Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Jan 10, 2008 21:14:36 GMT -7
H Clinton is one of the most divisive figures in America the past 16 years. She has NO chance to as you say, "unite the American people". Even the multitude of " cool aid" drinking democrats know this is a fact: she is divisive, not capable of uniting. But that is of little matter. She's their candidate, so it doesn't matter. She could NEVER, EVER unite the nation. Almost Half the population is repulsed by her. The other half apparently adore her. Is this a uniting figure? One of the greatest presidents of the United States was Abraham Lincoln. Back in those days, the process of picking the candidate to run for president from each party was different from it is today, but the readers digest version: he was no one's first choice. Internal ballot after ballot were cast to pick the candidate, and numerous candidates emerged first on the ballot but none with a clear majority. In the end, Lincoln was chosen because he was virtually EVERYONES SECOND choice, NOT THEIR FIRST. The "first choice" candidates were also polarizing candidates, like H. Jaga can cry crocodile tears along with H, about her phantom mistreatment and so forth, but in the end, she polarizes, not unites. She might end up being the candidate, and she might end up winning an election (few more strategic crocodile tears can go a long way), but she will be as divisive a president in the US history. After 8 years of her husband, 8 years of W, the country deserves better. After 16 years of bitter division, we need better. The million dollar question is, WHO? ? Piwo, I wish I had said that! Bravo! Mary
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 11, 2008 0:59:35 GMT -7
H Clinton is one of the most divisive figures in America the past 16 years. She has NO chance to as you say, "unite the American people". ... After 8 years of her husband, 8 years of W, the country deserves better. After 16 years of bitter division, we need better. The million dollar question is, WHO? ? Piwo, this is one of the reasons I am not for Hillary. But I do not like how media treated her. If she cried - this was seen ugly, as like she was using her feminism. When Romney cried today - who noticed it and why? Why there is double-standard for women and men. After 8 years of Bush, who promised to unite and not to divide, we need better, as you said. I just want people to be treated with respect. I wish, Hillary understood, what would happen if she would be elected - how much some of the conservatives talk--show radio and TV would love to have her.... because they would be able to mock her and hate her. By the way, I wonder why some women, even in these forum, do not understand, that there is still much more difficulty for women as compared to men, to run for a president!
|
|
piwo
Citizen of the World
Co Słychać?
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by piwo on Jan 11, 2008 7:18:32 GMT -7
Jaga, Your contention that Hillary has been so mistreated over the years is another example of her polarizing nature. You contend the media hounded these poor Clinton's, when in reality, they were media darlings. That everyone ever remotely connected to them ended up in prison for shady dealings brought unwanted spotlight, but they were treated with kid gloves by the adoring liberal media. So you see one way, I see another. That's what a polarizing individual brings out. I feel not one teeny tiny bit of sorrow for her or any of these others running. You throw yourself out there, you want one of the most powerful jobs in the world, you better be able to stand the heat. As for Romney "crying", I watched no news yesterday at all, and this is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps he was taking a page from H's book: worked for her when she was getting her hat handed to her, maybe it would work for him? Tired, wore out, and getting your butt kicked, shed a few fake tears. So, what was he boo hooing about anyway?? The "conservative media" you talk about are entertainment media and not the news media. The news media is so liberally biased they don't even try to hide it anymore. You have all the news media spinning events to the liberal bias, you have the Hollywood media trying to mold minds to the liberal bias, you have 90% of all print news taking liberal editorial stance (and thus their reporting follows) and then you have a couple talk shows on the radio that give an alternate opinion that has all liberals up in arms. It's truly amazing actually. There just is no room anywhere for anything that attempts balance. The problem is when you are so used to hearing everything your way, you can't tolerate anything to the contrary. And that really is why FOX has you stomping your feet constantly: they are frequently as out of line to one side as the liberal side is to there's. But it seems only they get your ire.. Why is that do you suppose? That there is even a small portion of the airwaves that an alternate opinion can be heard if one seeks it out is a miracle. To get the other opinion, watch any network TV, Network radio station, and 90% of any daily print media....... But we shouldn't hijack the thread with media talk, either of us. So , somebody tell me why R was boo hooing now........
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Jan 11, 2008 7:27:04 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 11, 2008 9:16:39 GMT -7
What has H. Clinton done so far, by herself, not on husbands coat tails? At any time. What has Barack done so far, for us? What did G.W. Bush do that was so wrong, to us? Did he do this on his own?
