Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 164

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Support the travelling pant suit

    I understand people have this odd ability to call themselves progressive/liberal. Usually, we see this in children and teenagers looking to rebel against their parents. Inexplicably, some adults cling onto these child like fantasies and believe the world can be soft and gentle and everyone can be cajoled into getting along. Ok. Fine. Silly. But fine. Then there are those liberals who support Hillary.... WTF??? This white and wealthy woman got rich by being a First Lady who got jobs from her husband's name and the earned sympathy because her husband received blowjobs in the Oral, I mean Oval Orifice.. er Office. She has spent the past 20 years acting as a Senator with a rather weak record, a Secretary of State with a rather weak record and, otherwise, just a very strange mix of ambition and animosity.

    Her list of accomplishments, despite being in some sort of public position for about 2 decades, reads like a Cliff Notes version of a Douglas Adams book. It is funny, ironic and short. Is she really the best candidate the Democrats can prop up? Is she being put out there because she has a vagina (reportedly)? I mean, from Democrats, what is it about Hillary that would compel you to vote for her? Inquiring minds want to know.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    She has a huge advantage over any GOP candidate - can you guess what that is?

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    She has a huge advantage over any GOP candidate - can you guess what that is?
    Sigh... but I should have figured her biggest asset is that she is not a Republican. Here is my word of warning JJ. I asked, specifically, what Democrats see in Hillary. So, any further mention of the GOP will be considered spam and be reported as such.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Sigh... but I should have figured her biggest asset is that she is not a Republican. Here is my word of warning JJ. I asked, specifically, what Democrats see in Hillary. So, any further mention of the GOP will be considered spam and be reported as such.
    Well, currently there is no Democratic comparison point - she is the only declared candidate at the moment. Any Democrat would currently have to vote for her.

    In keeping with your request though, she does have the following strengths:

    - experience and familiarity with the world and its leaders
    - she will protect business interests (not all Ds are Occupy members)
    - she will continue to support women's rights and equality including the continuation of Obama's fight for equal pay and other women's issues with some legitimacy
    - she may go for single payer as a fix for all the ObamaCare woes, maybe in her second term
    - she understands electronic privacy more than anyone and may actually so something about it - though I'm not holding my breath.
    - she will springboard her daughter to continue the Clinton dynasty thus continuing the Democratic run on winning the Presidency for another generation.
    - she doesn't seem overtly religious - that's a huge plus point.

    That's all without reading her policy statements yet so some of this is speculation.

    But the OP is really moot - Warren will not be running and I currently don't see any serious contenders that will gain the nomination.

    The other problem with the OP is that Democrats are seeing anything in Hilary at all - I don't think the rank and file are part of this decision at all. Hilary's run has been preordained since she lost to Obama. She is clearly supported by those in power - she has a 2.5 billion dollar war chest. So what else is there to discuss?
    Last edited by JimJones8934; April 14th, 2015 at 05:20 PM.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Well, the truth is part of what you need to be president is....
    1. Political know how
    2. Influential friends who will go to bat for you
    3. A reasonable level of charisma of some kind
    4. Policy positions that are at least amicale to half the voting public
    5. Some sense that you are like at least a decent swath of people

    Being really strong in some can help you get over on others. Hillary is super well connected, has lots of friends and knows how to play politics with the best of them. Kind of like her husband but with less charisma. Her policy positions are not super duper popular but neither are they very offensive to many. She resonates with a lot of women who aspire to success and are basically middle america types. To others she is palatable and safe and yes, could be first woman president.

    Ask the more liberal and progressive types and thy will Cite a preference for Elizabeth Warren, but Warren is not quite the heavy hitter that Hillary is and probably couldn't survive the fight with her so unless she shows a real desire and puts the thing in motion, folks will fall in line for Hillary.

    For me, I'll wait and see but if its Hillary vs some staunch conservative, or even a run of the mill republican, Hillary will get my tepid support and vote as partly a matter of pragmatism, and partly a vote to have a first bubba in the whitehouese actually to have the first woman president.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,857
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Oh, yes, a "First Bubba" would be sweet indeed.

