1
   

The Trouble With Hillary

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:24 am
"Hillary" and "Moral Values" should never be in the same sentance unless a proper term or phrase seperating them like "lacks" or "needs" or "has no"...

Quote:
Appearing at Tufts University, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) gave a speech on how moral values have less to do with abortion and homosexuality than they do with left-wing economic policies. "No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor than most of the issues that were talked about in this election," she said.


link

Imagine the left supporting an evangelical christian with faux moral values for president.... It boggles the mind.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:29 am
Thanks for linking that speech McG, I have to agree with Hillary there.
And kudos to Mary for a thoughtful and fair post.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:31 am
I will say it here.

If Hillary becomes the next president (and this is not at all impossible) she will have George W. Bush to thank for her victory.

if 40% of people hate Hillary, and 45% of people hate Bush.... the math get's quite interesting.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:35 am
McGentrix wrote:
au1929 wrote:
She may be too intelligent for the American electorate. They apparently can only identify with someone who has the level of intelligence of a Bush. Sad

PS. She would get my vote.


Speaking of surprises... Rolling Eyes

What has Hillary done exactly that would make you inclined to elect her president of the US?

Was it her money laundering in the cattle futures market?

Was it her role in the White House travel office firings, which led to the false prosecution of the office's head?

Was it her deceptive testimony to a House investigating committee in which she said "I don't recall" or its equivalent 50 times in a 42 paragraph statement.

Was it her still undetermined role in the Castle Grande land scam in which she was billing partner to Webster Hubbell who has plead guilty in the case.

Was it her role in the obtaining and misuse of some 900 FBI personal files on key Republicans, as dirty a political act as any carried out by Richard Nixon?


Echo the above and add:

1. What accomplishments as a Jr. Senator warrent any consideration for re-election to that office, never mind President.
2. How can someone who can not find billing records, recall every deatil of her life for a book?
3. What happened to Vince Foster, Hillery?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:47 am
That's okay: I'm luke warm at best about Laura and I always hated her mother-in-law. As for Fancy Nancy Reagan, well, 'nuff said. Everybody hates somebody!
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:48 am
woiyo wrote:


1. What accomplishments as a Jr. Senator warrent any consideration for re-election to that office, never mind President.


I'd have to guess: A lot more than Dubya had at the same point in their political careers.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:49 am
McGentrix -- Protecting the environment is the most moral value of all.

If the human race is to survive, for the next three generations (taking generation as the modern generation or 33 years), no woman in the world should have more than one child. Have one kid. Tie your tubes. Period.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:50 am
Executive experience is much more important than legislative experience. Hillary has no background in leading people or taking charge. She can't even keep her husband in line, how is she going to keep a whole country?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:51 am
panzade wrote:
woiyo wrote:


1. What accomplishments as a Jr. Senator warrent any consideration for re-election to that office, never mind President.


I'd have to guess: A lot more than Dubya had at the same point in their political careers.


In other words, you have no idea, correct??
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:51 am
plainoldme,

How 'bout letting each woman have two kids.

Halving the worlds population in one generation would be a disaster.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:54 am
Right. I don't claim to know everything. I was speculating. Last time I checked, that was permissible in a forum debate.

If you think rolling your eyes gives your statements weight, you're sadly mistaken.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 12:02 pm
ebrown -- Halving the population would not be a disaster. The population of this country has tripled since the Stock Market Crash. Besides, consider how many yuppies have three or four children. Those kids are still in elementary school: they won't reproduce for years. At the end of a century, the population will not be half if everyone, every where adopted my notion.

mc gentrix -- Executive experience is over rated. We need presidents to come out of Congress where the issues are national not out of backwater states. Any high school grad with a reasonable personality can administer.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 12:06 pm
If Bush is an example of the importance of electing someone with executive experience, by all means, let's elect a senator next time!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 12:08 pm
Agreeing with D'Artagnan . . . as usual!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 12:09 pm
It's not the yuppies having 3 or 4 kids. Check your research to see where the population expansion is coming from...

While I agree that Arkansas is a back water state, Texas doesn't quite qualify as such. Executive experience is vital to the job of President. That's why Gov's are lected as president more often than Sen. or Con.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 12:13 pm
MaryM wrote:
I used to be a Hillary hater. Her obvious arrogance when she and he assumed power in 93 was striking, and there are some things that wives should not stand for, most of which Bill has done. However, I think that she is thoughtful and intelligent, and has matured from the take it or leave it lib she was 10 years ago.

