DJL 232 #76 January 25, 2007 Quotewhat is it about her that sparks such a visceral reaction She already had two terms. Now she's running for a third term under a technical pretense."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #77 January 25, 2007 QuoteSeriously, what is it about her that sparks such a visceral reaction She is a bitch. This has been described by people that have worked closely in the Clinton Administration.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #78 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuotewhat is it about her that sparks such a visceral reaction She already had two terms. Now she's running for a third term under a technical pretense. can you imagine the Clintons in the white house for a total of 16 years??? The only other situation even remotely similar to someone holding an office of such stature and then the S.O. holding the same position later that I've known about was when George C Wallace could not run for a 3rd consecutive term as governor of Alabama, so his wife ran... and won... and then later on George ran for governor again and won... That was so fucked up. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #79 January 25, 2007 QuoteShe is a bitch. That is nearly as pertinent as George Bush having a small penis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #80 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteShe is a bitch. That is nearly as pertinent as George Bush having a small penis. ...and being a AWOL coke-head. But hey, Clinton got his knob polished.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteShe is a bitch. That is nearly as pertinent as George Bush having a small penis. Having to compensate may lead to rash acts, but being a bitch makes bipartisan efforts more difficult. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #82 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteShe is a bitch. That is nearly as pertinent as George Bush having a small penis. Having to compensate may lead to rash acts, but being a bitch makes bipartisan efforts more difficult. I'd rather have a bitch than a pushover. I have other reasons to opposed Hillary than just this simple reason though. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #83 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteShe is a bitch. That is nearly as pertinent as George Bush having a small penis. The original poster asked why people hate her. I think this is the simple, straightforward answer. Whether you think this should be a reason to hate her is a different matter. Her personality has been described in detail by those that were as close to the president as can be. The label "bitch" seems quite appropriate. Of course anyone that rises to the presidency is not going to be just a lovable teddy bear at all times, but people do want to like their president.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #84 January 25, 2007 QuoteShe is a bitch. This has been described by people that have worked closely in the Clinton Administration. "Bitch" is a word only applied to women -- therefore I'm going to call it a sexist term. Can you put your opinion in gender-neutral language? If not, I'll call it a sexist reason. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityJunky 0 #85 January 25, 2007 She embarrasses them by actually doing what she promises, her contituents she will do, the Clintons are great on both international affairs and domestic ones. Their "Lowest" approval ratings are embarassingly much higher then Bush's "Highest" let alone his most recent. Therefore it is easier to Sling mud at them and draw attention/focus away from them, while they fuck up repeatedly, then to improve ones own image by actually doing the right thing. Besides MANY republicans, particularly those in office, of recent months are so embarrassed by the Bush Clinton comparison. They, have been Raving about Her and her preformance, intellect, and capabilities, etc. and are consistently admitting she is so qualified for the Presidency they doubt very much then can find a candidate to beat her, anywhere!*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too! *Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge *Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie} Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #86 January 25, 2007 Quotethe Clintons are great on both international affairs and domestic ones. According to who? Cite? QuoteTheir "Lowest" approval ratings are embarassingly much higher then Bush's "Highest" This is a lie! QuoteBesides MANY republicans, particularly those in office, of recent months are so embarrassed by the Bush Clinton comparison. They, have been Raving about Her and her preformance, intellect, and capabilities, etc. and are consistently admitting she is so qualified for the Presidency they doubt very much then can find a candidate to beat her, anywhere! Source please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteShe is a bitch. This has been described by people that have worked closely in the Clinton Administration. "Bitch" is a word only applied to women -- therefore I'm going to call it a sexist term. Can you put your opinion in gender-neutral language? If not, I'll call it a sexist reason. asshole is the male equilivent. Doesn't seem to be a gender neutral though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #88 January 26, 2007 >asshole is the male equilivent. Surely you have shouted "hey asshole!" at a drop zone and had women answer "WHAT?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityJunky 0 #89 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuotethe Clintons are great on both international affairs and domestic ones. According to who? Cite? Source please. Assoc.Press releases in FL, GA, & NY papers repeatedly, going back to Fathr's day weekend & then some "AP" releases If ya can't find them, in a paper near you: I'll be more then happy to mail you copies!