    "...a very strange mix of ambition and animosity." I'd like to know what you mean by animosity, and since when has ambition been a bad thing? or is it that she's a female? Does that not jive with your traditional family values worldview?


    I find your view of progressives laughable since conservatives - now increasingly checking out the libertarian bandwagon - so often tout their dislike for coercion. Perhaps in your mind that only goes for the other. You're so quick to support the use of force and then blindly defend it and then decry it when it is not your side doing it that I cannot help but conclude that your decisions are motivated by selfish political gain coupled with a unhealthy attachment to the military and its suppliers - not that democrats don't have that also, but to a lesser extent, and only because they have to to remain politically viable.

    This meme persists - that democrats are weak on defense - because we believe in fighting smart and only when necessary.

    But conservatives have shown their hand - the recent flubbing of Iraq and Afghanistan - to be empty when dealing with the complexity of world relations and could only dream of having a WW2 type victory (and successfully fought and won peace afterwards), an American Civil War (admitting the end of reconstruction - that's one for your side at least), or Revolutionary War type victory where your conservative values did as mush to move us - the entire world - forward.


    But back to Hillary. I see nothing to suggest she has not supported liberal/progressive values. Even as far back as Hillarycare. Maybe someone else can think of an example.

    As to sex in the oral office - really, who cares? This and all of the nonsense scandals have not touched her or her husband - they've barely touched those involved. The continuation of the tabloid strategy does, indeed, work in the short term often distracting or halting progress(*). I'd argue just the opposite for the long term - that low, working, and middle class (to a lesser and variable extent) people strongly relate to irrational and unfair persecution..."bullying" if you will. Oh, they'll be cautious in case any of it turns out to be true but eventually when it's shown that there's no there there then the rewards of fealty are stupendous. Bill has never been more popular or beloved.


    *Which is why tabloid journalism is so embraced and protected by conservatives as you and I have previously discussed.
    Last edited by CowboyX; April 15th, 2015 at 12:21 AM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    As to sex in the oral office - really, who cares?
    I have to say it is always weird when people bring this up at all any more. They certainly don't do so to Bill's face and it makes even less sense to do so for Hilary.

    It's like punishing her again for something she had nothing to do with and indeed was a victim (which is not uncommon is certain circle I suppose).

    This is definitely scraping at the bottom of the barrel. Much like the anticipated Benghazi attacks soon to come, this will be met quizzically. I can't wait for this to come up in the debates - talk about war on women!

    The only reason why Clinton won't win would be due to voter apathy and that is no small foe.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    The only reason why Clinton won't win would be due to voter apathy and that is no small foe.
    If Clinton doesn't win, it won't be because of apathy, but because she is a polarizing figure. With approval ratings generally around 45% (before any general election attack ads against her) and 99.9% name recognition, she would have a huge problem getting above 50% in the general election, because 55% of the public already knows and doesn't like her.

    However, because a lot of people will echo what Sig said, and will want to vote for the first woman President despite not really liking her, Clinton might win.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If Clinton doesn't win, it won't be because of apathy, but because she is a polarizing figure. With approval ratings generally around 45% (before any general election attack ads against her) and 99.9% name recognition, she would have a huge problem getting above 50% in the general election, because 55% of the public already knows and doesn't like her.

    However, because a lot of people will echo what Sig said, and will want to vote for the first woman President despite not really liking her, Clinton might win.
    I don't know - the losing of the senate and house seats was due to the Democrats unable to rally their base. I guess we will have to wait and see on this one.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Oh, yes, a "First Bubba" would be sweet indeed.

    "...a very strange mix of ambition and animosity." I'd like to know what you mean by animosity, and since when has ambition been a bad thing? or is it that she's a female? Does that not jive with your traditional family values worldview?


    I find your view of progressives laughable since conservatives - now increasingly checking out the libertarian bandwagon - so often tout their dislike for coercion. Perhaps in your mind that only goes for the other. You're so quick to support the use of force and then blindly defend it and then decry it when it is not your side doing it that I cannot help but conclude that your decisions are motivated by selfish political gain coupled with a unhealthy attachment to the military and its suppliers - not that democrats don't have that also, but to a lesser extent, and only because they have to to remain politically viable.

