Hillary Clinton - Why the hate?

[Misplaced_Sox]

Don't forget Whitewater and the mystery surrounding Vince Foster's supposed suicide.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Vince_Foster

 

 

Tried that, done that. Kenneth Star and company went through every paper, every note, every person they knew, family and neighbors and found no wrong doing. Trust me they wanted to find it, thats why Ken Star was hired, it was his life mission, when they could not peg jack they went for the sex story.

 

Shows how desperate they were. We have not even given the slightest interrogation into Bush and his leaked CIA informant, or his suprise firing of 7 DA's over voter fraud, or his mass deletion of emails, over his improper use of torture, or his destruction of the bill of rights in terms of search and seizure and rights of habeas corpus.

 

But yes lets keep talking about Whitewater in which they were exonerated from. Do you see the mentality that the media has you thinking. Dont look over there, look over here.

[NorthSideSox72]

Tried that, done that. Kenneth Star and company went through every paper, every note, every person they knew, family and neighbors and found no wrong doing. Trust me they wanted to find it, thats why Ken Star was hired, it was his life mission, when they could not peg jack they went for the sex story.

 

Shows how desperate they were. We have not even given the slightest interrogation into Bush and his leaked CIA informant, or his suprise firing of 7 DA's over voter fraud, or his mass deletion of emails, over his improper use of torture, or his destruction of the bill of rights in terms of search and seizure and rights of habeas corpus.

 

But yes lets keep talking about Whitewater in which they were exonerated from. Do you see the mentality that the media has you thinking. Dont look over there, look over here.

Well, look in the mirror - this is a thread about Clinton's positives and negatives, and you are trying to deflect blame for Whitewater by pointing at GWB.

 

[iamshack]

Your premise about laws only based on the majority is incorrect. Look at the Constitution. In fact, most protections of individuals as noted in the Constitution and the law, if that is their purpose, are specifically designed to protect the minority. This is for the simple fact that the majority doesn't require protecting in those scenarios.

 

You're half-right and half-wrong.

 

While many laws are designed to protect the minority, the idea to protect them must still always be agreed upon by some majority...

[Misplaced_Sox]

Your premise about laws only based on the majority is incorrect. Look at the Constitution. In fact, most protections of individuals as noted in the Constitution and the law, if that is their purpose, are specifically designed to protect the minority. This is for the simple fact that the majority doesn't require protecting in those scenarios.

 

And a case to go to war should only involve the will of the popular opinion to a limited extent anyway.

 

 

Actually the basis of the constitution is that the Unified Republic (The States) have the say in the overwhelming say in policy. And thus at the state level/districting open caucusing determines laws or acts which are represented proportionally to appear at the federal level on their behalf.

 

But U.S has gotten bigger and the state's power has been reduced so this process has become outdated. Though we still caucus at some primaries.

 

And I was not basing law on the "majority". I said the majority of support publicly was from their constituents supporting their reps vote on the Iraq resolution. If 20% of your emails are against the war but 80% are for the war, you vote with the majority of the people.

 

That is how modern representation works now.

[iamshack]

Bush...or his destruction of the bill of rights in terms of search and seizure and rights of habeas corpus.

 

And that was the first time this has ever been done by a President of this country while it was at war...

[NorthSideSox72]

You're half-right and half-wrong.

 

While many laws are designed to protect the minority, the idea to protect them must still always be agreed upon by some majority...

"some majority"? Sure. It was some majority of the framers. So I guess that qualifies. But laws protecting the rights of individuals or groups of individuals, by their nature, do not always get written or changed because of a majority supporting it. Sometimes, government actors (President, Congress, SCOTUS) step in to do the right thing when it needs to be done against the majority.

 

[Misplaced_Sox]

Well, look in the mirror - this is a thread about Clinton's positives and negatives, and you are trying to deflect blame for Whitewater by pointing at GWB.

 

 

I was challenging why Whitewater was a negative, considering they found no connection of wrong doing. It is the media and the GOP that keep that fraud gate floating the conscious of America.

 

It is like being accused of a crime but then found not guilty, yet the public still perceives you as a criminal.

 

 

[iamshack]

"some majority"? Sure. It was some majority of the framers. So I guess that qualifies. But laws protecting the rights of individuals or groups of individuals, by their nature, do not always get written or changed because of a majority supporting it. Sometimes, government actors (President, Congress, SCOTUS) step in to do the right thing when it needs to be done against the majority.