*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too! *Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge *Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie} Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #90 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotethe Clintons are great on both international affairs and domestic ones. According to who? Cite? Source please. Assoc.Press releases in FL, GA, & NY papers repeatedly, going back to Fathr's day weekend & then some "AP" releases If ya can't find them, in a paper near you: I'll be more then happy to mail you copies! Is this like "Let me tell about my wonderful grandchildren"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #91 February 12, 2007 Her politics are based off current polls. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #92 February 12, 2007 QuoteI think a lot of people hate Hillary because she's a woman who has not only managed to succeed on her own merits and without a hand up from a man... she's managed to succeed in spite of him. In spite of? He had a better than 50% approval even after the impeachment. Not sure what the in spite of was for. QuoteThat said, I don't agree with her politics, so I probably wouldn't vote for her unless the libertarians put up a total moron as a candidate. Isn't the Libertarian protocol moronic enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #93 February 12, 2007 QuoteAs I see it, she's in it for the power. Things I really, really don't like about her- 1) Condescending attitude (Leona Helmsley comes to mind) 2) Carpetbagger, she couldn't get elected in her own state, IL or AR, so she went to one of the highest concentrations of liberals in the country outside of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. 3) What really happened with the Rose Law firm records anyway? You want someone with that poor of a memory in charge? 4) Just like her hubby, take a poll, take a stand. Just what are her personal convictions and when, if ever, do they enter into the decision making process? 5) Gun control- no gray area for the dems there, look at Schumer, Obama, Feinstein et al. 6) She's a socialist. 7) Would you really want one of the most liberal women in the country teamed up with the likes of Pelosi and Reid? Whatever happened to the idea of voting balance? While I am a R, I'm no fan of the spending and governmental expansion of recent. And don't even go anywhere near border security. The problem as I see it is both parties have truly lost their ability to pick a course and stay with it. It's getting harder and harder at election time. See, this is teh kind of stuff that tips the hands of conservatives: 1) Condescending attitude (Leona Helmsley comes to mind) 2) Carpetbagger, she couldn't get elected in her own state, IL or AR, so she went to one of the highest concentrations of liberals in the country outside of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. 3) What really happened with the Rose Law firm records anyway? You want someone with that poor of a memory in charge? 4) Just like her hubby, take a poll, take a stand. Just what are her personal convictions and when, if ever, do they enter into the decision making process? The above 5 have no substance to the kind of senator she is what she would do in the white house. I could say Bush was the first criminal elected president, he can't even eat pretzels w/o choking, etc... See, gets nowhere to sunstance, just as the above 5. 5) Gun control- no gray area for the dems there, look at Schumer, Obama, Feinstein et al. This starts to have substance, but be sure to include both Bush's in that group. GWH Bush had his NRA card yanked for leaning toward anti-gun laws. GW Bush said he would sign the sunsetted AWB that Clinton started 10 years before if Congress put it to him, which they did not. Wanna pretend that gun prohibition is a dem thing, enjoy away. I will agree that they are slightly more adamant about it, but the gov wants to find a way to make it pallatable to yank our guns, BOTH PARTIES. 6) She's a socialist. Not really, she leans toward socialsim with her socialized meds platform, but other than that how is she a socialist? 7) Would you really want one of the most liberal women in the country teamed up with the likes of Pelosi and Reid? Whatever happened to the idea of voting balance? EXCUSE ME? From the party that had a chokehold on teh nation for a decade, really 18 of the last 26 years, you cry for balance now that the end is near for the neo-cons? Please. We need to load the left in order to gain balance. And oh, BTW, that socialized meds thing will be received much better now that the right has fucked the poor for the times noted above. 20 years ago probably 1 or 10 woild be for it, I bet now at least 3 of ten if not 50% would be for some form of it. QuoteWhile I am a R, I'm no fan of the spending and governmental expansion of recent. Which is why we call them the neo-cons, not the old Republican party. QuoteThe problem as I see it is both parties have truly lost their ability to pick a course and stay with it. Uh, I think the dems have a course. They want to raise taxes on the rich and provide some services for the poor. They want to pay down the debt, so the next generation of neo-cons can run it up. Their direction is pretty clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #94 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteI still can't wrap my head around the liberal's love of all things socialist... It's actually quite simple, mike. When Jane Fonda said, "If everyone knew what communism really was they'd pray for it" she never pictured herself toiling 14 hours a day in the cane fields during harvest. When a person