    This meme persists - that democrats are weak on defense - because we believe in fighting smart and only when necessary.

    But conservatives have shown their hand - the recent flubbing of Iraq and Afghanistan - to be empty when dealing with the complexity of world relations and could only dream of having a WW2 type victory (and successfully fought and won peace afterwards), an American Civil War (admitting the end of reconstruction - that's one for your side at least), or Revolutionary War type victory where your conservative values did as mush to move us - the entire world - forward.


    But back to Hillary. I see nothing to suggest she has not supported liberal/progressive values. Even as far back as Hillarycare. Maybe someone else can think of an example.

    As to sex in the oral office - really, who cares? This and all of the nonsense scandals have not touched her or her husband - they've barely touched those involved. The continuation of the tabloid strategy does, indeed, work in the short term often distracting or halting progress(*). I'd argue just the opposite for the long term - that low, working, and middle class (to a lesser and variable extent) people strongly relate to irrational and unfair persecution..."bullying" if you will. Oh, they'll be cautious in case any of it turns out to be true but eventually when it's shown that there's no there there then the rewards of fealty are stupendous. Bill has never been more popular or beloved.


    *Which is why tabloid journalism is so embraced and protected by conservatives as you and I have previously discussed.
    Let's not get all misogyny about things. I know it is taboo to be critical of a female in power. Anyone who has worked in an office knows the type I mean. The guy who has no interest in the quality of the project so long as he gets positive cred for it. He'll drop one project for another higher profile project and leave everyone else hanging. Full of deceit because he has to make everyone else around him appear incompetent to boost himself. Then, his anger shines when he's questioned or someone does something that he perceives will interfere with his ambitions. It isn't a woman thing. It is a quality I have seen in co-workers and it is revolting. I see it in Clinton and, perhaps, that is why she revolts me as much as she does.

    Look, if I have mis-described liberals/progressives then please just tell me why you will vote for her (if she will, indeed, by your choice). What policies has she supported which you are excited about? I have seen Hillary since 1992 as just an empty vessel of ambition. She just never appears genuine. Even back then she made a point to keep her college papers out of the public domain. She was always hiding something. Always scheming. She always had big ideas or big plans and never quite carried them out. Just enough to get credit of some kind before she scurried off to some other "important" job. Remember when she planning to put together a health care plan. She was first lady and just assumed some sort of role as co-legislator. Yet, she failed and people kind of gloss that over. She carpetbagged herself a job as a New York senator. Why New York? She was not a New Yorker? Cause it was bigger than Arkansas I guess. As a Senator she really did nothing noteworthy which is not unexpected. Senators, especially junior senators, get very little done. It is not a place one goes to get things done. But, she gets to advertise herself as an ex-Senator. Again, wildly ambitious, but very little substance. She then figured all this "experience" made her qualified to be the next President. Except someone with even less experience than her beat her out. So, she made a deal with Obama that she'd support him if he gave her an important job. Madam Secretary of State she became. We went from Condoleezza Rice, Stanford graduate, and Russian policy expert, who could speak fluent Russian, to Hillary Clinton. She couldn't even master the reset button. And I don't want to get into some huge comparison between the two which would be pointless. I am just showing how Clinton with a law degree and B.A., first lady, and a few years as a Senator was really under-qualified for Secretary of State. She was basically handed the job as part of a deal. Why did she want that job? She needed something on her foreign policy resume. Yet, like all her previous jobs, you cannot really put a finger on anything significant she did. Her greatest accomplishment has been accepting titles. Fiorina made an interesting observation about Hillary. I am not sure Fiorina meant it in the way I took it or not, but I think she probably did as I am sure she's been around a lot of people in big corporations just like Hillary. Fiorina noted that flying isn't an accomplishment, it is just a means of getting somewhere. I think she was implying much of what I am saying here in this thread. Hillary is sort of a big empty pant suit. Ambition and hot air.

