[Damn True]

Between now and the election all of ya need to start your posts with the following disclaimer: "I'm a liberal and hate Bush therfore anything I read, hear or say will be viewed through that lens."


No idea.
But the simple fact is that all of them went to Yale.

Are you implying that Yale is easy?

 

[kidwoo]

Here's one of the writings that brought this question to mind.

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/BuzzFlashInterviewSociologistHochschild.html

And the article referenced in the interview.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16885

I personally feel pretty indifferent to Hillary Clinton. She seems like a pretty well educated, abitious person who more through her legislative actions than her "aura" has her motives in a good place.

Actually I always find a certain disconnect with anyone who's maintained "real estate" hair for so many years. I certainly wouldn't stand up and proclaim the country going to hell if she held a high office based on that though.

So do you despise her just because she seems like an uppity b!tch who doesn't know her place? While inarguably condescending since chances are she's achieved much more than anyone here and has some right to feel accomplished, that attitude is also astoundingly similar to the highly right wing "talking points" ohio mentioned (Thanks for being man enough to admit that by the way) that I used to hear so much in the nineties. Coincidence or are have you just been assimilated into the machine? Do you REALLY just hate her because of her choices in her marriage? Do you hate everyone you know who makes personal decisions in their own life that don't effect you one bit?

I intentionally picked her because she is not currently running for any high profile office with a definable counterpart, such as in the upcoming presidential election. I didn't want the usual "my team better, your team stupid". Knowing how strongly some people feel about her however, I was just curious if you were well educated enough on your own passionate stance to defend it. I don't like certain politicians but I can tell you exactly why....none of it based on their "aura".

I'm glad ohio mentioned the "woman's place" issue to some degree. It's some of what is touched on in the first link I posted with the interview. I think it might be relevant to Hillary's legacy of being such a target.

I really don't understand how so many people can be so intense about a political figure or issue and know so little about it, or why they even feel that way. If the entire country voted based on the percieved aura of their elected officials, it's a sad state of affairs we deal must deal with.

No one in this thread has yet to give any details on what she has done other than judgements on character to generate such vitriol..

Anyway......have a good weekend. I'm going digging.

 

[kidwoo]

Are you implying that Yale is easy?

When you wield the kind of financial legacy that the Bush family has, what do you think?

 

[BigHit-Maniac]

Because she's a dumb liberal bitch.... that's why.


The clinton's need to DIE.

 

[Changleen]

Because she's a dumb liberal bitch.... that's why.


The clinton's need to DIE.

You're great.

 

[Toshi]

When you wield the kind of financial legacy that the Bush family has, what do you think?

ditto. getting gentleman's Cs at yale if you're a legacy would be easy, i imagine.

 

[Silver]

If you can seriously believe that Clinton and Bush are even vaguely close in intellect, I'd have to argue that you may be borderline retarded yourself. It's more than a little self evident.

 

[Changleen]

Hey, be sure not to misunderestimate Bush's IQ! I'm sure it might even be into the 90s..

 

[Damn True]

If you can seriously believe that Clinton and Bush are even vaguely close in intellect, I'd have to argue that you may be borderline retarded yourself. It's more than a little self evident.

....and if you think that one lifetime politician is any different from another then there is nothing borderline about you at all.

None of them, and I mean NONE have spoken an orignal thought in years. Every word is scripted.

The only difference that you see is the relative ability to read that script. Bush isn't that good at it, Clinton was better, Reagan was by far the best in about the last 50 years.

What does that say about how intelligent any of them are? Not a f'ing thing.

If you think you know anything about these guys, if you think you can make an assesment of their intellect based on some soundbyte that THEY sanitized for your protection then you have an overly inflated impression of your own intellect not to mention the candidates.

Get a grip.

 

[Damn True]

OMG!
This keeps getting funnier.

.....and ya'all say Bill O'reiley is biased and closed minded.

 

[ohio]

....and if you think that one lifetime politician is any different from another then there is nothing borderline about you at all.

Even with the scripts, it's not that hard to gauge true intelligence. There have been enough moments over the year when these folks have been forced to think or act publicly of their own volition and without aid. One can still argue that Bush is intelligent but not well spoken, but everyone else mentioned in this thread from Cheney to Clinton has DEMONSTRATED their intelligence at some point. Bush has not. Ever.

