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 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 164
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,069
    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. Likes evensaul liked this post
  3. #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?

  4. Likes GoldPhoenix liked this post
  5. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,069
    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.

  6. #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.

  7. #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!

  8. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    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.

  9. #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.

  10. #8
    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!

  11. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  12. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    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. #10
    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. #11
    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

  15. #12
    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.

  16. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,069
    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.

  17. Thanks Lukecash12 thanked for this post
  18. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04...esnt-have-any/

    "Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.

    She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.

    She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.

    Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).

    She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.

    At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.

    She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.

    Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).

    Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.

    Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.

    Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.

    Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.

    Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.

    The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program."


    Although Squatch has tried to persuade me otherwise, I'm not a fan of free trade. Perhaps it is more a question of what type of free trade we are getting, most recently through what progressives are calling "SHAFTA".

    Rather than accepting titles as has been suggested, her record (only briefly stated here) shows support for progressive ideology and steady progress in that area. Instead of being promoted just because she's a woman or an ambitious climber it look like she has many accomplishments which warrant her gaining more responsibility.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,069
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04...esnt-have-any/

    "Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.

    She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.

    She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.

    Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).

    She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.

    At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.

    She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.

    Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).

    Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.

    Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.

    Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.

    Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.

    Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.

    The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program."


    Although Squatch has tried to persuade me otherwise, I'm not a fan of free trade. Perhaps it is more a question of what type of free trade we are getting, most recently through what progressives are calling "SHAFTA".

    Rather than accepting titles as has been suggested, her record (only briefly stated here) shows support for progressive ideology and steady progress in that area. Instead of being promoted just because she's a woman or an ambitious climber it look like she has many accomplishments which warrant her gaining more responsibility.
    So.. since 1992 (over 20 years of public service) she's essentially increased government involvement in child and health care. I guess if she was running for head nanny that'd be great. As Fiorina noted, traveling isn't an accomplishment. It is funny the website you copied listed a foundation founded by Bill as one of her accomplishments. She's basically created a bunch of interest groups. Her biggest accomplishment was that when she actually tried to do something tangible (the healthcare law) she failed.... but set the groundwork for something that happened nearly 20 years later... uh, just kind of a bit of an overreach.

    Ok, but we can go back and forth on this forever. What in that list of accomplishments makes you say, WOW, she'd make a great President? To me, it reads like the resume of someone looking for a better job, but who did not really do much of substance in any of her previous jobs. Jim was the safety coordinator of his department for 5 years where he was instrumental in overhauling the plant's safety methods and training manuals.... Ooooooh. Sounds impressive. In reality, the guy told someone to re-write the safety manual and he proofread it (sort of). You'll notice, in that long list of items she was never promoted due to merit. Her first executorial experience was rife with controversy due to her paranoia. You know what she is? She is kind of the female version Richard Nixon.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #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
    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!

  21. #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
    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.

  22. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  23. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,804
    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.
    How is sex between two consenting adults morally wrong?

    ---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ok, but we can go back and forth on this forever. What in that list of accomplishments makes you say, WOW, she'd make a great President?
    Well, as to "spearheading" and "promoting" and putting together groups - that's what leaders do in big organizations, they go to meetings, they communicate. She wants to do that and has a proven record of effectively doing just that. Obama has done the same, where he could and where he wasn't shut down or blocked.

    You don't believe in government - beyond the military and its pageantry - I take, so, of course, those things aren't important to you.

    But considering your side I can't think of a single accomplishment of GW, Dick Chenney, or any of your proposed candidates that I'd point to as significant...quite the opposite.

    Heck, I couldn't even imagine "wanting to have a beer" with any of them. GW?...talking to him would be like zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  24. #19
    Registered User

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

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ok, but we can go back and forth on this forever. What in that list of accomplishments makes you say, WOW, she'd make a great President?
    Presidents are not superheroes - they're not meant to 'wow' you with their superpowers against foreign invaders.

    They need to:

    a) Keep the country safe, ideally by making the world safe.
    b) Keep the citizens healthy, educated and productive; ideally by ensuring America's economy continues to be a global leader.
    c) Preserve what we have built as a nation and leave it better than when they took office by raising moral bar via laws and setting the Supreme Court in the right direction.

    Clinton not only provides continuity from Obama their shared vision of health care reform, she is also at the right point in time to raise awareness about women's issues and a fantastic buttress against the victim blaming against women (i.e. GOP 'opinions' on rape are unlikely to hold much water). As a world leader she will continue the path of peace but will learn the lesson of bin-Laden that her husband warned Bush about, that terrorism needs to be fought in all corners; and unlike Bush won't ignore warnings until it is too late and also unlike Bush won't over-react and implement a terribly planned war whilst taking away our rights.

    These are jobs that require a level headed leader and if the Benghazi hearings are anything to judge her by, she deals with nonsense head-on ("what difference does it make"). I think she would be powerful on the world stage, building upon Obama's legacy of peace whilst steadily pushing back against our enemies.

    None of this will 'wow' anyone but if she leaves the country and the world a better place, then who really cares? What her main strengths are don't lie in the direction of a Hollywood fantasy - they lie in her Warren-esque fight for the middle class, whilst protecting the poor and ensuring that her rich friends continue to be rich. I really don't think 'wow'-factor is really much of a credential for being a good president - I want someone with a brain.

  25. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,069
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    Well, as to "spearheading" and "promoting" and putting together groups - that's what leaders do in big organizations, they go to meetings, they communicate. She wants to do that and has a proven record of effectively doing just that. Obama has done the same, where he could and where he wasn't shut down or blocked.

    You don't believe in government - beyond the military and its pageantry - I take, so, of course, those things aren't important to you.

    But considering your side I can't think of a single accomplishment of GW, Dick Chenney, or any of your proposed candidates that I'd point to as significant...quite the opposite.

    Heck, I couldn't even imagine "wanting to have a beer" with any of them. GW?...talking to him would be like zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
    Ok, so when I asked what makes you say, wow, I want Hillary as my next President, your answer is that she...

    Thus far, she has held two government posts and held one symbolic government post.
    In all three, her record was blah. Arguably, she was an utter failure as Secretary of State. Whether you believe she was complicit in Benghazi, it still happened on her watch. She still carried out the President's directive to evacuate Iraq, which it turns out was a really bad move. She still did nothing to prevent Russia from rolling into Ukraine. Her reset button gimmick was laugh out loud funny. She lists as one of her accomplishments her travel schedule. That isn't an accomplishment. Again, as a Senator, she had a minimal record and this isn't an indictment of her. It is just the way Senate politics work. Yet, instead of running for a governorship where she would have had a real chance to accomplish things in a short time, she chose to run for Senate. This was intentional, in my opinion, as it allows her to claim experience without really having had to do much. So, again, are spearheading some children's programs the pinnacle of her success? As much as you may despise it, the President is about national security first and foremost. His #1 job is to protect the borders of this country. If he fails that, nothing else really matters does it? So, the question is, given her foreign affairs record, is the person we want running this country? I am guessing you believe yes. And in that regard, I cannot really figure out why. This is just an incredibly flawed human being and I cannot figure out why she appeals to people. I see her interact with others and just get the impression she has genuine disdain for the people she is claiming she wants to work for. That's just my opinion. I am not trying to compare her to anyone. Just on her own, I do not understand the appeal.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 1 of 9 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
  •