Hillary is Poison!

I expected to discuss Hillary Clinton here. I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition ...

0 Replies

Quote:

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn!
BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
BEDEVERE: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE: But you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't -- no.
WITCH: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
BEDEVERE: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat -- but she is a witch!
CROWD: Burn her! Witch! Witch! Burn her!
BEDEVERE: Did you dress her up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!
BEDEVERE: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether
she is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they? Do they hurt?
BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
BEDEVERE: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she, is made, of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of
wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch! A duck! A duck!
BEDEVERE: We shall use my largest scales!
[yelling]
BEDEVERE: Right, remove the supports!
[whop]
[creak]
CROWD: A witch! A witch!
WITCH: It's a fair cop.
CROWD: Burn her! Burn!
[yelling]
BEDEVERE: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
ARTHUR: I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
BEDEVERE: My liege!
ARTHUR: Good Sir knight, will you come with me to Camelot,
and join us at the Round Table?
BEDEVERE: My liege! I would be honored.
ARTHUR: What is your name?
BEDEVERE: Bedevere, my leige.
ARTHUR: Then I dub you Sir Bedevere, Knight of the Round Table.
[Narrative Interlude]

0 Replies

Yes, a leader needs good people to fight the war on terrorism ...

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Because she stands for a Democratic administration that worked, and is looking better by the day as the current administration continues to fumble along. Which also happens to be why I am dishartened by all those Democrats abandoning her. It is unsurprising that the Republicans want America to forget that Clinton's was a good presidency overall. That Democrats are beginning to forget it too frustrates me no end.

I don't think it worked because of Hillary, though. She was the first lady -- an unusually activist first lady, but a first lady nonetheless.

If BILL Clinton were up for re-election again (impossible, I know, not the point), I'd vote for him in a millisecond. If someone else who could reasonably be said to be responsible for the Clinton administration working were up for election, I'd seriously consider it. But Hillary a) is not who I voted for in 1992 and 1996 (if Bill Clinton were married to Laura Bush, I still would've voted for Bill), and b) carries way too much baggage. I think the reaction she gets is ridiculous and sickening but I also think it's silly to ignore that it exists.

Among other things, I don't think this is any time to put up a woman -- any woman -- for the presidency. I think the first woman president will be a Republican, not because of any progressiveness on their parts but rather the opposite -- that it's the only way a significant part of the population will come around to the idea. (Republicans: "She's a woman, but at least she's a Republican." Progressive Democrats: "She's a Republican, but at least she's a woman.")

Again, I think the Clinton presidency was a good one -- I just don't think it was a good one because of Hillary. You seem to be creating a false dichotomy, that one either thinks the Clinton presidency was good and that Hillary should run for the presidency in 2008, or that one has forgotten that the Clinton presidency was good and that Hillary shouldn't run. Those four elements can be put together in a variety of ways, and I fall into, the Clinton presidency was good and Hillary shouldn't run.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I heard she was so frigid that Bill had to rape her to conceive Chelsea.

Well, that IS his most romantic move.

The grope/rape.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I heard she was so frigid that Bill had to rape her to conceive Chelsea.

I wish I could read the politics threads without being disgusted by people joking about rape... Aaaanyway, I agree with e brown's original idea that the Dems need to come up with someone who just stands up and admits to being liberal, and let the voters in the middle figure out what they think about it. I'm so tired of Dems trying to play every angle and appeal toeveryone at once, thus appealing to no one. Yecch. On the Rep side, I hope McCain runs, I wouldn't mind at all if he won; he seems to have some actual morals and he's one of the few on either side that doesn't always just take the party line.

0 Replies

This is an interesting thread. I found I agreed with many of the comments, however, Thomas set down some outlandish statements which really must be rebutted.

First of all, the proposition that Hillary's Health Care Proposals made sense is ridiculous. Anyone who is familiar with our next door neighbor's heatlh plan is aware that Universal Care or Socialized Medicine is a disaster.

