Hillary Clinton

[Vadatajs]

BBC link

Personal opinions of her aside, I don't think the bbc realizes how many americans don't take her seriously as a politician.

Later

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
BBC link

Personal opinions of her aside, I don't think the bbc realizes how many americans don't take her seriously as a politician.

Later

Given what you say, what kind of support do you need to be a senator? and don't political dynasties have special place in the US's heart (from what I can tell)?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
BBC link Personal opinions of her aside, I don't think the bbc realizes how many americans don't take her seriously as a politician. Later

How many Americans took George W. Bush seriously as a politician a couple of years before he ran?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
BBC link

Personal opinions of her aside, I don't think the bbc realizes how many americans don't take her seriously as a politician.

Later

Given what you say, what kind of support do you need to be a senator? and don't political dynasties have special place in the US's heart (from what I can tell)?

Cheers,

Andy

not much when the guy you were running against bows out to deal with prostate cancer and the guy the reps throw up there is a fresh faced kid from long island. and no, we don't.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Buahahaha! I had forgotten about this

The second time was in January 1998 when the Monica Lewinsky story broke. She declared in an interview with the NBC Today show that it was all politically inspired by "this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Ah yes, "they're all out to get us" boo hoo hoo hoo

How'd that crow taste Hillary?

"Living history" my @ss - maybe "living lies" would be more appropriate.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Buahahaha! I had forgotten about this

The second time was in January 1998 when the Monica Lewinsky story broke. She declared in an interview with the NBC Today show that it was all politically inspired by "this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Ah yes, "they're all out to get us" boo hoo hoo hoo

How'd that crow taste Hillary?

"Living history" my @ss - maybe "living lies" would be more appropriate.

CkG

Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Buahahaha! I had forgotten about this

The second time was in January 1998 when the Monica Lewinsky story broke. She declared in an interview with the NBC Today show that it was all politically inspired by "this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Ah yes, "they're all out to get us" boo hoo hoo hoo

How'd that crow taste Hillary?

"Living history" my @ss - maybe "living lies" would be more appropriate.

CkG

shes a victim so the voters the democrats try to cater to identify with her

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
BBC link Personal opinions of her aside, I don't think the bbc realizes how many americans don't take her seriously as a politician. Later

How many Americans took George W. Bush seriously as a politician a couple of years before he ran?

touche

 

[IamDavid]

Hillary Clinton will NEVER be president. She might do fine in states on the East Coast and Cali. but no where else. The dems are fools if they go with her in 08. Gore would be the much better choice and would probably win against any rep...

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm thinking she she may be the one for 2004. The party should run it's best candidate. She would make a fantastic President and restore a sense of international prestege to the US. You can't imagine what a Butt Head Bush is to those who can see. He is a complete disaster. Thinking Americans won't have to hide their heads in shame.

 

[Moonbeam]

It would be interesting if Gore ran. He might win if he didn't care. He would have to do it as a charity to the nation though. I think he feels he blew his chance and is duty bound to let someone else try. He's so much more a man than Bush, so much more decent a human being.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It would be interesting if Gore ran. He might win if he didn't care. He would have to do it as a charity to the nation though. I think he feels he blew his chance and is duty bound to let someone else try. He's so much more a man than Bush, so much more decent a human being.

hahahahahahaha...hoohohohohohoh....hhahahahahaha....heeheheheheheeheee.....will your infatuation with Gore never end?

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It would be interesting if Gore ran. He might win if he didn't care. He would have to do it as a charity to the nation though. I think he feels he blew his chance and is duty bound to let someone else try. He's so much more a man than Bush, so much more decent a human being.

Ignoring the stupid statements about Bush I too think Gore would make a good President. Hillary would be a flat out joke to the country so how cold she help us in the international affairs? Would she try bribing the whole world like her hubby.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It would be interesting if Gore ran. He might win if he didn't care. He would have to do it as a charity to the nation though. I think he feels he blew his chance and is duty bound to let someone else try. He's so much more a man than Bush, so much more decent a human being.

Ignoring the stupid statements about Bush I too think Gore would make a good President. Hillary would be a flat out joke to the country so how cold she help us in the international affairs? Would she try bribing the whole world like her hubby.

eerrr... what? You mean diplomacy? Is that what Republicans call bribing the world? Respecting other countries and working with the rest of the world is called bribing the world now?