 

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood what the poster was stating, and then got even more confused about what your response was countering....my bad

[Balta1701]

^^^

That may be one of the most heartfelt and honest posts I've read here.

 

Damn Balta for getting in the way. Above Balta's.

You know Tex, this post offends me somewhat. Through this thread, you've had people give a littany of reasons why they oppose Hillary Clinton. Some people have given personal reasons. Some people have given policy reasons. Some people have simply gone with their gut.

 

Then, we get a person who turns around and says the same thing about Obama, for the same sort of reasons people are saying they don't like Clinton, and suddenly that post is one of the most heartfelt you've read here?

 

I understand if you don't like Obama, grown adults can have plenty of policy disagreements. I understand if the person writing that post doesn't like him. But I really do not like the fact that for some reason you consider everyone else's posts in this thread less heartfelt than that one. I can't fathom that at all.

[iamshack]

I was challenging why Whitewater was a negative, considering they found no connection of wrong doing. It is the media and the GOP that keep that fraud gate floating the conscious of America.

 

It is like being accused of a crime but then found not guilty, yet the public still perceives you as a criminal.

 

Yeah, and then sometimes you are OJ Simpson.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, and then sometimes you are OJ Simpson.

Then show me the indictments that even suggest that anyone who saw anything believes there was any wrongdoing in that case.

[Misplaced_Sox]

And that was the first time this has ever been done by a President of this country while it was at war...

 

 

Well, no, because I remember McCarthyism. I was not born then but studied it. It was unlawful then as it would be now. You know how that era ruined people, and others went missing. Just because there was a presidence doesn't mean that taking away our constitutional right is well, right.

 

I also remember the Korean War they rounded up Asian's and put them in concentration camps, U.S citizens at that. Doesn't make that right, more so in the modern world.

[Misplaced_Sox]

Yeah, and then sometimes you are OJ Simpson.

 

 

If Ken Star had 10% the evidence that the defense had on OJ, Bill would have been hung and quartered then dragged through the mud by his entrails. Do you really believe they missed anything. They had the mandate by the Senate controlled GOP. Nothing, Nada, nopers, zeroooooo.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Misplaced_Sox

[iamshack]

Then show me the indictments that even suggest that anyone who saw anything believes there was any wrongdoing in that case.

 

It was a joke, Balta.

[DBAHO]

Ok I'll have a crack;

 

1 - I think it's time for some fresh blood. America has had Bush, then Clinton and then Bush for the past 24 years or so. As unfair as that maybe for Hilary, I just wonder if we'll see more of the same as before.

 

2 - Will she always be in the shadow of Bill? And what role will Bill have? And I don't like Hilary talking about the things she learned when she was the first lady and how she's going to use that as President. A lot will have changed in 8 years since then.

 

3 - Policy wise, I haven't really looked much at the difference b/w her and Obama. My main reason for liking Obama (even though on a pick your president survey I did, it chose Mitt Romney for me, yikes), is because of the buzz he is getting, and how he grabs your attention in those speeches etc.

 

In no way do I hate her for being a female candidate. The position should go to the best person there is for the job, no matter their race / gender etc. I just think Obama would do more, and I think he would actually improve relations worldwide with America (but that's JMHO).

[Texsox]

You know Tex, this post offends me somewhat. Through this thread, you've had people give a littany of reasons why they oppose Hillary Clinton. Some people have given personal reasons. Some people have given policy reasons. Some people have simply gone with their gut.

 

Then, we get a person who turns around and says the same thing about Obama, for the same sort of reasons people are saying they don't like Clinton, and suddenly that post is one of the most heartfelt you've read here?

 

I understand if you don't like Obama, grown adults can have plenty of policy disagreements. I understand if the person writing that post doesn't like him. But I really do not like the fact that for some reason you consider everyone else's posts in this thread less heartfelt than that one. I can't fathom that at all.

 

I was thinking more about how Clinton's policies, especially helping the working poor, effected misplaced Sox's life. Seemed raw and real to me. Sorry if I offended you by pointing to that. I should have edited down to those specific points.

[iamshack]

Well, no, because I remember McCarthyism. I was not born then but studied it. It was unlawful then as it would be now. You know how that era ruined people, and others went missing. Just because there was a presidence doesn't mean that taking away our constitutional right is well, right.

 

I also remember the Korean War they rounded up Asian's and put them in concentration camps, U.S citizens at that. Doesn't make that right, more so in the modern world.

 

Actually, it has been done at nearly every point in history at which this country was at war.

 

And it certainly is a "hairy" issue.