looks to socialism, they come in one of two tracks: 1) the person hoping somebody else will take care of them; or 2) the person hoping to be in charge of it. Socialism is the concept that the government spends other people's money on other people. Hence, you have a situation wherein the government decide what the peasants will get and how much will be spent. So as opposed to letting people spend their own money on themselves, or letting people spend their own money on others, socialism operates so that people spend other people's money on other people. Ah, but to the socialists IN CHARGE, it also allows them to spend other people's money on themselves. Congress votes itself pay raises, right? It got so bad that there becames a Constitutional Amendment that limited the immediate effectiveness. So, if I am in charge of spending other people's money on other people, I can make sure I am handsomely compensated for it since I bring the money in. This is what socialists long for - being in charge of the spending, for the person in charge has the power and the bucks - which enables them to work outside of the system that they operate. UH, I understand your vested interest, so I see why you are skewing Communism with Socialism. Socialism = the people controlling the gov Communism = the gov controlling everyting Capitalism = the market controlling everything Socialism is not Communism. What do we call this current admin that is spending all of our money and all of the money in the future? It's the gov doing it and it is teh right wing, so does that make the Repubs Communists or just Socialists. I guess grossly overspending on the military is different than spending on social programs, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #95 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteBut people who dislike her cannot make tangible any reasons for it other than...... she's a Clinton. You seem to just ignore over half of the posts in this thread. Why? Make your claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #96 February 12, 2007 QuoteFDR's entire political career was probably helped by being Teddy Roosevelt's distant relative... Or it could be that Hoover fucked teh country so bad that even his own voted him out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #97 February 12, 2007 QuoteYou really believe yourself when you make such crazy claims? McCain and Guliani = war mongers The AMerican people = hate the Iraq war It's that simple. QuoteThe last two elections were dead heats. I don't think Clinton can get more than 10% of those that voted for Bush. And I know she can't get 90% of those that voted for Kerry or Gore. A lot of Democrats will vote for McCain. (Talk about a shitty choice to have to make) Only Bush has higher negative opinion ratings than she does. McCain called hmself a conservative Republican recently, so I think virtually all dems and most moderates will run from him. QuoteThe way the GOP won in 2000 was to indentify a well funded horse early on and pick him by the end of 1999. Doesn't matter if you like him much or not, can he win. In other words, a guy like Edwards. I don't think Clinton can beat any Republican that makes it to the fall. You avoid the primary issue: the war. QuoteAnd if the GOP can stomach their dislike for McCain, I'm not sure any Democrat can beat him. How is it that they dislike him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #98 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhen a person looks to socialism, they come in one of two tracks: 1) the person hoping somebody else will take care of them; or 2) the person hoping to be in charge of it. I hadn't looked at it in that light...thanks! So it comes back to the whole "the only reason socialism hasn't worked yet is because the right people haven't been in charge" bit, then... The reason Socialism hasn't been employed is that voters had healthcare, had a chance at a better tomorrow. Now that a lot of that hasd changed for a lot of people, these things come more and more to light. The ultra-rich has crossed that threshold of greed and I think people will start to receive a Socialist gov when they can;t get their kids healthcare. As for Lawrocket's take, he hasn;t addressed it form the stance of teh government, who has the responsibility to care for its people. He just contends that Socialists are lazy slobs. Socialist countries have fewer rich, but fewer poor as well. 4-6 weeks vacation per year, 35-hour workweeks and I see the Euro is smoking the dollar. And we laughed when the Russian economy imploded..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #99 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteSeriously, what is it about her that sparks such a visceral reaction She is a bitch. This has been described by people that have worked closely in the Clinton Administration. Again, failure to address her Congressional performance..... color me shocked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #100 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotewhat is it about her that sparks such a visceral reaction She already had two terms. Now she's running for a third term under a technical pretense. can you imagine the Clintons in the white house for a total of 16 years??? The only other situation even remotely similar to someone holding an office of such stature and then the S.O. holding the same position later that I've known about was when George C Wallace could not run for a 3rd consecutive term as governor of Alabama, so his wife ran... and won... and then later on George ran for governor again and won... That was so fucked up. We've had, or will have 5 terms, 20 years of Reagan/Bush/Bush, basically the same protocol, so yes, I can see 8 more years of unfucking the debt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