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: IamDavid


eerrr... what? You mean diplomacy? Is that what Republicans call bribing the world? Respecting other countries is called bribing the world now?

Maybe ya haven't heard about North Korea. Or maybe China... Maybe not the whole world I guess. Just the most dangerous parts of it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Buahahaha! I had forgotten about this

The second time was in January 1998 when the Monica Lewinsky story broke. She declared in an interview with the NBC Today show that it was all politically inspired by "this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Ah yes, "they're all out to get us" boo hoo hoo hoo

How'd that crow taste Hillary?

What crow? She was probably right.

[rant]
Her husband was hounded relentlessly, allegedly for lying about his sex life, by the same shrill right-wing hypocrites who think it's OK for Bush-lite to lie over and over about matters of actual importance to this country. I concede that "conspiracy" may be over-stated. It is theoretically possible that all of these vindictive sore-losers simultaneously and independently decided to crucify the man for daring to beat their guy -- twice.
[/rant]

Rant aside, I don't see how you can claim she was too far off-base. The whole Starr witch-hunt was a shameful episode of our history, a horrible misuse of political power and public funds to persecute the legitimately elected President of the United States. It was partisan politics at its worst, it was hurtful and divisive for this country, and it was completely out of proportion to the significance and consequences of Clinton's sin. Yes, Bill Clinton was wrong. Yes, he did a bad thing. But the Republican feeding frenzy that followed was a thousand-fold worse.

(Edit: typo)

 

[JellyBaby]

I don't think the bbc realizes how many americans don't take her seriously as a politician.

I take her very seriously as a politician. That's why I don't like her.

 

[Zebo]

vast right-wing conspiracy

Don't believe it CAD>Here it's well documented


I'm no fanboy of clinton but you can't deny there was a signifigant some of money and PACs were assembled to detroy the lefts message. IMO all for big business and to fight the middle class and poors growing power.

 

[LunarRay]

The thought of Bill Clinton sleeping with my President is a bit much... I'd rather her sleep with him....

Gore in '04... won't be much a chore considering the opposition he'd face.. thus far none would inspire me save Edwards.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Buahahaha! I had forgotten about this

The second time was in January 1998 when the Monica Lewinsky story broke. She declared in an interview with the NBC Today show that it was all politically inspired by "this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Ah yes, "they're all out to get us" boo hoo hoo hoo

How'd that crow taste Hillary?

What crow? She was probably right.

[rant]
Her husband was hounded relentlessly, allegedly for lying about his sex life, by the same shrill right-wing hypocrites who think it's OK for Bush-lite to lie over and over about matters of actual importance to this country. I concede that "conspiracy" may be over-stated. It is theoretically possible that all of these vindictive sore-losers simultaneously and independently decided to crucify the man for daring to beat their guy -- twice.
[/rant]

Rant aside, I don't see how you can claim she was too far off-base. The whole Starr witch-hunt was a shameful episode of our history, a horrible misuse of political power and public funds to persecute the legitimately elected President of the United States. It was partisan politics at its worst, it was hurtful and divisive for this country, and it was completely out of proportion to the significance and consequences of Clinton's sin. Yes, Bill Clinton was wrong. Yes, he did a bad thing. But the Republican feeding frenzy that followed was a thousand-fold worse.

(Edit: typo)

Are you kidding me? She blantantly stated that there was a "right wing conspiracy" and that the Monica charges were a part of it! Umm, maybe it's just me but I thought Clinton finally admitted to "relations" with Monica.:Q She had to swallow her pride (eat crow) and admit that her husband lied to her.

I now ask you, why when someone questions Clinton(or Democrats) it's a "right-wing conspiracy" but when people question Bush(or Republicans) it's being "open minded" and "exercising the right to dissent"?

I guess calling Bush a Liar(without reasoned evidence or proof) isn't "hurtful and divisive for this country" either, so carry on.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,
I now ask you, why when someone questions Clinton(or Democrats) it's a "right-wing conspiracy" but when people question Bush(or Republicans) it's being "open minded" and "exercising the right to dissent"?

I guess calling Bush a Liar(without reasoned evidence or proof) isn't "hurtful and divisive for this country" either, so carry on.
********************
Words are only words. Its the substance that counts... right?