I might be as conservative as any on this forum, but I do think that eventually the long term problems of energy supplies, poverty, and health care will be seen as important as terrorism. We are the richest country on the planet, and should be able to solve those problems. The first step will be acknowledging them, and I don't think the Republican party will be up to that. I think Hillary can do it, and I might vote for her.

Duplicitous and without morals covers most politicians. They may still be capable of statesmanship and critical thinking.

As far as Hillary haters go, if there are more of them than there are mouth foaming Bush haters, I would be surprised, and he is President, again.


I thought this was an excellent post and find my self in the awkward position of completely agreeing with it. Except for the first part -- I never liked Hillary much but my feelings were never very strong one way or the other. Everything else, though is on the money.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 01:17 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It's not the yuppies having 3 or 4 kids. Check your research to see where the population expansion is coming from...

While I agree that Arkansas is a back water state, Texas doesn't quite qualify as such. Executive experience is vital to the job of President. That's why Gov's are lected as president more often than Sen. or Con.


In Texas, however, the Lieutenant Governor is more powerful than the Governor. Bush's "executive" experience was very limited before he was elected.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 01:20 pm
You're just going to confuse the Bush fans here with that kind of info, DrewDad. They like to think of him as having had strong experience in an executive capacity...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 01:30 pm
Quote:
In Texas, however, the Lieutenant Governor is more powerful than the Governor. Bush's "executive" experience was very limited before he was elected.


D'artagnan wrote:
You're just going to confuse the Bush fans here with that kind of info, DrewDad. They like to think of him as having had strong experience in an executive capacity...


At the risk of exposing my complete lack of knowledge of Texas politics, it appears from this link that the Texas Lieutenant Governor's primary role is legislative, not executive. Is this link wrong?

Quote:
Duties and Powers of the Lieutenant Governor
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst
Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst addresses the Senate.

The Lieutenant Governor in Texas is unique in that he is part of both the Executive and Legislative branches.

As in most states, the Lieutenant Governor in Texas assumes the powers and duties of the Governor when the Governor is unable to serve or is absent from the state. But in Texas, the Lieutenant Governor is elected separately from the Governor, and each can be members of different political parties.

The Texas Constitution names the Lieutenant Governor the Constitutional President of the Senate, but the Constitution also gives the Senate the authority to write its own rules. That's where the Lieutenant Governor derives most of his power.

These rules, adopted by a majority of Senators at the beginning of each Legislative Session, set down in great detail how business is conducted in the Senate.

Senate rules give the current Lieutenant Governor a great deal of influence in shaping state policy and influencing laws that may eventually be passed by the Senate.

The rules allow the present Lieutenant Governor to decide all parliamentary questions and use his discretion in following Senate procedural rules. He can set up standing and special committees and appoint committee chairpersons and individual members.

The order in which bills are considered is also set by the Lieutenant Governor under Senate rules.

Another important source of power is the Lieutenant Governor's leadership role in the Senate. His leadership abilities and the faith and confidence he inspires in the Senators will determine how he is treated when the Senate writes its rules.

The Texas Constitution gives the Lieutenant Governor the right to debate and vote on all issues when the Senate sits as a Committee of the Whole. And his Constitutional role as President of the Senate also gives the Lieutenant Governor the right to cast the deciding vote in the case of a Senate tie.

Like the Speaker of the House, the Lieutenant Governor is required to sign all bills and resolutions. The Constitution also names him to the five-member Legislative Redistricting Board which apportions the state into senatorial and representative districts in the event the Legislature is unable to do so.

These powers are fundamental since the Constitution can be changed only by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by the approval of a majority vote of the people at a statewide election.

The Lieutenant Governor derives other powers and responsibilities from state statute. By statute, the Lieutenant Governor is a member of several Legislative branch boards and committees: the Legislative Budget Board , the Legislative Council, the Legislative Audit Committee and the Legislative Education Board. He is designated as Chair of the Legislative Budget Board and Legislative Council, which have considerable sway over state programs, the budget and policy.

The Legislative Budget Board, for example, provides the Legislature with a recommended budget at the beginning of every session. In many other states, this is done only in the executive branch. The authority of the Legislative Budget Board is broad, and its influence on spending is significant. By his Chairship and his power to make appointments to the Board, the Lieutenant Governor exerts a powerful influence on public policy.

The Lieutenant Governor is also a member of two Executive branch boards created by statute, the Cash Management Committee and the Bond Review Board.


Link
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 01:31 pm
Yeah. Most Texans I know were flabbergasted that a Texas governor would even try to run. Then again, I live in one of the few blue counties in Texas.

Then again, we're Texas' capital city.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/11/2025 at 10:39:06