Secondly, Thomas' contention that the Democratic Administration of Bill Clinton's really worked, overlooks the fact that Bill Clinton really accomplished very little as a President and that the economic stimulus of the nineties must be credited to Alan Greenspan, who was far far more critical to the success of the economy of that time.

It must not be forgotten( apparenly Thomas has forgotten) that Clinton's policy thrusts occured mainly AFTER the takeover of the Congress by the Republican Party in 1996.

The two most important policy developments of the Clinton years were the enhancement of free trade( NAFTA, GATT, normalized trade with China) and welfare reform. The former happened because Clinton favored it and most Republicans, unlike most Democrats, supported it. The latter happened because Clinton did not dare to veto a third time what the Republicans persisted in sending to him.

Thomas should really re-read the History of the Nineties.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

Secondly, Thomas' contention that the Democratic Administration of Bill Clinton's really worked, overlooks the fact that Bill Clinton really accomplished very little as a President and that the economic stimulus of the nineties must be credited to Alan Greenspan, who was far far more critical to the success of the economy of that time.

Hah! What nonsense.

Please note the two charts below. Alan Greenspan's first year at the Fed was in 1988-well before Clinton took office.

But in both deficit reduction and unemployment, Greenspan looks good only AFTER Clinton takes office in 1993!

Here is the chart of deficits-note how grim the situation is, even under Greenspan, until Bill Clinton takes office. Once Clinton left office, even though Greenspan remained at the Fed, the deficit picture went all to hell under George II-even worse than under his father, who himself was awful.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/GreenspanDeficits.gif

And also note the drastic reductions occurred immediately-the Republicans only took over Capitol Hill in 1995-well after Clinton had the deficits dramatically reduced!

Please note that you won't find this chart on any website. It was prepared by myself using Excel and figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Some of us actually go and find out the facts, as opposed to posting things from blogs.
Source

Note-graph made a few months ago. Since that time, the actual 2004 deficit has turned out to be $412 billion-less than the projected $500+ billion. But still enormous.

0 Replies

And here is the chart for the official unemployment rate under Greenspan.

Same pattern. Bush I is awful, Clinton is superlative, Bush II is awful, but gradually improving.

Incidentally, the unemployment rate is structured to make a President who drives unemployment up high look good, because it doesn't reflect people who were driven permanently out of the workforce during periods of high unemployment. It only includes people who were laid off six months ago or who actively looked for work in the past month.

Even so, using this incomplete figure as a basis for comparison, we once more see that Greenspan only looks good when Clinton is president. He doesn't look nearly so good when Bush, father or son, is president.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/BUnemploymentRateGreenspansTenure.gif

So much for the myth that it was Greenspan who was responsible for the prosperity of the nineties. Quite clearly, beyond a shadow of doubt, it was Bill Clinton. And also quite clearly, the dramatic turnaround occurred with a Democratic Congress, although they did continue under the Republican Congress as well starting in 1995.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

This is an interesting thread. I found I agreed with many of the comments, however, Thomas set down some outlandish statements which really must be rebutted.

No problem. I am used to hearing that line -- from both sides of the fence. Republicans and Democrats can't agree on much, but at least they can agree that my reasoning is bogus.

chiczaira wrote:

First of all, the proposition that Hillary's Health Care Proposals made sense is ridiculous. Anyone who is familiar with our next door neighbor's heatlh plan is aware that Universal Care or Socialized Medicine is a disaster.

Normally, when people call a proposition "ridiculous", they feel an obligation to substantiate their attack. So what are your specific objections against Hillary Clinton's health care plan? And what is your evidence that "universal care or socialized medicine is a disaster"? About a year ago, when the IMF looked at health care systems around the world, it found that the US system -- the only one that is mostly private -- cost a lot more than the various forms of "socialized medicine", and produced inferior results in terms of life expectancy, child mortality, and the other standard benchmarks for the performance of health care systems. The IMF can be suspected of many things, but not of peddling socialism. It wouldn't have reached that conclusion if it hadn't found compelling evidence it is true. So what's your evidence?

chiczaira wrote:

Secondly, Thomas' contention that the Democratic Administration of Bill Clinton's really worked, overlooks the fact that Bill Clinton really accomplished very little as a President and that the economic stimulus of the nineties must be credited to Alan Greenspan, who was far far more critical to the success of the economy of that time.

Kelticwizard has taken care of that one. Thanks, Kelticwizard!

chiczaira wrote:

It must not be forgotten( apparenly Thomas has forgotten) that Clinton's policy thrusts occured mainly AFTER the takeover of the Congress by the Republican Party in 1996.

Generally, while we would disagree about the fairest allocation of praise, I agree that America works best when its government is gridlocked. If the Democrats win both houses of Congress in 2006, I will consider supporting the Republican candidate in 2008.

chiczaira wrote:

The two most important policy developments of the Clinton years were the enhancement of free trade( NAFTA, GATT, normalized trade with China) and welfare reform.

In my memory, NAFTA and normalized trade with China happened in Clintons first term, meaning before 1996. GATT went over several rounds in both terms. I'm willing to be corrected with a more reliable time line, but for now it looks to me as if your own definition contradicts your assertion about when the important things happened.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Again, I think the Clinton presidency was a good one -- I just don't think it was a good one because of Hillary. You seem to be creating a false dichotomy [...]

I disagree, but you're making a couple of good points. I'd like to think a little bit more about them before I respond. For now, I just want to preempt any impression that I have ignored your post. I haven't.

0 Replies

Good work with the graphs, Keltic - respect.

<I'm following Thomas around to find the good stuff. Makes a change from following Soz around Razz

>

0 Replies

dora17 wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I heard she was so frigid that Bill had to rape her to conceive Chelsea.

I wish I could read the politics threads without being disgusted by people joking about rape... Aaaanyway, I agree with e brown's original idea that the Dems need to come up with someone who just stands up and admits to being liberal, and let the voters in the middle figure out what they think about it. I'm so tired of Dems trying to play every angle and appeal toeveryone at once, thus appealing to no one. Yecch. On the Rep side, I hope McCain runs, I wouldn't mind at all if he won; he seems to have some actual morals and he's one of the few on either side that doesn't always just take the party line.

I wasn't joking.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN JUNE 12, 2005 20:02:25 ET XXXXX

RAGE AT AUTHOR AFTER CLAIM: BILL RAPED HILLARY, CONCEIVED CHELSEA
**Exclusive**

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new book: Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter Chelsea Clinton!

0 Replies

The Clintons were married over four years when Chelsea was conceived.

Don't tell me, let me guess-Klein's book is published by the Regnery Press?

0 Replies

KW - Is the unemployment rate a lagging indicator or a leading indicator?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

The Clintons were married over four years when Chelsea was conceived.

Don't tell me, let me guess-Klein's book is published by the Regnery Press?

Oh, I forgot, "men of power" do those types of things... It's ok for them.

0 Replies

Scrat:

If you want to talk about lagging and leading indicators, Scrat, start explaining how Bush inherited a 5.5% unemployment rate from Reagan before pushing it up to 7.4%, then bringing it down slightly-very slightly-at the end.

Anyway you slice it, dice it, or cut it into Julienne fries, Clinton's performance far outshines Bush I and Bush II.

0 Replies

McGentrix, I said men of power had mistresses. Don't twist my words.

And I think the "Hillary was raped" story is preposterous.

For one thing, Hillary is saying she wasn't raped. And I think she would know more about it than Ed Klein, whoever he is.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Good work with the graphs, Keltic - respect.

<I'm following Thomas around to find the good stuff. Makes a change from following Soz around >

<It makes a change in who you follow around, but rarely in the threads you end up visiting. Been there, done that with several truffle-sniffers followed around, including both of you. Smile

>

And I second nimh's point about the graphs, Keltic Wizard. Nice job!

0 Replies

Of course she would say that. Do you think she would admit to something like that? We know Bill has a propensity of lying about his sexual deviance, perhaps it has rubbed off on Miss Hillary?

0 Replies

Hillary is Poison!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know