Let the facts speak for themselves... regardless. That's the best way. No?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1
CAD,
I now ask you, why when someone questions Clinton(or Democrats) it's a "right-wing conspiracy" but when people question Bush(or Republicans) it's being "open minded" and "exercising the right to dissent"?

I guess calling Bush a Liar(without reasoned evidence or proof) isn't "hurtful and divisive for this country" either, so carry on.
********************
Words are only words. Its the substance that counts... right?

Let the facts speak for themselves... regardless. That's the best way. No?

Sure. I can't say any more because my self-imposed restriction to talk about a certain subject.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1
CAD,
I now ask you, why when someone questions Clinton(or Democrats) it's a "right-wing conspiracy" but when people question Bush(or Republicans) it's being "open minded" and "exercising the right to dissent"?

I guess calling Bush a Liar(without reasoned evidence or proof) isn't "hurtful and divisive for this country" either, so carry on.
********************
Words are only words. Its the substance that counts... right?

Let the facts speak for themselves... regardless. That's the best way. No?

Sure. I can't say any more because my self-imposed restriction to talk about a certain subject.

CkG

Well if you did say something I'd respond by saying... If what you say is fact and not the interpretation of some possible this or that I'd have to agree. This ain't DNA statistical analysis. They are not gonna share the secret stuff with us. So I'll also climb on the fence till it's time to jump off again and where I'll land will be where the truth is.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Buahahaha! I had forgotten about this

The second time was in January 1998 when the Monica Lewinsky story broke. She declared in an interview with the NBC Today show that it was all politically inspired by "this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Ah yes, "they're all out to get us" boo hoo hoo hoo

How'd that crow taste Hillary?

What crow? She was probably right.

[rant]
Her husband was hounded relentlessly, allegedly for lying about his sex life, by the same shrill right-wing hypocrites who think it's OK for Bush-lite to lie over and over about matters of actual importance to this country. I concede that "conspiracy" may be over-stated. It is theoretically possible that all of these vindictive sore-losers simultaneously and independently decided to crucify the man for daring to beat their guy -- twice.
[/rant]

Rant aside, I don't see how you can claim she was too far off-base. The whole Starr witch-hunt was a shameful episode of our history, a horrible misuse of political power and public funds to persecute the legitimately elected President of the United States. It was partisan politics at its worst, it was hurtful and divisive for this country, and it was completely out of proportion to the significance and consequences of Clinton's sin. Yes, Bill Clinton was wrong. Yes, he did a bad thing. But the Republican feeding frenzy that followed was a thousand-fold worse.

(Edit: typo)

Are you kidding me? She blantantly stated that there was a "right wing conspiracy" and that the Monica charges were a part of it! Umm, maybe it's just me but I thought Clinton finally admitted to "relations" with Monica.:Q She had to swallow her pride (eat crow) and admit that her husband lied to her.

I'm sure it's easier than actually addressing the issues raised, but your continuing insistence on misunderstanding simple English statements is getting tiresome. Pretty soon you'll be arguing about what "is" is, and the circle will be complete.

The motivation behind a charge and the truthfulness of a charge are independent issues, particularly in the political arena. The rabid fervor with which one pursues a charge and the truthfulness of the charge are equally independent. Hillary Clinton was correct when she noted that the motivation for the charge and the witch hunt that followed were "politically inspired" by the right. To pretend otherwise, or to confuse agenda with truth, is dishonest.

I now ask you, why when someone questions Clinton(or Democrats) it's a "right-wing conspiracy" but when people question Bush(or Republicans) it's being "open minded" and "exercising the right to dissent"?

Once again, you stake out two opposite extremes and equate them. There is a bit of a difference between "questioning" and an eight-year, $50 million inquisition (not to mention the rest of the full-court persecution by the right).

I guess calling Bush a Liar(without reasoned evidence or proof) isn't "hurtful and divisive for this country" either, so carry on.

Without reasoned evidence or proof? Get real. Have you been hiding in a cave with Osama for the last year? This has been hashed to death in other threads. I'm not going to pull this one off-topic too just because you cling pathetically to your illusions about Bush.

 

[Moonbeam]

I guess calling Bush a Liar(without reasoned evidence or proof) isn't "hurtful and divisive for this country" either, so carry on.
-------------------------
Yeah, when I think of all the retards in Texas he executed it sort of does reminds me to be nice to idiots.