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 11, 2008 12:46:54 GMT -7
What has H. Clinton done so far, by herself, not on husbands coat tails? At any time. What has Barack done so far, for us? H. Clinton and Obama were not presidents yet, so they did not have a chance to mess up like G.W. Bush. What did G.W. Bush do that was so wrong, to us? Did he do this on his own? Two wars, huge deficite, economy in crisis, how much else do you need? Tell me what good did Bush do?
|
|
kanga
Freshman Pole
Posts: 39
|
Post by kanga on Jan 11, 2008 13:40:03 GMT -7
What has H. Clinton done so far, by herself, not on husbands coat tails? At any time. What has Barack done so far, for us? What did G.W. Bush do that was so wrong, to us? Did he do this on his own? Val...George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents...I think Ronald Regan has been one of the best. The problem with George Bush is he had bad advisors. The media tends to make or break a candidate, Like I say in Oz H Clinton gets the most respect, thats how the press see it, and if the press prints it the people believe it..
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 11, 2008 13:50:20 GMT -7
+++The problem with George Bush is he had bad advisors+++
it is not only that. Bush like Soviet president Brezhniev were elected to represent others, not themselves. For instance Brezhniev replaced Chruszczov since Chruszczov was seen as too independent.
Bush had not enough knowledge and brain to be an independent president. He frankly, should never be elected. He may be a good man, but he does not have skills necessary for presidency. He surrounded himself with bad advisors (neocons, lobbists), not good advisors, this is another problem.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 11, 2008 13:54:43 GMT -7
Jaga, Your contention that Hillary has been so mistreated over the years is another example of her polarizing nature. You contend the media hounded these poor Clinton's, when in reality, they were media darlings. That everyone ever remotely connected to them ended up in prison for shady dealings brought unwanted spotlight, but they were treated with kid gloves by the adoring liberal media. The "conservative media" you talk about are entertainment media and not the news media. Clintons were media darlings for a VERY SHORT TIME. They were continously watched, accused, investigations took place almost during the whole time of the presidency. There was White Water investigation, they were accused of killing people, there was completely stupid Lewinsky story, blowned up out of proportion by Clinton-haters. CLINTON WAS A GOOD PRESIDENT. Therefore his enemies in order to "get him" had to use his personal life. BUSH IS INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT, so there is no need to play his personal life. Still, there is a double standard because Clinton was impeached for nothing, Bush nor nobody from his cabinet was impeached by starting the war in Iaq under false pretenses. Bill Clinton was good for economy, Bush is bad for economy. Bush started 2 wars and he has NO ANY CONSEQUENCES. Recession will start thanks to his policies. He is not even impeached for it! You are right, that so called conservative media is an entertainment media, they show soft-porn almost all time (Fox News). We had info about it already.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 11, 2008 14:03:02 GMT -7
I agree that Hillary Clinton is a divisive figure but this is mainly due to Clinton-haters, which would kill Clintons immediately if they could. This is one of the reasons I do not want Hillary to become a president. But I do not like also that mass media critize her for being a woman. Rush Limbaugh stated that we do not want to watch an elderly woman president getting even older - as like men were not getting older also?!? Limbaugh had notoriously comtempt towards women. Hillary need to be doubly careful how she speaks, because she is immediately accused of having a shrill voice or using her feminity. On the other hand she is hated by trying to be like a man! So, there is a double-standard for her for being a woman and then.... showing the feelings?!? How dare she? Since she is so calculated.... this had to be of course a part of her plan.... here is an interesting article which talks about this problem, how difficult it is for women to become American president: Women Are Never Front-Runners ... But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex. What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t. ... www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?em&ex=1200114000&en=f7ff1506bb86d225&ei=5087%0A
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 11, 2008 14:36:40 GMT -7
Jaga,
Both Barack and H. Clinton are senators, she for some time, and neither did anything, even did not vote on many things. G.W.Bush did not alone, without the vote of congress, go to war. And the cost of the war are high. I think when all is learned, he will be rated as one of the best, but not by the slanted press. History will show you some day. Another question I have what plans do either Barack or H. Clinton have for the U.S.A. Both say they have a plan, but neither will say what it is, Why? Could it be, there is no plan?
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Jan 11, 2008 15:57:46 GMT -7
Doing some quick research on your claims Mike, I found the following: Obama First: This information is taken from politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/271/Before he bowed out of the race, Sen. Joe Biden dismissed the legislative accomplishments of three Democratic primary rivals with whom he served. About Barack Obama, he said, “Barack Obama hasn’t passed any." By that wording, Biden is wrong. Obama, who was sworn into office in January 2005, spent much of his time in the Senate taking a high-profile position as spokesman for Democrats’ efforts to overhaul congressional ethics standards, including his own bid to make Senate colleagues pay the full charter rate, rather than first-class airfare, for rides in corporate jets. The effort drew the ire of such senior senators as Ted Stevens of Alaska, whose state is so big that corporate planes are often the only way to get around. Senate leaders included that jet travel requirement in a lobbying practices and disclosures bill signed into law in September 2007. But as a member of the minority party, Obama also worked across the aisle with Republicans to push several measures that became law in 2006. On Clinton Information gleaned from politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/272/In some ways, Biden’s assessment is correct: Clinton has not been the lead sponsor of legislation dealing with a major national issue that made its way to President Bush’s desk. But New York’s junior senator has had comparatively few opportunities after spending four of her seven years in the chamber as a member of the minority. Instead, she has worked the way many senators do, introducing bills that wind up getting included in another’s initiative, drafting a Senate companion bill to a popular House initiative or working with home state Republicans to send money to New York or protect local interests. After eight years as first lady, Clinton deliberately sought a lower profile in the Senate, respecting the seniority system and tending to steer away from contentious national debates such as health care. She also has adopted moderate — some would say carefully calibrated — rhetoric on abortion, the war in Iraq, fiscal policy and social issues. The approach surprised many of her critics, who suspected she would stake out more liberal positions and primarily use New York and the Senate as a stepping stone for her national ambitions. Although, I gave only excerpts here I encourage you to read the entire articles.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 11, 2008 17:30:02 GMT -7
hollister,
What laws did Barback work on passing? And the same goes for Clinton. Everybody, or some, say they passed bills, but when asked, no one can think of any. And what are there plans to save the U.S.A. that they say they have, but have not told anyone, either. I just hope we can come up with someone better who cares for the U.S.A., not just themselfs.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 11, 2008 17:32:02 GMT -7
The slanted press, for him. I can't call this a fact, can you?
|
|
piwo
Citizen of the World
Co Słychać?
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by piwo on Jan 11, 2008 17:36:27 GMT -7
CLINTON WAS A GOOD PRESIDENT. Therefore his enemies in order to "get him" had to use his personal life. BUSH IS INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT, so there is no need to play his personal life. Still, there is a double standard because Clinton was impeached for nothing, Bush nor nobody from his cabinet was impeached by starting the war in Iaq under false pretenses. Bill Clinton was good for economy, Bush is bad for economy. Bush started 2 wars and he has NO ANY CONSEQUENCES. Recession will start thanks to his policies. He is not even impeached for it! You are right, that so called conservative media is an entertainment media, they show soft-porn almost all time (Fox News). We had info about it already. Your careful spin of the facts are misleading Jaga. You contend Bill Clinton was a good president, I contend he was awful. In his first term, only two pieces of legislation were passed under his direction. One was the largest tax increase in America's history, and the other was the so called "omnibus crime bill". It essentially added a few police officers to some big cities (funding them for a few years and then dropping the help), making a myriad of crimes "federal", and banning firearms for how they looked, and not for how they functioned. What did both of these pieces of legislation have in common: they were passed by a single vote, that of Al Gore. Thats right, when there's a tie in the senate, the VP gets the tie breaker. It was referred to as the "clinton landslide"... This, even when he held a majority in the house by several hundred votes, and in the senate by a veto proof majority.. yet it took the tie breaker for him to pass anything. Even his own party broke with him and his policies. He was owned by Chinese lobbyist, collected money in the White house in violation of federal law, lobbied fundraisers from the White house in violation of federal law, didn't turn in white water subpoenaed documents (oh, they were found by the maid in their bedroom the day after the statute of limitations expired), so forth and so on... Yeah, they were real good. Like the time he was filmed laughing his butt off at the funeral of his longtime friend Ron Browns funereal little crocodile tears after he realizes he's on camera... Hmmm, wonder where H figured this trick out.. .LOL What a fake! Oh, and bubba inherited an economy that was in full rebound when he took office. When reminded of this, he said it was because everyone knew he was going to be elected, and that's why the economy rebounded. Yeah, right. Oh, and as we found out 6 months after the election, the genius John Kerry (that's how he was sold to America, in comparison to the stupid GW Bush) got worse grades the Bush at the same University his Freshman year, and both ended up with the same GPA.. And Bush let his grades come out as record before the election, Kerry refused. Just like Clinton was the only president in US history to not allow his medical records be made public. While I can empathies, 225 years of practice, and he's the only one not to do so. You draw your own conclusions. You contend everything these people did was wonderful and ONLY criticize here anything Republicans do, yet you say it's the Republicans fault of divisiveness. Your conduct is JUST AS CULPABLE AS THE CONSERVATIVES, yet you're oblivious since you are in your own world..... Your are just as culpable. That's what diverseness means Jaga... You're a big part of the problem, but you can't even begin to see it because of your own predudices... Because you card carrying democrats here are in the majority, you are emboldened to make outrageous, vindictive and hateful statements without even thinking about them. You're so used to doing it, it's just natural...
|
|