    I was not implying anyone cares about sex in the oral office. I am simply noting Hillary gained all sorts of brownie points for her perceived actions back then. It, in some ways, pushed her into the national spotlight which she hadn't managed to do before. It would not be a huge stretch to suggest that without Lewinsky back then, there'd be no Hillary today. I am not insinuating any sort of conspiracy other than it was obvious back then that Hillary's reaction was purely about what would be best for her political future.

    What I am trying to say, inquire, what positives do liberals see in this woman? There are plenty of liberals whose policies I don't like, but with whom I don't feel absolute revulsion for. At least no more than I would for an average politician. Elizabeth Warren seems like a complete left-wing nutjob to me but I get her appeal. Her vision and actions appear consistent with her actions. She does not appear to be pandering for votes every time she goes out in public. Her every move does not appear to be calculated. Harry Reid. I get him. He's a gamer. A pure political hack. Anything for the party so long as it benefits his career. Nobody, though, would consider him Presidential material. I look at Hillary and put her right alongside someone like Ted Cruz. Purely ambitious. No accomplishments. Untrustworthy.

    ---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Personally it makes me distrust Clinton, and in a way his wife. It shows that power means more to them than integrity. Most think all politicians are like that, I tend to reserve judgement until they prove it.
    People tend to forget/dismiss that the issue really had very little to do about fellatio and everything to do with how the Clintons' went about their business when it was uncovered. There were three sides to this event.
    1) There was the actual sex side-show. This was pure tabloid sensationalism. The intern. The dress. The cigar.
    2) There was the reaction. Clinton's legal parsing. The lying. The denials. Hillary's public face in which she was going to stand by her man which was a big deal for a supposed feminist a the time.
    3) Then, there was all the stuff which really was not news and much of which didn't come out until later. How the whole thing was a terrible distraction for Bill and interfered with him doing his job. The private face of Hillary who demonstrated anger and supposedly thrashed Bill about on more than one occasion.

    Now, some of this stuff probably should have been private and that's ok, but I just remember throughout it all, it was not the sex that I found problematic. I loved that the President was getting head in the oval office. He is/was the most powerful man in the friggen world. If anyone deserves a little bj under their work desk it is the President of the U.S. of A. I don't want the guy with the red button to have unnecessary tension. Just when you're caught, be a man and just admit it. If you are Hillary, you're gonna go after some 18 year old intern? This is the big bad feminist who always talked about woman's issues? The whole thing was phony since we now know while she was slut-shaming Lewinsky, she was throwing things at Bill. She knew the truth. She just couldn't show it in public and there is just little doubt it was due to her own ambitions.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Folks, the left loves tabloid journalism. The little guy delights when the rich and powerful are exposed as mere humans filled with the usual foibles and follies.

    The blow job thing is memorable, and that is all the reason it needs to persist. Its also very embarrassing for the president and first lady and thus they will never forget it either. There are a legion of reasons it is a powerful human story and will go in the annals of presidential history despite the petty and minor nature of the event itself.

    Personally it makes me distrust Clinton, and in a way his wife. It shows that power means more to them than integrity. Most think all politicians are like that, I tend to reserve judgement until they prove it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,857
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Folks, the left loves tabloid journalism.
    Indeed, but not as a replacement of news and necessary information.

    You wouldn't lie - to a bunch of people not interested in the truth (whether or not he committed sexual harassment) but rather in scoring political points - in order to spare your family pain? *sheesh* talk about integrity...I'd push you off a bridge to protect my family.

    You're right though, it will be remembered, most accurately as a witch-hunt - again for political gain - into the personal life of someone we still know next to nothing regarding the details of.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The blow job thing is memorable, and that is all the reason it needs to persist. Its also very embarrassing for the president and first lady and thus they will never forget it either.
    I doubt that they are really embarrassed by it any longer. It's probably more an annoyance at this stage of their lives

    Personally it makes me distrust Clinton, and in a way his wife. It shows that power means more to them than integrity.
    How is Hilary's integrity affected by her husband's infidelity?