And no, Yale is not hard. Getting above a 3.5, yes. Passing, no. Getting in is the hard part, and with the right ties even that is easy. Welcome to the land of equal(ish) opportunity.

 

[BurlyShirley]

If you can seriously believe that Clinton and Bush are even vaguely close in intellect, I'd have to argue that you may be borderline retarded yourself. It's more than a little self evident.

Remember how there was that one kid in high school who everybody assumed was slightly retarded because he walked with a limp and had a wierd T-Rex arm or something and he never talked to anybody? But then he ended up getting 19 scholarships and was the salutitorian. Communication skills arent really an accurate representation of intelligence IMO.

 

[narlus]

hmmm....wasn't clinton a rhodes scholar (or was it oxford?) before he became a politician?

what was bush before he became a politician? a coke-using guy who ran businesses into the ground?

 

[valve bouncer]

hmmm....wasn't clinton a rhodes scholar (or was it oxford?) before he became a politician?

As I understand Rhodes scholars are named after Cecil Rhodes arch colonialist and founder of "Rhodesia". I'd have to google it but they are handed out yearly to the best and brightest from various English speaking countries. I dunno about America but it's a reasonably big deal in australia to be a Rhodes scholar. Former Aussie PM Bob Hawke was a Rhodes scholar. His main claim to fame in his time as a Rhodes scholar was to set a new record for knocking down a yard glass.

 

[MMike]

Clinton is/was a Rhodes scholar and he studied at Oxford. He was also attorney general of Arkansas before he was gov.

And as ohio said, "Yale" isn't hard. It sorta depends on what program you studied. Under water basket weaving is still underwater basket weaving regardless of what school you attend.

 

[Skookum]

i love this song.

I'll take the blame
if I ever want to
For what my little brain
has been through
I know to say
Things I never meant to
To seem a little more sane
Cause that's what it takes
If I ever could win
If I ever could see
If I just could remember to think about anything
Darling, you give me a rope and I'll hang myself
It doesn't take a genius to figure it out
Don't have to be ****ing brilliant to see
I'm not as smart as I seem to be
I'm not as bright as I used to be
I'm not as sharp as I think I am
I'm not as smart as I seem
I'm not as bright as I seem
Darling darling darling
Darling, you give me a rope
I'll hang myself
It doesn't take a genius to figure it out
Don't have to be ****ing brilliant to see
I'm not as smart as I seem to be
I'm not as bright as I used to be
I'm not as sharp as I think I am
I'm not as smart as I seem
I'm not as bright as I seem

 

[ummbikes]

I think Hillary is a very calculating political power broker. If the fact she is a woman freaks some people out so be it. I am not naive enough to think a person with the desire and ability to be a high level politician will be either nice or have my best interests at heart. She is quite good at being a professional politician. As far as my feelings for her as a person I have none, never met the woman and likely never will.

 

[fluff]

Communication skills arent really an accurate representation of intelligence IMO.

Really? It definitely is a factor. Plus at the very least a useful quality for a POTUS to be able to communicate clearly no?

 

[Toshi]

Really? It definitely is a factor. Plus at the very least a useful quality for a POTUS to be able to communicate clearly no?

americans demand that their leaders be able to rotate complex objects in their head. speaking is an optional skill.

 

[splat]

Well I have a few of my own Reasons

1) when Bill Clinton Was POTUS early in his first term, He appointed Hillary to Lead a task force on Health care reform. Do you remeber what the results were ? Nothing !! it was never even submitted to congress , because no one would even support it. ( not even the Dems )

2) She let Bill , make her look like a complete fool, and she just stood there and took it with a Smile on her face , because she's addicted to the Power.

3) Deciding she wanted to become an senotor and Pick a state you know nothing about, but had the most influance so that is where she went ( and the fact that NY was dumb enough to elect her is another story )

4) and The one that really really made it so I would never vote for her for anything!!!
Did you see her Inter view right after 9-11 ( on 9-11 ) I saw it live on the News and was floored!!! her comment was : " While this is a Horrible tradgedy , we have more important things this country needs to worry about " I couldn't believe it about an hour later she was talking a different story. But it just told me she couldn't give a Flying F*** about her constituants.

 

[Damn True]

I think the main problems I have with her are as follows:

a) The way she inserted herself as a part of her husbands administration. I no more want to hear what a first lady (any first lady) has to say about domestic or foreign policy than I want to hear what my mutual fund managers wife thinks of what the FED is doing with interest rates. Most wives are consulted on major career decisions, but I'm sure the CEO of GM dosen't have his sitting in on board meetings.

b) "I'm not a Tammy Wynette stand by my man kind of woman." (paraphrased)...........unless doing so jeopradizes her own ascension to power. She'd have really impressed me if she had divorced Bill while he was in office. I might have found a way to admire her sense of principle even if I didn't agree with her politics.

c) The whole NY carpetbagging thing really gripes me. Sure it's been done before (not ok then either) but it just seemed to be too much pandering. I sincerely doubt she'd have been elected to the same office in Arkansas. But even if she thought she could be, the potential for power in the NY seat (not to mention the exponentially higher liberal population) is what drew her there. IMO a Senator should be elected to serve a constituancy, not to pad their resume. The NY voters shamed themselves by voting for her. She has zero interest in representing anything other than herself.

d) Waaaaaaay too into the borderline marxist ideas of socializing medicine and other public services. Too heavy into throwing out bigger and more expensive entitlements.

e) She has said far too often for my taste that she favors a greater global power for the UN.

 

[fluff]

d) Waaaaaaay too into the borderline marxist ideas of socializing medicine and other public services. Too heavy into throwing out bigger and more expensive entitlements.

e) She has said far too often for my taste that she favors a greater global power for the UN.

Borderline Marxist? In that case Bush is an outright fascist.

On a more serious note, do you feel that the UN should do more on the world stage? Do you feel that the UN failed to act decisively with regard to Iraq? If the answer to those two questions is yes than the UN clearly needs more power (and possibly stronger leadership but without the power that's a moot point). If the Un needs more power then La Clinton is quite correct.

Of course if you feel the UN should be scrapped then, hey...

 

[Silver]

I think the main problems I have with her are as follows:

a) The way she inserted herself as a part of her husbands administration. I no more want to hear what a first lady (any first lady) has to say about domestic or foreign policy than I want to hear what my mutual fund managers wife thinks of what the FED is doing with interest rates. Most wives are consulted on major career decisions, but I'm sure the CEO of GM dosen't have his sitting in on board meetings.

b) "I'm not a Tammy Wynette stand by my man kind of woman." (paraphrased)...........unless doing so jeopradizes her own ascension to power. She'd have really impressed me if she had divorced Bill while he was in office. I might have found a way to admire her sense of principle even if I didn't agree with her politics.

c) The whole NY carpetbagging thing really gripes me. Sure it's been done before (not ok then either) but it just seemed to be too much pandering. I sincerely doubt she'd have been elected to the same office in Arkansas. But even if she thought she could be, the potential for power in the NY seat (not to mention the exponentially higher liberal population) is what drew her there. IMO a Senator should be elected to serve a constituancy, not to pad their resume. The NY voters shamed themselves by voting for her. She has zero interest in representing anything other than herself.

d) Waaaaaaay too into the borderline marxist ideas of socializing medicine and other public services. Too heavy into throwing out bigger and more expensive entitlements.

e) She has said far too often for my taste that she favors a greater global power for the UN.

a) Stem Cell Research

b) "She's a bitch"

c) Alan Keyes...George Bush is kind of a carbetbagger too, being born in the Northeast and going to all them libral schools that teach evolution and stuff...besides, if the people of New York voted for her, why does that shame them? Seems to me to be democracy working, they didn't care too much that she's a carpetbagger.

d) Socializing medicine is not "borderline Marxist." The second half of your point is the tried and true "fvck you, I've got mine."

e) Fluff dealt with that nicely.

 

[narlus]

I think the main problems I have with her are as follows:

a) The way she inserted herself as a part of her husbands administration. I no more want to hear what a first lady (any first lady) has to say about domestic or foreign policy than I want to hear what my mutual fund managers wife thinks of what the FED is doing with interest rates. Most wives are consulted on major career decisions, but I'm sure the CEO of GM dosen't have his sitting in on board meetings.

how about if a 1st lady consults astrologers for decisions which affect the nation? is that OK?

 

[Damn True]

how about if a 1st lady consults astrologers for decisions which affect the nation? is that OK?

Nope.

 

[Damn True]

Borderline Marxist? In that case Bush is an outright fascist.

On a more serious note, do you feel that the UN should do more on the world stage? Do you feel that the UN failed to act decisively with regard to Iraq? If the answer to those two questions is yes than the UN clearly needs more power (and possibly stronger leadership but without the power that's a moot point). If the Un needs more power then La Clinton is quite correct.

Of course if you feel the UN should be scrapped then, hey...

Uh, yeah. I think the UN is a tremendous waste of good Real Estate.

 

[Damn True]

a) Stem Cell Research

b) "She's a bitch"

c) Alan Keyes...George Bush is kind of a carbetbagger too, being born in the Northeast and going to all them libral schools that teach evolution and stuff...besides, if the people of New York voted for her, why does that shame them? Seems to me to be democracy working, they didn't care too much that she's a carpetbagger.

d) Socializing medicine is not "borderline Marxist." The second half of your point is the tried and true "fvck you, I've got mine."

e) Fluff dealt with that nicely.

Show me a socialized medicine system that works.

Maybe MMike could chime in on this one.

Socialism is socialism and it has no place here.

 

[Silver]

Nope.

What about if they consult a minister?

 

[Silver]

Show me a socialized medicine system that works.

Maybe MMike could chime in on this one.

Socialism is socialism and it has no place here.

I chimed in on that thread with my own anecdotal evidence, btw...

Canada, Great Britain, all of Scandanavia, Japan. True, Canada isn't socialized, but I'm sure that's a nuance that won't really matter to you.

You support getting rid of police departments, fire departments and the miltary too, I assume? After all, those are all functions that the government handles that could be done by private companies...

 

[Silver]

Show me a socialized medicine system that works.

If you're up to it, mind addressing the questions I raised here?

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99767

 

[Changleen]

Uh, yeah. I think the UN is a tremendous waste of good Real Estate.

....Must...ignore...rest..of..world...nggggg....

 

[Damn True]

d) Socializing medicine is not "borderline Marxist." The second half of your point is the tried and true "fvck you, I've got mine."

e) Fluff dealt with that nicely.

d) Nothing to do with "I got mine" pal. What it is, is an aversion to ANOTHER big, expensive, centralized beauracracy whos charter is to make decisions for me. If you want that, fine move to Canada. Canada's system dosen't work. Neither would ours.

e) Fluff would have the US give up a measure of it's soverignty to the UN. Yeah, super idea. No thanks.

 

[fluff]

e) Fluff would have the US give up a measure of it's soverignty to the UN. Yeah, super idea. No thanks.

Well, if you read my post I just look for consistency. If you want to scrap the UN then I can understand not wanting to give it any power. What I think is dumb is whining about the UN's inability to deal with certain situations whilst insisting upon refusing to allow it the power to deal with those situations.

 

[Silver]

d) Nothing to do with "I got mine" pal. What it is, is an aversion to ANOTHER big, expensive, centralized beauracracy whos charter is to make decisions for me. If you want that, fine move to Canada. Canada's system dosen't work. Neither would ours.

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

Btw...how do you feel about the President consulting a minister? You kind of skipped over that.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

Btw...how do you feel about the President consulting a minister? You kind of skipped over that.

If I'm not mistaken didn't Clinton "consult" a minister after the Monica deal? I know the situations are different, but the emphasis seemed to be on "a minister" as if there is something wrong with that.

 

[Silver]

If I'm not mistaken didn't Clinton "concsult" a minister after the Monica deal? I know the situations are different, but the emphasis seemed to be on "a minister" as if there is something wrong with that.

Well, Damn True didn't like (not the president, actually, it was the first lady, sorry) the idea of a First Lady consulting an astrologer for decisions which affect the nation. I'm wondering how he feels about consulting a religious figure.

 

[Damn True]

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

Btw...how do you feel about the President consulting a minister? You kind of skipped over that.

Now you are changing the subject....and turning into another attack at my faith......classy. My point was that a man's wife - or womans husband - (be he POTUS or board member) has no business being involved in the daily workings of that persons job. The CEO of GM shouldn't have his wife chiming in on board meetings, and the POTUS shouldn't have his wife sitting in on cabinet meetings....let alone chairing a commision.

Consulting (or asking the opinion of) a minister, rabbi, priest, astrologer or wife is one thing. Appointing them to a commision that might change the face of something as critical as healthcare, and might cost as much as her proposal would have is quite another.....but then you knew that.

I ask peoples opinions about stuff all the time. Folks who I view as mentors or role models. If I have some wierd situation at work that I don't know quite how to handle I ask their opinion. My judgement combined with....or maybe without their thoughts and experiences will help me to form a decision.
I don't bring them to work with me though.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Now you are changing the subject....and turning into another attack at my faith......classy. My point was that a man's wife - or womans husband - (be he POTUS or board member) has no business being involved in the daily workings of that persons job. The CEO of GM shouldn't have his wife chiming in on board meetings, and the POTUS shouldn't have his wife sitting in on cabinet meetings....let alone chairing a commision.

Consulting (or asking the opinion of) a minister, rabbi, priest, astrologer or wife is one thing. Appointing them to a commision that might change the face of something as critical as healthcare, and might cost as much as her proposal would have is quite another.....but then you knew that.

I ask peoples opinions about stuff all the time. Folks who I view as mentors or role models. If I have some wierd situation at work that I don't know quite how to handle I ask their opinion. My judgement combined with....or maybe without their thoughts and experiences will help me to form a decision.
I don't bring them to work with me though.

I spoke and deleted earlier, but now...with a little vino to prompt the posting - you seem to consistently degrade women in your posts to something less than men...? Do tell True, if a woman were running on the Republican tag, rather than Bush, I take it you wouldn't vote for her on the premise she is a woman and belongs in the kitchen?

 

[Damn True]

Whoa, my statement had nothing to do with gender.

It makes no difference if the person is male or female. Their spouse has no business being invoved in their work.

I reckon your boyfriend would be unwelcome in this weeks staff meeting right?

It just so happens we are talking about Hillary Clinton...who happens to be a woman....who was married to a man....who happend to be president....(now that we are all caught up)

My point was that she had no more business being involved in cabinet meetings and commisions than your mutual fund managers spouse has being involved in their board meetings or your boyfriend has being involved in the operations of the company that you work for.

To further clarify.....if (god forbid) Hillary had been president, Bill would have had no business whatsoever being involved in cabinet meetings or commisions. Got it?

 

[Silver]

Now you are changing the subject....and turning into another attack at my faith......classy. My point was that a man's wife - or womans husband - (be he POTUS or board member) has no business being involved in the daily workings of that persons job. The CEO of GM shouldn't have his wife chiming in on board meetings, and the POTUS shouldn't have his wife sitting in on cabinet meetings....let alone chairing a commision.

Consulting (or asking the opinion of) a minister, rabbi, priest, astrologer or wife is one thing. Appointing them to a commision that might change the face of something as critical as healthcare, and might cost as much as her proposal would have is quite another.....but then you knew that.

I ask peoples opinions about stuff all the time. Folks who I view as mentors or role models. If I have some wierd situation at work that I don't know quite how to handle I ask their opinion. My judgement combined with....or maybe without their thoughts and experiences will help me to form a decision.
I don't bring them to work with me though.

No attack. You just mentioned that you didn't like the First Lady consulting an astrologer.

Is it bad form to point out that Laura Bush has gone on tv to support her husband's stem cell policy? Pray tell, which scientists was she asking for advice there? Or do you think maybe that an unverifiable and untestable is the basis for her statements (astrologer or minister, it really doesn't matter which.)

Did I change the subject to health care? I guess I did, but only after you mentioned it in a misguided shot at socialism. I did give you a handy link to a thread with some questions I had though...

btw...a backhanded compliment on being classy from someone who equates taxes to anal rape is muchly appreciated...