Decouple it from business, let individuals purchase it for themselves but w/ more choices. If people in a bad way then yeah let them suck from the tit of the government but only temporarily.</div>

I hate how she opens her stupid face and bothers Obama about being "all talk". Her "solutions" are just proposals and rhetoric right now as well (****ing annoying tool). She does the exact same thing except Obama appears more sincere.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Legacy @ Feb 17 2008, 10:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>She cries. People will feel bad for her, so they'll vote for her after seeing her cry.</div>

The feminist cause should get all over her for this.

You would think a enlightened, Ivy league educated, Woman would not need to manipulate people by relying on a typical female stereotype?

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 18 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hate how she opens her stupid face and bothers Obama about being "all talk". Her "solutions" are just proposals and rhetoric right now as well (****ing annoying tool). She does the exact same thing except Obama appears more sincere.</div>

They say if you can fake sincerity then you've got it made.

Barack, at least, has held a job in the real world.

Here is another point about Hillary; she has always worked in governement/the public sector.

Hell, she's ideally qualified to work at a liberal think tank in Northern Cali (i.e Stanford or Berkeley) when the Presidential quest doen't work out.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 18 2008, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 18 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hate how she opens her stupid face and bothers Obama about being "all talk". Her "solutions" are just proposals and rhetoric right now as well (****ing annoying tool). She does the exact same thing except Obama appears more sincere.</div>

They say if you can fake sincerity then you've got it made.

Barack, at least, has held a job in the real world.

Here is another point about Hillary; she has always worked in governement/the public sector.

Hell, she's ideally qualified to work at a liberal think tank in Northern Cali (i.e Stanford or Berkeley) when the Presidential quest doen't work out.
</div>

I don't intend to get mired in this miserable "debate," but I will comment on your third point: It's quite unfair to millions of hard working civil servants to use their public service as a negative strike against them, or to imply something that isn't there. I know many, many wonderful, conscienscious, brilliant people who have given up more lucrative jobs to work for the federal government because they believe in what they're doing, despite a lot of frustrations that come with the job. Civil servants should be praised, not demonized. So what ever you think of Mrs. Clinton, please, I ask you, erase that point from your argument . . . .

 

[Send em back al]

As far as I'm concerned it's all rhetoric from every candidate for President when they claim to be able to change anything. As we all remember from high school government classes; the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws and the judicial well, err, judges the law or legality of said. Except in the case of a signing statement on the part of the executive that voids or states to ignore aspects of the legislated law, or when the judicial does whatever the hell it wants. Regardless, the President can only control so much without the support of Congress or the courts.

Otherwise... I get annoyed and concerned when "voters" read email or website drivel/attacks and accept them as fact without looking into finding the facts behind the accusations. Obama is a Muslim... McCain fathered a black baby... Hillary killed Vince Foster. I mean really people.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 18 2008, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 18 2008, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 18 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hate how she opens her stupid face and bothers Obama about being "all talk". Her "solutions" are just proposals and rhetoric right now as well (****ing annoying tool). She does the exact same thing except Obama appears more sincere.</div>

They say if you can fake sincerity then you've got it made.

Barack, at least, has held a job in the real world.

Here is another point about Hillary; she has always worked in governement/the public sector.

Hell, she's ideally qualified to work at a liberal think tank in Northern Cali (i.e Stanford or Berkeley) when the Presidential quest doen't work out.
</div>

I don't intend to get mired in this miserable "debate," but I will comment on your third point: It's quite unfair to millions of hard working civil servants to use their public service as a negative strike against them, or to imply something that isn't there. I know many, many wonderful, conscienscious, brilliant people who have given up more lucrative jobs to work for the federal government because they believe in what they're doing, despite a lot of frustrations that come with the job. Civil servants should be praised, not demonized. So what ever you think of Mrs. Clinton, please, I ask you, erase that point from your argument . . . .
</div>

My intent was not denigrate Public servants rather to point out HRC's lifelong career in a sector which has shaped her Ivory Tower mentality.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 18 2008, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 18 2008, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 18 2008, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 18 2008, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hate how she opens her stupid face and bothers Obama about being "all talk". Her "solutions" are just proposals and rhetoric right now as well (****ing annoying tool). She does the exact same thing except Obama appears more sincere.</div>

They say if you can fake sincerity then you've got it made.

Barack, at least, has held a job in the real world.

Here is another point about Hillary; she has always worked in governement/the public sector.

Hell, she's ideally qualified to work at a liberal think tank in Northern Cali (i.e Stanford or Berkeley) when the Presidential quest doen't work out.
</div>

I don't intend to get mired in this miserable "debate," but I will comment on your third point: It's quite unfair to millions of hard working civil servants to use their public service as a negative strike against them, or to imply something that isn't there. I know many, many wonderful, conscienscious, brilliant people who have given up more lucrative jobs to work for the federal government because they believe in what they're doing, despite a lot of frustrations that come with the job. Civil servants should be praised, not demonized. So what ever you think of Mrs. Clinton, please, I ask you, erase that point from your argument . . . .
</div>

My intent was not denigrate Public servants rather to point out HRC's lifelong career in a sector which has shaped her Ivory Tower mentality.
</div>

ok I gotcha--but, in my experience of knowing hundreds upon hundreds of career civil servants, from paralegals and clerks up to the highest federal executives, there really isn't an overarching mindset or "Ivory Tower" mentality. Really . . . you are what you are.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Send em back al @ Feb 18 2008, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as I'm concerned it's all rhetoric from every candidate for President when they claim to be able to change anything. As we all remember from high school government classes; the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws and the judicial well, err, judges the law or legality of said. Except in the case of a signing statement on the part of the executive that voids or states to ignore aspects of the legislated law, or when the judicial does whatever the hell it wants. Regardless, the President can only control so much without the support of Congress or the courts.

Otherwise... I get annoyed and concerned when "voters" read email or website drivel/attacks and accept them as fact without looking into finding the facts behind the accusations. Obama is a Muslim... McCain fathered a black baby... Hillary killed Vince Foster. I mean really people.

</div>

That's the problem IMO. Many can't or don't want to remember Jr High Civics. Checks and balances, Habeas Corpus, etc... are just nice topics for Double Jeopardy.

Its alot easier for some just to get caught up in superficial, meaningless, & possibly voyueristic guilty pleasures.

So, are we really smarter than 5th grader or do we just prefer to worship the latest American Idol and let someone else do our thinking for us?.

I get the feeling that the Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves as they IMO hoped that an informed & intelligent citizenry would be the X factor in the whole Democratic process.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Send em back al @ Feb 18 2008, 08:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as I'm concerned it's all rhetoric from every candidate for President when they claim to be able to change anything. As we all remember from high school government classes; the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws and the judicial well, err, judges the law or legality of said. Except in the case of a signing statement on the part of the executive that voids or states to ignore aspects of the legislated law, or when the judicial does whatever the hell it wants. Regardless, the President can only control so much without the support of Congress or the courts.

Otherwise... I get annoyed and concerned when "voters" read email or website drivel/attacks and accept them as fact without looking into finding the facts behind the accusations. Obama is a Muslim... McCain fathered a black baby... Hillary killed Vince Foster. I mean really people.

</div>

Lol that Vince Foster thing was funny. I'm not saying I bought into that of course.

She's got enough stuff to hate on besides that. White Water, stupid loophole ideas to screw Obama, living off her name and being a hypocrite, etc.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 18 2008, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Send em back al @ Feb 18 2008, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as I'm concerned it's all rhetoric from every candidate for President when they claim to be able to change anything. As we all remember from high school government classes; the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws and the judicial well, err, judges the law or legality of said. Except in the case of a signing statement on the part of the executive that voids or states to ignore aspects of the legislated law, or when the judicial does whatever the hell it wants. Regardless, the President can only control so much without the support of Congress or the courts.

Otherwise... I get annoyed and concerned when "voters" read email or website drivel/attacks and accept them as fact without looking into finding the facts behind the accusations. Obama is a Muslim... McCain fathered a black baby... Hillary killed Vince Foster. I mean really people.

</div>

That's the problem IMO. Many can't or don't want to remember Jr High Civics. Checks and balances, Habeas Corpus, etc... are just nice topics for Double Jeopardy.

Its alot easier for some just to get caught up in superficial, meaningless, & possibly voyueristic guilty pleasures.

So, are we really smarter than 5th grader or do we just prefer to worship the latest American Idol and let someone else do our thinking for us?.

I get the feeling that the Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves as they IMO hoped that an informed & intelligent citizenry would be the X factor in the whole Democratic process.
</div>

Maybe the anti-Federalists are rolling over in their graves, but the likes of Hamilton planned the system to account for the sheep syndrome.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 18 2008, 06:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>ok I gotcha--but, in my experience of knowing hundreds upon hundreds of career civil servants, from paralegals and clerks up to the highest federal executives, there really isn't an overarching mindset or "Ivory Tower" mentality. Really . . . you are what you are.</div>


Nothing particularly wrong with the rank and file civil servants... until you don't pay the bribe and get the curb outside your store zoned "no parking."

Those rank and file civil servants do have something in common with the common man. They have to pay their bills, deal with renting or owning a home, finance their cars, etc. The issue regarding Hillary is that she's lived in mansions at the tax payers' expense, the bills all paid with a generous allowance, and she's been chauferred everywhere she's needed to go in a govt. limo.

I guess the last 8 years of buying a $multi-million mansion with cash from her and her husband's book deal has her pining for the good ol' days.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Feb 18 2008, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 18 2008, 09:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Send em back al @ Feb 18 2008, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as I'm concerned it's all rhetoric from every candidate for President when they claim to be able to change anything. As we all remember from high school government classes; the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws and the judicial well, err, judges the law or legality of said. Except in the case of a signing statement on the part of the executive that voids or states to ignore aspects of the legislated law, or when the judicial does whatever the hell it wants. Regardless, the President can only control so much without the support of Congress or the courts.

Otherwise... I get annoyed and concerned when "voters" read email or website drivel/attacks and accept them as fact without looking into finding the facts behind the accusations. Obama is a Muslim... McCain fathered a black baby... Hillary killed Vince Foster. I mean really people.

</div>

That's the problem IMO. Many can't or don't want to remember Jr High Civics. Checks and balances, Habeas Corpus, etc... are just nice topics for Double Jeopardy.

Its alot easier for some just to get caught up in superficial, meaningless, & possibly voyueristic guilty pleasures.

So, are we really smarter than 5th grader or do we just prefer to worship the latest American Idol and let someone else do our thinking for us?.

I get the feeling that the Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves as they IMO hoped that an informed & intelligent citizenry would be the X factor in the whole Democratic process.
</div>

Maybe the anti-Federalists are rolling over in their graves, but the likes of Hamilton planned the system to account for the sheep syndrome.
</div>

Touche! It would seem that Jefferson, Paine, & others would be rolling over.

 

[Thoth]

After further review, I think A Hamilton & friends wanted a strong Central Gov't but not sheep. Maybe, compliant?

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 19 2008, 11:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>After further review, I think A Hamilton & friends wanted a strong Central Gov't but not sheep. Maybe, compliant?</div>

On a certain level, they expected sheep, regardless of what they wanted. That was a difference between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists - the Federalists repudiated idealized notions of 'progress' and based their philosophy of government (particularly in Hamilton's case) on Hume's philosophy. They just planned for a strong central government (though not completely federalized either) to be removed enough from the influence of the sheeple to survive potential tyranny of majorities.

Compliant definitely sounds about right.

 

[Mamba]

This stupid cunt needs to drop out, just lost Wisconsin, probably going to lose Hawaii.

How can you vote for her? Obama's got her beat in the electability department 63% to 37%, in the latest poll.

 

[hustler]

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hustler @ Feb 19 2008, 09:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'></div>

That's a pretty poorly edited Video hustler, lol.

Looks like Obama is going to win by double the predicted margin in Wisconsin.

 

[hustler]

lol yea, but I got a kick out of it from the end.

 

[Real]

Hillary Clinton has turned into the Mike Huckabee of the Democrats. I'm sure McCain would love to face Hillary in a general election.

If she get's into office, think of the presidency as Jimmy Carter with child-bearing hips. Republicans will have a nice, solid shot to take back Congress in 2010 and/or the presidency in 2012.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Feb 20 2008, 12:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hillary Clinton has turned into the Mike Huckabee of the Democrats.

If she get's into office, it's going to be Jimmy Carter with child-bearing hips. Republicans will have a nice, solid shot to take back Congress in 2010 and/or the presidency 2012.</div>

She's done. She has to win at least 65% of the remaining pledged delegates in the states that favor her for her to even have a chance.

 

[Thoth]

Will the last one to leave the Clinton Campaign HQ please turn out the lights?!

 

[speeds]

I haven't been following the careers of these three candidates very closely (I'm not American or in America), but I'm watching some of the debates.

Last night my impression of Clinton was that she spent a lot of time pandering and also pecking at the Bush administration, while Obama seemed more confident in himself. His disagreements with the current administration were impersonal, which I think is the correct stance.

I'd be happy with Obama as president, or failing that, McCain.

For whatever reason Clinton as president is unappealing. At least that Clinton.