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    How is Hilary's integrity affected by her husband's infidelity?
    Because she would stay married to a man getting blowjobs from his intern. I can imagine forgiving such a thing but it would require more public contrition. For the sake of power and politics she kept quiet. Integrity often means putting values ahead of value. It's not a trait useful to many politicians who by nature must be more pragmatic much of the time. If you are married to someone with low morals and remain so there is a strong presumption you share their morality. Certainly I'd not be married to someone too far from my own moral compass.

    Its one reason I'm not well suited to politics.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Because she would stay married to a man getting blowjobs from his intern. I can imagine forgiving such a thing but it would require more public contrition. For the sake of power and politics she kept quiet. Integrity often means putting values ahead of value. It's not a trait useful to many politicians who by nature must be more pragmatic much of the time. If you are married to someone with low morals and remain so there is a strong presumption you share their morality. Certainly I'd not be married to someone too far from my own moral compass.

    Its one reason I'm not well suited to politics.
    I think it's likely that Hilary knew of the her husband's indiscretions - it's certainly not a revelation to her. And it is entirely possible that fidelity wasn't a marriage requirement at all - so I don't think your reference to integrity necessarily applies: you're just imposing your views on marriage onto her. What Bill did was to be caught and cause embarrassment but that's not a moral issue either.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I think it's likely that Hilary knew of the her husband's indiscretions - it's certainly not a revelation to her. And it is entirely possible that fidelity wasn't a marriage requirement at all - so I don't think your reference to integrity necessarily applies: you're just imposing your views on marriage onto her. What Bill did was to be caught and cause embarrassment but that's not a moral issue either.
    And that would only further degrade my sense of their integrity. To knowingly condone an affair between the president and one of his interns and to use the government office as a sex playground is corrupt and morally very flawed. You may find it acceptable behavior but I would not.

    ---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    How is sex between two consenting adults morally wrong?
    1. Using a government office for a sex playground is a misuse of the property of the state for personal purposes demeaning to the office
    2. Employers engaging in sex with employees is highly unethical due to the strong potential for exploitation
    3. Presidents are expected to set a good moral example and breaking your marriage vows is not a good moral example
    4. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your family
    5. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your political party
    6. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your country

    It is not that the man can't have sex, it is that in order to have this sex he shirked a wide range of duties and responsibilities just so he could get off. Its amazingly selfish and arrogant.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And that would only further degrade my sense of their integrity. To knowingly condone an affair between the president and one of his interns and to use the government office as a sex playground is corrupt and morally very flawed. You may find it acceptable behavior but I would not.
    Meh. People like to have sex and powerful people do so probably very liberally and secretly. A large part of the British Establishment has been doing so since probably forever; it would not shock me at all that American politicians are any different.

    However, that's Bill's legacy. I think you're pulling Hilary into this unfairly. She isn't being immoral by continuing to be married and the public spectacle that would bring.

    Are you going to say the same of Chelsea when she runs? That her morals can be questioned because she didn't disown her father?

    This whole line against Hilary has nothing to do with her role as a President and everything to do with diminishing a woman who through no fault of her own was caught up in her husband's scandal. I think she has been punished enough.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Are you going to say the same of Chelsea when she runs? That her morals can be questioned because she didn't disown her father?
    i would not apply it to Chelsea. Kids don't get to pick their parents and its not simple to disown your folks. I'd be a big surprised and a little disgusted if she though that was a morally acceptable act, but as a child of parents behaving badly I don't hold her accountable for it. Bill I hold most accountable, the mistress next, and Hillary somewhere a fair bit behind that (I only was reacting to your notion that perhaps she condoned it which I would find extra objectionable).

    I think the idea of impeaching for it is laughable at best, but I find the pure dismissal of it by some on the left to be pretty corrupt morally. For me it really shows a lack of good moral character that at a personal level I find pretty despicable. But as a voter, its not quite such a big deal as personal integrity often isn't all that important for a president. It helps, I like it as a trait and vote on it, but ultimately it you could still be a fantastic president even if you have bad family/sexual morality.