 

And Bush has certainly abused the civil liberties of many US citizens and capitalized upon the fears of many of us.

 

But that absolutely does not give anyone the right to condemn Bush as inventing the concept, because he certainly has not.

[Texsox]

For Balta

Now let's talk about Hillary's convictions

She was worked non stop for UHC. During Bill's presidency she was stopped by drug and insurance companies with help from the GOP, Harry and Loiuse campaign anyone. They put fear in men and women that UHC was a step towards communism and that it could not be affordable. She worked trielessly for childrens coverage and she got it. She had been a staunch supporter for poor people and welfare reform which I am a product of. Her ideas and crusade helped mothers like mine be able to go back to college and survive through not looking at being poor as a sickness but a curable condition. This is not anecdotal, she has always been anti poverty, even out of the political spot light. She is not Bill Clinton politically, and does not have his political weight attached to her, yet the Pro Obama media attaches it to him. Why, I cannot understand.

 

Hillary has done more for me when I lived in IL, then when Obama was State legislature and Senator.

 

That seemed much more raw and heartfelt than the carefully constructed, academic, logical arguments that many others, including myself, have posted. I have also spent much of this thread pointing out that Hillary is being judged by a double standard, how you jumped to me being a Obama supporter is not quite right. McCain '08 the best Dem in the field.

[Misplaced_Sox]

I would also like to point out the dynasty of the Adams Family, no not lurch or thing.

 

John Adams, and yes John Quincy Adams. Sometimes family members are not so bad. They do bring differing politics, and have different views on policy but sometimes it works..

 

I think the monarchy of Clinton comments is well, pretty dumb and baseless.

[BigSqwert]

It doesnt matter what you think

That's why I support Obama. He at least makes me feel that it matters what I think. He uses the word "We" a lot. Hillary uses the word "I" quite often...although she's been mimicking so much of his campaign that she's been using "we" more regularly now.

[iamshack]

I would also like to point out the dynasty of the Adams Family, no not lurch or thing.

 

John Adams, and yes John Quincy Adams. Sometimes family members are not so bad. They do bring differing politics, and have different views on policy but sometimes it works..

 

I think the monarchy of Clinton comments is well, pretty dumb and baseless.

 

John Quincy Adams had one of the worst presidencies of anyone in the history of the United States.

 

 

[Gene Honda Civic]

I think the monarchy of Clinton comments is well, pretty dumb and baseless.

If Hill wins the democratic nomination, we're looking at 28 straight years (36 if you count VP terms) under rule by two families.

 

It doesn't much of a leap to think that Jeb or Neil can be prodded to run in 8 years. Heck, Chelsea will be 35 (I think) by then. Maybe she can duke it out with Barbara Bush (W's daughter) and we can have our first lesbian presidency.

Edited February 6, 2008 by NorthSideSox72
Edited for offensive material

[iamshack]

If Hill wins the democratic nomination, we're looking at 28 straight years (36 if you count VP terms) under rule by two families.

 

It doesn't much of a leap to think that Jeb or Neil can be prodded to run in 8 years. Heck, Chelsea will be 35 (I think) by then. Maybe she can dyke it out with Barbara Bush (W's daughter) and we can have our first lesbian presidency.

 

I sure hope not...I find Barbara very attractive....

[Misplaced_Sox]

John Quincy Adams had one of the worst presidencies of anyone in the history of the United States.

 

 

I think it is just how you look at it. He gave the first real push for centralized banking, and whole country infrastructure support that helped this country grow so fast and become, pretty wealthy. He should get a lot of credit for building the foundation of our trade lines and having the foresight of the Monroe Doctrine. And Henry Clay is one of the most fascinating politicians ever and I'm a big fan of his, who was a huge supporter of John Quincy Adams so it could not have been all that bad.

 

I think I can rattle of ten worse presidents easily prob 20 and not even hit J.Q.A.

[iamshack]

I think it is just how you look at it. He gave the first real push for centralized banking, and whole country infrastructure support that helped this country grow so fast and become, pretty wealthy. He should get a lot of credit for building the foundation of our trade lines and having the foresight of the Monroe Doctrine. And Henry Clay is one of the most fascinating politicians ever and I'm a big fan of his, who was a huge supporter of John Quincy Adams so it could not have been all that bad.

 

I think I can rattle of ten worse presidents easily prob 20 and not even hit J.Q.A.

 

Well, I'm not going to turn this into a thread about John Quincy Adams, but you are in the vast minority if you think his presidency accomplished much of anything.