so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton??? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-24-2008, 10:52 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Quote:
Originally posted by deep


It seems like some of the remarks I am reading are Limbaugh talking points


and the comments on Obama, are very Mark Penn.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:53 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clin

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



and on his 4th wife.
good chance he has already been "on" quite a few more than four wifes already
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:55 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clin

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
governor of Arkansas.

and on his 4th wife.
It is simplistic to say she is nothing without him.

They are two people who walked into something fortuitous. I think he is more capable; I think she is more driven. He would have been Governor of Arkansas, she'd be rolling at some huge corporate firm. Both successful, but not as much as this.

I don't like the way they are behaving. But I think there is also a lot of perhaps unintentional sexism I see in some of what is being said about her. Particularly in relation to her husband.

That sends people like my mother, in their mid 50s to vote for her. Because they don't appreciate the implications. And they remember the 60s and 70s.

I have to admit, sometimes I am revolted by the Clintons. But, I think inadvertently, the revolt of certain segments is helping them, because when you parse it down, some of it leaves a distaste in one's mouth just the same.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-24-2008, 10:58 PM   #49
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:36 PM
i'm fine with charges of sexism. in fact, i think sexism has much to do with why, without him, she is nothing.

but that's the sexism of the world, that's not my personal sexism.

i'm sorry she's had to face that, and i know women are sensitive to that. but the portrayal of herself as a feminist icon, especially when she has to deploy her husband to do her dirty work for her, is far more offensive than anything i've written.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:10 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




1. calling Obama "kid"
2. claiming that Obama was injecting "race" into the campaign when it was the Clintons who did first
3. the wild distortion of Obama's comments on Reagan
4. the wild distortion of Obama's non-comments on Clinton
5. the wild distortion of what 100 "present" votes in the IL senate means out of over 4,000 cast
6. the use of a former president as a political hit man and his going far above and beyond the role of a political spouse

do you want more?
Well, let's talk about these issues. I want to know how you and others ended up where you ended up. I'll admit, I'm puzzled.

I think if there were ever an issue of hyper-sensitive "sacred cow" phenomenon, it would be with #1. Are you serious, Irvine? C'mon, that's pretty flimsy right there. Grasping on this one...

race into the campaign, where is the actual starting point of which you speak? Is it the Clintons talking about civil rights legislation actually having to be ushered in by a lawmaker and not a civil rights advocate? Is that not factual? Perhaps you mean a different starting point.

The Reagan comments were distorted but I don't take issue with Bill Clinton taking on his inclusion in them. It doesn't bother me that he'd defend himself. Especially if the implication is that Hillary wouldn't be able to unite the country because Bill didn't. It's good to see some balls from the Dems. What common thread do McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all have ? No balls. Almost gutless. I think it's going to take more toughness to battle Republicans than Obama is displaying. It's almost as if he and his supporters are begging for kid gloves.

The "present" votes stem from the argument about Iraq, IMO. Obama is out proclaiming himself an authority based on a speech he made in 2002. Fine, I give him credit for being right at the time. They were trying to show that more than a few times he decided to pass on a hard stance on a few important issues. So his speech is fair display but his votes are not? Are we supposed to just give him a pass. John Edwards took issue with this as well.
He's voted lock step with Hillary on the war since arriving in the Senate, so we're supposed to ignore that as well, and just give him his bye and laud his 5 year old speech. Just saying it's fair game. It's not a big deal to me, the issue, but it is fair game.

What difference does it make that he's the spouse? Did you outwardly decry the Clinton involvement in the Kerry campaign? What is the role of a "poltical spouse"? I think you've raised some interesting issues and things to talk more about but it's something like this that makes me shake my head.

You want him to just go away and let Obama win?
What's the difference between David Axelrod and Bill Clinton if they are both doing essentially the same thing? Is it unfair that Obama gets to utilize Oprah and Kerry etc. but if HIllary uses her husband, for goodness sake, it's over the line? Let's just admit something here, it's his status that bothers you. It's the weight of the attacks, not the attack, not the method.

I hope we can talk further about these issues because I'm just not seeing the big deal yet.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:16 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



and if you think that Bush is someone who cannot admit he's ever made a mistake, wait till we have the Clintons back in the white house.
Now this is something I can definitely agree with.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:25 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

i'm sorry she's had to face that, and i know women are sensitive to that. but the portrayal of herself as a feminist icon, especially when she has to deploy her husband to do her dirty work for her, is far more offensive than anything i've written.
She's up on the stage talking about issues in every debate.
She's had to answer to Obama's retorts. Are these Slick Willie digs working because Obama is just not up to the task?

She's so incapable of doing anything on her own, yet she's not getting pounded by the great orator Obama in direct debate matchups with what clearly are below the belt attacks?

Something doesn't add up about that. He's not the best debater but she'd be an empty pantsuit with that fancy last name, right?

Fuck sakes, when did I become a Hillary apologist?
Just bored, I guess.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:34 PM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


Fuck sakes, when did I become a Hillary apologist?
Just bored, I guess.


yes, you did.

"kid" is a racial slight. my boyfriend's grandparents called black men "boy" their whole life.

i never said she was an empty pantsuit. i think she has genuine substance. but i also think that everything she's accomplished is tied to him.

and her use of him in this campaign is my major problem. no one has ever run for president with their spouse as a former president, yet no former president has ever campaigned as viciously as Bill is doing right now.

he made ample distinction of what a "present" vote does and does not mean in the IL senate.

and i'm not going to go through this one by one, but i will say that before Christmas, i would have happily voted for her as a respectable second choice should she be the nominee.

now, i'll have to shower afterwards.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:34 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Has it ever occured to you that many people have done their research on Obama and Paul and have rationally come to the conclusion that Obama or Paul is the candidate for them (just as you (hopefully) have done your research and concluded something different?)
For one, I have repeatedly stated that I'm fine with whomever one wants to vote for. However, I take issue with the "cult-like" adoration that certain people here and elsewhere have for their candidate (for the record, I have not noticed such cultish behavior with you, so I have no room to criticize you, even if we disagree on Paul).

Posing what is clearly a loaded question worthy of a push poll--I mean, really, "Two Headed Beast" and "Billary"?--is precisely the kind of nonsense I wish to call out. Again, it is not support for Obama or Paul that I take issue with; it is just certain nonsense spewing from both camps.

Quote:
Melon, with all due respect to you, maybe instead of posting threads like 'Why should I care about Iraq?' and 'Why should I care about Obama?', YOU should do YOUR own research and tell us what candidate YOU prefer (and then we can all proceed with ridiculing your choice, just as you've ridiculed the choices of others.)
What if I said that I can't stand any of them? Is there an alternative to the "pandering ineffectual heterosexual Christian" bloc that is quite clearly represented in both parties? I will, quite grudgingly, vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November, if only because I perceive all the Republican candidates to be worse.

Neither party represents my interests at all.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:35 PM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan

She's so incapable of doing anything on her own, yet she's not getting pounded by the great orator Obama in direct debate matchups with what clearly are below the belt attacks?


*his* attacks are below the belt?

(blinks eyes)

*his* attacks?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:41 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 10:36 PM
As usual, I'm with you 100% Irvine. It saddens me that it has gotten to the point where the Clintons really disgust me. I didn't want it to come to that, but it has because of their nasty double teaming.

What scares me is that if she were to squeak out the nomination, by the time it gets to the general election people are going to be so sick of the Clintons...including myself...and that will lead to another republican president. I admit, I am aware that I am a very partisan person, and when she/they turn off someone as dedicated to the Democratic party as myself, I know I am not alone in this, no good can come of a Clinton nomination.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:42 PM   #57
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


For one, I have repeatedly stated that I'm fine with whomever one wants to vote for. However, I take issue with the "cult-like" adoration that certain people here and elsewhere have for their candidate (for the record, I have not noticed such cultish behavior with you, so I have no room to criticize you, even if we disagree on Paul).

Posing what is clearly a loaded question worthy of a push poll--I mean, really, "Two Headed Beast" and "Billary"?--is precisely the kind of nonsense I wish to call out. Again, it is not support for Obama or Paul that I take issue with; it is just certain nonsense spewing from both camps.



What if I said that I can't stand any of them? Is there an alternative to the "pandering ineffectual heterosexual Christian" bloc that is quite clearly represented in both parties? I will, quite grudgingly, vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November, if only because I perceive all the Republican candidates to be worse.

Neither party represents my interests at all.
Then find one that does or don't vote at all...or better yet start one!!!
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:45 PM   #58
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,688
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Sorry pal, the country's going to be very divided regardless of who wins.
You are too young to be so cynical...

It's sad to see such young people who are black and white, especially when they never went through the compassionate stage.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:50 PM   #59
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 04:36 PM
By the way I wish I was cheeky enough to have come up with "Billary" and " The Two Headed Beast" but unfortunately I am not. These are terms which by now are all over the press...and it's nobody's fault but The Clinton's. I used to really like Bill despite his obvious flaws and mistakes - In the last three weeks I have grown to actually despise him - it's almost like, dare I say, I have had blindfolds lifted from my eyes. I now see why so many people dislike this couple. And no I don't think Obama is any kind of "savior" - I'm just so sick and tired of the American dynasties that are BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON - What the hell is wrong with America. Why on earth can't they choose someone else...my God...really!!!
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 11:52 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so...Hillary Clinton...or... Billary Clinton???

Quote:
Originally posted by Harry Vest
Then find one that does or don't vote at all...or better yet start one!!
Unfortunately, American politics are structured to maintain the two-party duopoly--a stance that is supported by political scientists. The main problem is that, to change the structures that have created this duopoly, you'd have to have these two parties vote in favor of such changes--and why would they want to do that?

We've seen it rear its ugly head with the primaries this season. Both the Democratic and Republican parties, ideally, want their candidate "coronated" by a small handful of lowly-populated states before "Super Tuesday." The 2004 John Kerry sweep of the nation was precisely what each party would like.

What I would like to see is a "runoff election"-type system, where the top two candidates--regardless of party--run again in a final election. In Louisiana, where such a system already exists, that typically means the usual Democrat and Republican. It can, however, mean two Democrats, two Republicans, or, theoretically, anyone from a third party. Such a system, I believe, would help negate our tendency to vote on "strategy," rather than the candidate we actually agree with. The fact is that the system we currently have basically codifies that the Democratic and Republican parties are "the only" two parties, and we have seen the end result of that.

In business, if we only had two companies in a given industry, we would probably complain about poor service, pricing, and products; and many would call for the government to intervene to break it up and restore market competition. So why do we not hold our political structures up to the same standards?
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com