    This whole line against Hilary has nothing to do with her role as a President and everything to do with diminishing a woman who through no fault of her own was caught up in her husband's scandal. I think she has been punished enough.
    I mostly agree. I still don't find her appealing as a person. She very clearly thinks and behaves rather differently than I would. I think it is fair to include it in your judgement of her so long as you keep it in perspective. Personally I don't think she is responsible for it, but it still seems to me she put career ahead of family on the public face, what she did in private I just don't know, though I would presume she gave bill some death rays over the thing, if nothing else for getting caught and embarrassing them.

    ---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    1. It's not only his office, it's also his residence (just like the governor's mansion was)
    2. There's no evidence of exploitation - Monica never made any such claim
    3. How do you know he broke his marriage vows?
    1. Even if its attached to your house, your office is not for getting blowjobs from your mistress, especially when you are the president of the US
    2. True, but not relevant. Nearly every office has rules against this because it very well can lead to abuse and if not that then often conflicts of interest.
    3. Because nearly all marriage vows implicitly or explicit include monogamous sexual exclusivity. Even if privately they had some arrangement the public perception is that they have a monogamous marriage and they have done nothing to indicate otherwise.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think the idea of impeaching for it is laughable at best, but I find the pure dismissal of it by some on the left to be pretty corrupt morally. For me it really shows a lack of good moral character that at a personal level I find pretty despicable. But as a voter, its not quite such a big deal as personal integrity often isn't all that important for a president. It helps, I like it as a trait and vote on it, but ultimately it you could still be a fantastic president even if you have bad family/sexual morality.
    I don't think anyone is really purely dismissing it so much as wondering why it is really relevant at all after almost 20 years! Given that the Democratic field is likely going to be a bunch of nobodies or Barney Frank, who is gay and therefore has zero chance in today's political climate, would you seriously add this as a factor? And what if Hilary was also part of the affair (like in House of Cards), would it be morally acceptable then?

    I mostly agree. I still don't find her appealing as a person. She very clearly thinks and behaves rather differently than I would. I think it is fair to include it in your judgement of her so long as you keep it in perspective. Personally I don't think she is responsible for it, but it still seems to me she put career ahead of family on the public face, what she did in private I just don't know, though I would presume she gave bill some death rays over the thing, if nothing else for getting caught and embarrassing them.
    I think people that seek power will do so above all else - it isn't so much a question of morality so much as political expediency. It is only those that preach a puritanical life-style (aka "family values") that get caught in the hypocrisy of an affair -- I don't think the Clintons have ever projected anything other than unbridled love for power despite personal issues.

    Neither of the Clintons slunk away to live off their riches; I believe they, like most politicians and people of power, want to make the world a better place as they see it. For Hilary, I was amazed that she took the Secretary of State position, opening herself up to now being responsible for the "3am call" -- I think that took a lot of guts and courage but most of all it took swallowing her pride and getting herself out there. It's like there is no way to shame or embarrass her - I think that would play well on the world stage.

    She's even survived the whole personal server thing and the new book about her donors is similarly heading nowhere. At the moment, she seems quite unstoppable; I think all this talk of the affair will go nowhere, if anything, I think it makes her a stronger candidate on women's issues.

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,857
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    1. Even if its attached to your house, your office is not for getting blowjobs from your mistress, especially when you are the president of the US
    Says you and your prudish ways. What a bout a hug, or a kiss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    2. True, but not relevant. Nearly every office has rules against this because it very well can lead to abuse and if not that then often conflicts of interest.
    Hmmm, was she a direct report?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    3. Because nearly all marriage vows implicitly or explicit include monogamous sexual exclusivity. Even if privately they had some arrangement the public perception is that they have a monogamous marriage and they have done nothing to indicate otherwise.
    Yes, because it is none of your business.

    I find it hard to believe you truly care about what someone else does sexually. Which leads me to conclude that the hub-bub is nothing more than a political ploy. Your feigned moral outrage is transparent.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: August 13th, 2009, 07:54 AM
  2. A REAL Ironman suit?
    By southernbelle in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 14th, 2008, 07:12 AM
  3. War for oil? SUPPORT IT.
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 08:46 PM
  4. Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harassment suit.
    By Booger in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 15th, 2004, 01:39 PM
  5. Utterly OT: Americans travelling abroad
    By sjjs in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 8th, 2004, 10:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •